Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/20/2009 R August 20, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 20, 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 Koltlat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. W oltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 ~ ".,-,,~,.,,"..<"~_~.__. ,.o_~""..",,.,. ._N_ ,.. ~"'__",'^'''"^'.._ ..........,.. "_"_"'__~_........,_"_,_._~., "'..~-.,.-~.._""_ _,"_4~~_____ AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE 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 MAY 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 27, 2009 - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14192, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Miles L. "Rocky" Scofield of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., requests a 10-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 30-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips for property described as Lots 1 and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Condominium). (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) 1 B. 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:f:: 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) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2009-AR-14400. West Coast Development Corporation of Naples, Inc, represented by Heidi Williams of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting Variances in the C-4 Zoning District pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.01., Table 2.1 to allow a reduction in the required 15-foot wide side yard setback to allow: 1) a setback of 8.85:f:: feet between the proposed CVS building and the proposed property line for a variance of 6.15:f:: feet; and 2) a setback of 3.60:f:: feet between the existing building and the proposed property lines for a variance of 11.4:f:: feet. The subject 4.6:f:: acre parcel is located at the northeastern corner of Santa Barbara Blvd. and Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications tower and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-C) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30-foot eastern and western side yard setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.0 I, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7.4-foot setbacks, respectively, for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-B) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-ll100. Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) overlay to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Taormina Reserve MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 528 residential dwelling units and up to 262,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 82.51 acres. The subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (SR 84) intersection, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) E. Petition: PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, The Naples-Italian American Club, Inc. represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester P A, is requesting a Rezone from the Agriculture (A) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 20,000 square feet of civic, social or fraternal organizations and 34,000 square feet of commercial and professional office uses. The approximately 5.0- acre subject property is located at 7035 Airport Pulling Road, Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) 2 ",,-,,-.,.,- ...._-- 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 8/6/09 eepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr 3 '...._,~-~... August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat is absent. Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Woltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Koltlat had called and had other business he had to attend to today, so he won't be here, so it will Page 2 --"', lIr_.___~._'_.._.. ,-.-. ._".~".-._""--_.. ./l'1iIol -..----....--. August 20, 2009 be an excused absence. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move into the addenda to the agenda. We have some changes. Anybody that is in the audience that is here for West Coast Development Corporation of Naples, that was the CVS Pharmacy on the comer of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, that petition has been withdrawn. That means they're not going forward with it. That's different than a continuance, so it won't be coming back, we won't be hearing that today. That is Item 9.A. There are two other items that are now being continued: Item 9.B and 9.C. That is for FLO TV, Inc. One is a variance and one is a conditional use for cell towers in an Estates zoning district. Those two items are being asked to be continued for two weeks. J.D., was it two weeks solid or two weeks maybe? MR. MOSS: Solid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those are the only changes to today's agenda. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as Planning Commission absences, we have a meeting next week on the 25th, which I -- what day of the week is that? Wednesday, I think -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tuesday. On our tloodplain ordinance. You all either have gotten or will get shortly a large packet of Page 3 ,- -'"---,~- ...-",..._--- August 20, 2009 corrected material on additional data that we had asked for on the floodplain ordinance. And I wish to compliment the county attorney's office for a job well done in the way they handled the floodplain mating of the original base tloodplain ordinance suggested by the government and the amendments that were done by our staff. And it does help to see the changes and give us reason to ask questions as to why all the changes were made. So great job. Thank you, Jeff, it was excellent you guys got involved. There was a lot of other data there, so it will take a while to go through it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so there's not any confusion and for Mr. Murray in particular, the date we're going to hear that is Tuesday, the 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, 8:30 in the morning in this room. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because here on our agenda it says July 27th, and so I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the approval of the minutes, right? Remember, we had a meeting on July 27th? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the next meeting will be next Tuesday in this room at 8: 30. Does anybody know if they cannot make it on that date? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At this point I'm not sure. I may not be able to make it. I'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, you won't be here, right? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll still have a quorum, so we can plow forward. With that we'll -- our next regular meeting is on the -- I think the Page 4 ---""""-....,...,."'"..,-,_...,-,._...""'"'....."^-~~_.-....,-- --- August 20, 2009 3rd of September, it's our regular Thursday meeting. Does everybody -- does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're fine for both. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES - JULY 27, 2009 - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. We have the July 27th, 2009 flood damage prevention ordinance minutes. That was where we basically had an evening presentation as to what the ordinance was conceptually about. The facts and details we'll get into in our next week's meeting. Having read the minutes, does anybody have any corrections or changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 5 -.- ----,--- --~--,.." .."..,~~_"_,.w.._,,.._o. August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no BCC recaps; is that still right, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. They're on their summer break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They shouldn't take a summer break. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I have one item to mention. If you all recall, we had a case for the Olde Florida Golf Club that came before us, which was off the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It was a little bit confusing because they did not supply a master plan, nor development standards. They wanted to go back from a golf course zoning to standard zoning in the rural fringe. We stipulated several stipulations; one of which was that without a master plan and development standards they needed to come back in when they decided what they wanted to do. Rather than take that stipulation and continue on to the BCC, they thought it would be better to try to provide us with what we were asking for, and they have come back with a master plan showing their development limitations. And on the plan they have placed all their development standards, more typical of what we see. So they're going to be coming back to us in a coup -- I don't know, week or a month, whenever they've reapplied to bring it back in and have our review so that the stipulations can be modified, if we so Page 6 ~ lI. ... ~Iil ...... "'~-^,.,,...,..,_.~--- ~,,~--~-,__ r v- ,- .Ill 4 .._....... --~--, August 20, 2009 agree. So I thought I'd mention that to everybody, because it's a good move. It helps clear things up before it gets to the BCC, which is actually what our job ought to be, so -- and that is the last. And Cherie', I'm probably rattling too fast. You know what, it's Bob's fault, because he gave me coffee this morning. Bob Vigliotti. I'll slow down, sorry. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14192, MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have our consent agenda. The first item is Item 8.A, Petition BD-2009-AR-14192, and it's the Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to -- Ashley's here, and I just want to ask a quick question to be sure. When I was reading through the resolution, it talks about the 20 docks. I just want to make sure that we don't need to codify anything other than on the SDPI that you and I e-mailed about yesterday that we don't need to codify the 14 existing docks. What I'm concerned about is that should something happen, if the docks catch on fire, I don't want Monte Carlo to have to go through a variance process on those docks, the 14 existing docks today. MS. CASERTA: For the record -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think they should have to do that, and I don't think that was our intent. MS. CASERTA: No. For the record, Ashley Caserta. (Ms. Caserta was duly sworn.) Page 7 ..... - '\llI'- .. ~....."" .,....,_,';~......'_._,""..-.,....., -,'.. ~....."__-.,,"__ "'T. ... August 20, 2009 MS. CASERTA: Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Those docks that are there existing were approved by a site development plan that's already in place, and so they're allowed to remain there. And they could be rebuilt. We wouldn't have to include them in this extension. They were approved legally. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because they were approved legally at the time they were initially approved, we don't have to include them in this variance? MS. CASERTA: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: My concern was normally if something gets destroyed it has to be brought up to current standards. And I just want to make sure that we don't put these people through hoops that are totally unnecessary should something unforeseen happen. MS. CASERTA: I do understand your question, and those docks were approved legally through site development plan process. Do you agree, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: If I recall the docks correctly, those were preexisting legally built docks under a separate SDP. They wouldn't fall under this particular SDP or this extension request. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it is. We're just going to do an SDPI, and the 20 new docks are going to be added to the old plan, according to my conversation with Ashley. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the 14 docks that exist were destroyed, can they be rebuilt without a variance in the future? MR. BELLOWS: They're under this extension. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's-- MS. CASERTA: They're existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where you're going. MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Page 8 ._.....,,"-~-- '-'-.---"--' ~ 110. _...-._-"....,~-"..-"._.. .-,- ----"".- """",""--.,.- August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Commissioner Caron brings up a good point. Everybody was so focused on the new docks and took for granted that the 14 were legally built originally. I think they could be interpreted by someone, if we're not around, to be legal nonconforming docks, those 14. And then through a glitch, if something were to happen to them, somebody could interpret those to be legal nonconforming and put those 14 docks through a boat dock extension process when nobody really contemplated that. So I think that the proper fix would be to just go to the 34. I don't remember if we attached the actual site plan to the resolution or not that showed the 20. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next question was we got this resolution and there is nothing attached. And I'm surprised at that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I think the site plan we showed, showed both the existing and the new. So if you were to go to the 34 and recognize the site plan, I think that would make sure that in the future we don't have anybody who doesn't go back and look at the taped discussion about what happened to make sure we don't put people through a process that nobody contemplated they'd have to go through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that leaves us in a -- where's staff -- we didn't have a complete package in regards to the site plan that the docks are being approved to attached to the resolution. Were you intending not to provide one or -- MS. CASERTA: Nothing changed on the site plan, aside from what was provided for the actual petition. So the only thing that changed was the resolution, so that's all that was provided for the consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, without a site plan -- is there a need to have a site plan attached to the resolution? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 9 ...~~, - ~~_._.~~'''' - ".........""'... August 20, 2009 If you look at the resolution itself, it doesn't reference any exhibits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, talking to Ashley and the attorney's office, is they have not historically attached exhibits to boat dock resolutions. We can start doing that, if that's the wish of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it cause a problem with any legal reasons, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's no problem either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a picture's worth a thousand words. It probably would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a record on something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we attach the-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they haven't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plan that we all reviewed and approved. MR. BELLOWS: -- been done in the past, but we can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why don't we make a notation on the resolution that references the fact there's 14 existing docks that are conforming. MR. BELLOWS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, does that get you where you need to be, I think? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just, I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. MR. SCHMITT: I think in this case it makes sense to do it. Most boat dock extensions, when they categorize dock -- boat dock extensions, involve a single-family home, and so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- it's -- one dock, it's not an issue. But in this Page 10 ,~,,,.' . ......." 'W__""_"_"""'''~~' h -+<-, -,",., "'."'.""~"""'" -_.....,'" August 20, 2009 case it is a multi-slip facility and it certainly would make sense to add the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. SCHMITT: -- and note. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe, when a person goes out, code or somebody goes out to look at the docks, what resource do they use? Do they go to a site development plan to look for a drawing or -- MR. SCHMITT: When you say someone, are you talking about a building inspector looking? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, code enforcement or somebody. MR. SCHMITT: If there was any type of complaint by code, code would go out, look at the site, then come back and have to pull the SDP and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then they would see the plan there? MR. SCHMITT: -- then normally consult with somebody in the zoning department to determine if there was any violation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They wouldn't go to the resolution, in other words? MR. SCHMITT: Well, the zoning staff would certainly pull the resolution and pull any documents to research whether there's anything to substantiate any type of violation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To my way of thinking it would just make sense with the resolution. MR. SCHMITT: On this case I think it would make total sense to do it, because of the character of the site and it's a multi-dock facility, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I think the resolution to this resolution is you're going to add language to indicate there's 14 existing docks that are conforming, and that you're going to add the site plan that we reviewed and approved at our planning commission Page 11 ,-..-" ... __",T."'. "'~" -,-~--~. -"\0. .....~ ~ 'ill I. August 20, 2009 meeting when it came up before us. MS. CASERTA: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that meet consensus with everybody here? Okay. Then I think if it's okay, I'd like to see us recommend approval of this from the consent viewpoint so they don't have to come back and wait for another process. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. Just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couldn't we just add the language right now and then vote on that and get it over? That way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, if you want to -- I just articulated it. But if they want to -- Ray, where would you add the -- and what exact language would you be adding? MR. BELLOWS: On this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: We're going to reference there's going to be an Exhibit A now, which is the conceptual site plan, and probably the series of docks cross-sections. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if you want to just wait a little bit, we can just get it printed up upstairs and be down here. You can review the final things, if you could table this for a little bit and move on to the next item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here all morning, so let's just do it that way. Ms. Caron, would you withdraw your motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. Ashley, if you guys could work on that, at the end of the day today we'll go ahead and bring it up for -- and by the way, Mr. Page 12 '''-,,- - ... MiIl"~___ ^... ,_~..~w._____ -...-.. .....,..... August 20, 2009 Secretary, I think we need to make acknowledgment Tom Eastman's here so-- , COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just came in. MR. EASTMAN: Sorry for being late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He snuck in through the back door. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I didn't see you. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, COLLIER RATTLESNAKE INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other consent item, if there is another consent item. Yep, I'm trying to get the page turned here. Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, Collier Rattlesnake, Inc. It's for the Good Turn Center MPUD on the east side of Collier Boulevard near Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, on this petition I had -- I'm going to change my vote on this. I think that -- I still have all the same concerns, if not more. I think I've come up with a better way to deal with it, and I don't think it's going to -- it's not going to make a bit of difference on this particular item, so I will cast my vote with the majority . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But Mr. Klatzkow, I'm going to have to ask for -- I don't think we can change the vote of a prior meeting, but you could obviously vote positive on the consent agenda for the consent language. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you can't change your vote from the prior meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fine. Page 13 ---- 1"'" J. .... '.....",,,,,.... ,.,~~ ,....-., ,,,,_,,,,,,,_,"-'~-- ~ August 20, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: We can note in the report to the board-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You can note to the board. MR. SCHMITT: -- that based on comments made when reviewing the consent agenda that the commissioner that voted in opposition has made comments to now support the project. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess what I'm saying, are you withdrawing the opposition? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, the vote stands. We just note it that in the consent agenda there were comments made in support of the project. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, frankly-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you can put it on summary now, because the objection's been pulled. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll let you guys figure that out. We just wanted to make sure how the vote process took here today. So are there any other changes? Mr. W oltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You may recall, I was not present during this, so I will not be voting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be true of myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, both of you. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve consent agenda Item 9.B? Page 14 n. ... III ~ __,"'_"'-"'''''"'''''''~'''''-''- ^-'"~",~",--,...._","-;. , ._..,--~~_......... ----".~,--- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then two abstentions. So it would be 6-0 with two abstentions. Thank you. Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, HIGHLAND PROPERTIES OF LEE AND COLLIER, L TD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to our advertised public hearings, the first one of which is Petition 9.D. PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Ltd. for the -- it's a reserve on the comer of Santa Barbara and Davis on the southeast side. I can't even say the word. Anyway, that's where it is. 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: I would wish in the future you don't Page 15 "-..,...,,,--- - . --"""..,-,_....,~_.....,- ...~-,,-,. " . - August 20, 2009 pick a tongue twister for the name of a project. But anyway -- we need a code against that. Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. Also received many letters from citizens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I spoke to both Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. And everything that he and I -- they and I talked about will be brought up again here again today. And those people here that are in attendance for this item, we have a little slip out in the hallway, that if you could just fill it out and give it to one of the gentlemen over on that table over there, that will make sure you get time to speak. I ask when you do speak we try to limit it to five minutes. Some issues can't be handled that quickly, but we ask that you try to limit it to that, and not redundant to what someone else said, that would make it more efficient for everybody here. And with that, we'll ask for the presentation by the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Wayne Arnold and Mark Minor from Grady Minor & Associates. Wayne, as you know, is the professional planner on the project and Mark Minor is the professional engineer on the project. The reason we had to pick the name Taormina is because there's Page 16 ~ "",.",U""""",,,,,,,,~_ <,,,,,,,"-,,,,",,,,,,, -___.P"" -........ "'__~", '..."""""~__ August 20, 2009 very few names left under the county's list of overly used names. So we now have to go to things that are a little bit more difficult to pronounce. I thought it was Taormina, but I've been corrected by J.D., it's Taormina. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, even you can't say the project's name. I was afraid of just saying it wrong. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's any wrong way to say that. The project is -- I'll put an aerial up. The project is at the southeast quadrant of the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and Davis Boulevard. It's an approximately -- it's an 82 and a half acre site. The request is for 528 residential units and 262,000 square feet of commercial. As you can see on the visualizer, you have the mixed use tract. That's the tract where the commercial would be located that's within the activity center. And then you have two residential tracts, the R-1 tract and the R-2 tract, where obviously just residential or, you know, CCRC type uses or assisted living uses can go. The breakdown of the residential density would be on the R-1 and R-2 tract. We would be capped at a total of 400 units and then the remaining 128 would be on the mixed use tract, if we do put residential on the mixed use tract. As you can see with this particular petition, staff has a lot of conditions at the end. The reason that happened was is J.D. had to take over on this project from a previous planner who through tougher economic times is no longer with the county. So to keep everything on tract, J.D. didn't have the time to sit down with us before the staff report was completed to work through a lot of these issues and incorporate them into the PUD documents. But we basically have sat down with J.D. since the report's been done, and we should be able to go through those relatively quickly. Page 1 7 .... "";......'_,__..~".._,...w~ ~ .^-......_~-~"._" "'--"""---. August 20, 2009 I'm going to hit a couple of them as highlights, because I think that will alleviate a lot of concerns we had from the letter writers as well as from the planning commissioners when we met with them on the project. As you can see on the R-l tract, we have two -- okay, we have two residential projects adjacent to us. To the east is Naples Heritage and to the north is -- it's a Toll Brothers project. It's the old Cook Drive- In Theatre. What we have agreed to do is for the portion of the project that fronts these residential projects, from here to here and from here to here, we have agreed to cap -- oh, we've got it highlighted. We have agreed to cap the product type to two stories not to exceed 35 feet, which is consistent with the residential heights adjacent to us. It's actually theoretically they could go taller than what we're doing, but obviously since they're already built, I don't think they're going to remove the single-family homes and replace them with taller. So we've agreed to go to that. And it's a distance of 100 feet from our boundary. We will limit ourselves to two stories not to exceed 35 feet. And you can see that there's a road currently contemplated there. But should there be some different development plan, we wanted to make sure we equated the same distance requirement, should we reconfigure the height. So that's where the 100 foot comes from. A second concern came up regarding the mixed use nature of this tract. We have a variety of uses anywhere (sic) ranging from C-l mainly to C-4, with a couple of the less intense C-5 type uses. A question came up, is it truly appropriate to have in the same building residential on top of certain types of these uses. So we have agreed that if it's going to be mixed use in the same building, the uses have to be limited to the permitted and conditional uses within the C-l through C-3 commercial districts, okay, so -- if you're going to have a Page 18 "..,-," d..._,-.. -;.-..-- ..,.,..... . .'-~ August 20, 2009 mixed use building. And we further agreed that if you're going to have anything above that C-4, C-5 type uses and you want to have a separate standalone residential building also within the activity center portion of the project, we have to do the required LDC buffer between residential and the commercial. So that would include -- I forget the width, but that's got a wall component as well as a landscape buffer. So there would be a -- it would be a wall and landscape buffer between those commercial uses and any residential we build on our property . So we hope that that will address a lot of the concerns raised by J.D. and -- as well as the neighbors. We spent a lot of time negotiating with your transportation staff on the transportation conditions. Staff had asked us to basically provide an interconnection and construct Sunset Boulevard all the way down to Cope Lane. We have agreed to build the interconnection. And you've got the conditions in the PUD document. What was added to the PUD that we were not aware of until very late was apparently the property owner -- who I would say is the catalyst behind requiring the construction of Sunset Boulevard -- and I believe he's located about right here. Do I have that right, Wayne? Right about here. He already has a driveway down Cope Lane, but he would prefer to have a roadway. He's willing to donate the right-of-way to the county across his property if the county will build him a wall along a local 30-foot wide road. We're not agreeable to taking on the cost of that wall. First of all, requiring us to build the road we think is above and beyond what interconnection truly is. We're supposed to provide the opportunity, we're not supposed to be required to build the interconnect. But we've agreed to do that. And we think frankly it's a dangerous precedent, and the county Page 19 ,'-"<".. - ..... ,.-.-.",.",,"" -,~.,,,,,. . o_.~"~.._~~.,,._~. _.^__,_.~_ August 20, 2009 itself doesn't do it on a local road that's, you know, two lanes and a sidewalk, the county doesn't typically build walls in front of residential homes. So we cannot agree to that stipulation that requires us to build a wall in front of this gentleman's home as part of the project. Your staff report is obviously very detailed and very thorough. And your staff is recommending approval with the conditions -- Mr. Chairman, I think it may go a little quicker if we could find a way to kind of go through those conditions with staff and the Planning Commission, kind of in a one -- whatever list, check them off. And it may be quicker instead of -- I don't really have much more to present, because I think we'd be quicker to go -- to just going through the conditions before the public speaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to ask the Planning Commission if they want to have any questions before we have a -- I think what we'll do is get J.D. on the other mic. and we'll go through the stipulations or recommendations first, as long as there's no objection from the Planning Commission. And then after that we'll ask our questions of the presentation. Does that work for everybody? Okay, J.D., would you mind using the other mic. and let's walk through your three pages of recommendations. That's a record breaker. I'm glad you did it, though, thank you. And your analysis was great. I like your comparisons, they provide a lot of information. It was very helpful. MR. MOSS: Great, thank you. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. If you turn to Page 23 of the staff report, that's where the stipulations begin. And I'd like to start with number four, if that's okay. One through three were actually offered by the transportation planning department. So if you have any questions regarding those, I guess we should speak with John Podczerwinsky about them. Page 20 ----,~-,,~=-....., ll:ilJL~ . ~ ~ ''''___M''''_ ,""',,-.. ------,---- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as soon as you finish then John will come up. Because I want to get the acknowledgment from both staff and the applicant as to where everybody stands on these. Because that way it helps the public understand where we're heading and then they can object or not object, depending on what they hear as well. MR. MOSS: Right. It seems there's a conflict between what transportation's requesting and what the applicant is proposing. MR. YO V AN 0 VI CH: Yeah. And I think that's only as to item number three. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And John, I notice John's here today but His Imminence was supposed to be here too and I don't see him in the audience. I'm just wondering if he decided to back out again for the hundredth time. That's okay, there's more important things out there for him to do, I know. MR. SCHMITT: He's out buying coffee for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have to give Nick -- when Nick's not here I've got to give him a bad time. It's the only chance I get. MR. SCHMITT: He's building some walls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with number four then. MR. MOSS: All right, regarding condition number four for group housing structures to have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet. This was included because the applicant didn't offer to give any. And normally 1,000 square feet is the minimum -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay with this one. MR. MOSS: -- required by the zoning district. So you're okay with that. I just didn't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's building size, not unit size. That's addressed later on, the minimum unit size. I just wanted to Page 21 ._.- ". , ,"",~,-^~",-'-,"'" ---....._'" It n ..~.- August 20, 2009 make that clear to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Group housing structures shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- square feet on the ground floor. Yet your unit size is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's 700 square -- MR. MOSS: 700 is what the LDC requires. And that's another stipulation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's number 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the theory here is that you'd have a standalone group housing structure that will have one unit in it with some hallways, so it's a total gross of 1,000 square feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think your LDC says the minimum structure size is supposed to be 1,000 square feet. As you can see, it was rather easy to agree to that since we don't think the situation of a one-unit building with a -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, it's just the ground floor. So if there are multiple floors, the ground floor needs to be 1,000 square feet, minimum. The units can be as small as 700 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no disagreement from applicant. Okay. Number five? MR. MOSS: Number five, they're proposing maximum heights that were higher than what's proposed by the LDC. So staffwas going to limit group housing, duplexes and townhouses to 40 feet zoned height and an actual height of 45 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what we had proposed, since now we've agreed to the 35-foot adjacent to the residential on the remainder of that small piece ofR-1, and the R-2 go with 45 feet. On the R-1 and the R-2 piece, right? On the remainder of that R-1 piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a variety of product. Page 22 --" --,-'---_. -'"~,.."...,'.." -'''''''.''-~~'''''''- n. '---~~- August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looking at everything from single- family, which is 35 feet, single-family attached and townhouse at 45 with 55 for actual. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we would go to zoned on the R-1 piece of 45 feet. And then I think on the -- let me get to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your R-1 is what's up against other res i dential. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And that's why we agreed to the two stories not to exceed 35 feet for everything, all the different type of uses, adjacent to the residential. MR. MOSS: Within 100 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within 100 feet. And then on the remainder of the R-1 we would go to 45 feet, correct? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but right now in your standards table you're only asking for 45 feet for just two of your product, the CCRC or the single-family attached and townhouse. So now you're saying you want all the product to have a higher step because you finally realize you shouldn't have 35 feet against existing residential? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. Mr. Strain, if I might, I think what Rich is trying to suggest is that presently the town home and the assisted living type uses are permit at 45 feet anyway throughout the R-l. With our proposed restriction to two stories not to exceed 35 feet for that portion adjacent to the Cook PUD and Naples Heritage, that maybe it would just be as easy that the southern and western portion of that R-I tract that's not restricted to that height, just make the multi-family, the assisted living and town home product available to go to 45 feet, as opposed to limiting one to 35 feet and the other types allowed to go to 45 feet. Page 23 N~,".,.. ~w ~--,"-',--~",--""'-"-"- -'''"-~",,^.- 1I. .11IU_ ........"'""'"'_._..~".-.~--"~--- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it must be a slow day for me, I'm sorry. This says the maximum height of group housing, duplexes and townhouses shall be limited to 40 feet and an actual height of 45. I go to your product list and I can't find group housing on there. So why don't you tell me which items on your product list, Exhibit B, Page 10 of the PUD you're considering the group housing. Or are they not even on that one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the ALF/CCRC independent living for age 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let's talk about duplexes. Which one on that sheet are you talking about duplexes? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They are under the two-family and zero lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that one was already at 35 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But here it's saying they're going to be now 40 feet? And you're saying you want -- I'm trying to understand how that note five relates to the development standards on Exhibit B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, to make it simple, the only change we would like to make is on the multi-family where it currently says 35 feet. For the portion that's not adjacent to residential, we'd like to bump that to the 45 feet. Everything else would stay the same. Okay? The 35 for two-family would stay the same, 35 for clubhouse would stay the same and 35 for single-family would stay the same for that portion of the R-I tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what you're saying is the multi-family only in R-I, which is currently 35 feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you want to go to what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty-five for that little sliver. Page 24 ,.-... ....... . .A >,>,~_",'d. '_n...."".._"",__.". _.~<+,_."'_._- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you want to go to 45 feet from 35 feet for the concession of lowering it from -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I mean, if you look at the area that we've reduced the height, I mean, it's a big area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you only reduced it for single-family, attached and townhouse and AC -- and CCRC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we've reduced a story as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 35 feet is 35 feet. From the outside of the building you won't know if it's two stories or three stories. So it's really not that big of a deal. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The neighbors' concerns were the fact that we were going to have three-story product adjacent to them, so we've gone to two-story product adjacent to them, which will reduce the number of units that we can build within the PUD. So we're simply asking, where we're near the Domestic Animal Services and the Boys and Girls Club to have the opportunity to go to 45 feet in that area, to make up for the story we've agreed to give up along Naples Heritage and the Cook properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a staff viewpoint -- I mean, you'll certainly get questions from us on that. But from a staff viewpoint, J.D.? MR. MOSS: I'm satisfied with that. The reason I included that stipulation was because of the concern raised by the residents of Heritage -- Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. So since they've agreed to limit the heights within 100 feet from that boundary, I think that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're suggesting going to 45 feet with the multi-family for the remainder of the R -1 tract that is not adjacent to residential. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six? Why don't we read those so the audience knows what item we're talking about. Page 25 - -.-.. ",,,.-,..,,,,..,, ""n^..~"~c" ~~~,_..,,__ . ,^__",,,_,,,,__,,,",o,.,,~,,,,.,,..,.,..~~,. ~""-"._...,...,.____ August 20, 2009 MR. MOSS: Very good. Number six states that the minimum distance between group housing structures shall be one-half the building's height. The LDC requires one-half the building height or 25 feet. And they've asked for just 25 feet. So I was concerned because of the heights that were permitted in the group housing structures. But again, since they've asked to limit the heights within 100 feet of the property boundary, I could live with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what if they put the group housing structure on the opposite side of the R -1 ? Not up against the residential but across the roadway. MR. MOSS: That's right, that would be acceptable, I think. I'm not too concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So closer setbacks there -- MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staff feels would be acceptable? MR. MOSS: I think that would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would it normally be ifit was -- if they built two buildings at 45 feet? Half the sum of the heights would be -- so they'd be 45 feet apart and they want a reduction down to 25 feet apart. MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand staffs position. I guess they'll hear ours before -- MR. MOSS: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the day is over. MR. MOSS: Number seven, the first sentence -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any problem with staffs position on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That they're getting rid of number six? Yeah, we're okay with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're getting rid of it? Page 26 .-.--....--. ..--".....- ."""-"'~"~",""""'."_-'''''IT ...."'___.,'_~.',.h"...,'_,_". _."._"_ August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what J.D. is saying, and I'm not saying we agree with him, but he's telling -- staffs position now is that if they've given up the height along the outside of the R-I tract, it's okay if they do it on the inside of the R-I tract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., let's move on. MR. MOSS: Number seven, the first sentence in footnote three in Exhibit B shall be revised to exclude multi-family and ALF or CCRC dwellings. And the second sentence shall be deleted. And the reason I included this was because it conflicted with number six above. So I guess it will depend on what the ultimate outcome is of number six, whether or not we need to keep this condition there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this footnote I think is -- this has been a -- I would say is a pretty standard footnote that's been going through for just about every PUD that I know that I've worked on. So I didn't -- we really didn't see this as an issue for a residential PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not in agreement with staffs position? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on, J.D. MR. MOSS: Number eight, the minimum rear yard setbacks for group housing structures shall be 25 feet. I included this one because no external setbacks had been provided. And there was a concern because there was a possibility of a multi-family structure on tract R-2 that could have been -- it would have had setbacks of only six feet, and the ultimate height could have been 50 feet. So that was problematic. But after speaking with the applicants, they've agreed to Page 27 -, ......--_..,_.".,.~-". ...- .. -.--...., ~-_. .._-~,~--- August 20, 2009 maintain a 20-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MR. MOSS: LDC requires 25, but they're offering 20-foot setback instead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Exhibit B, and I -- this has all got to be codified in the PUD somehow. MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd like to know as we go through what changes to the exhibits it would take. So if we go to Exhibit B and we go under ALF /CCRC and you look at the rear setback -- MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're looking at 15 feet and they're suggesting -- they're going to agree to 20? MR. MOSS: They've offered to do 20 now, after meeting with them a couple of days ago. I just wanted to make you all aware that the LDC requirement is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Are you -- now, what's staffs position? MR. MOSS: I'm okay with 20 feet. Number nine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: Number nine states that the minimum side yard setbacks for the multi-family housing structures on the R-l and R-2 tracts shall be the greater of one-half the building's height or 15 feet. Again, they're asking for just six feet here. But after speaking with them, they've agreed to the stipulation, provided that it only applies to the southern boundary of the property, is that correct, which would be the R-2 tracts, since the R-l tracts are occupied by the preserve. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might, Mr. Chairman, I think to clarify that in the table, as we did under the maximum height, we might be Page 28 "',"- ~ . '-,"~.,...,,".,". N._....,""....'_,.^'~.._~ '. ,..~-,-~.~..-"~=,~.~._,-,,.~- August 20, 2009 able to break down R-l and R-2, because I think the concern was for the R-2 tract. So maybe if we just clarified that it's for the R-2 tract would be 20 feet. MR. MOSS: And if you look on the table under multi-family next to minimum side yards, you'll see it's six feet. That's the one that they're agreeing to change to 15 feet, which is that required by the LDC. But only for the R -- where it abuts the R-2 tract to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they do R-l -- if they do multi - family and R -1, the setback to the side yard -- MR. MOSS: Would still be six feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how -- so you got 35-foot buildings. Normally it's half the sum of the heights. You'd have 35 feet. And staffs okay with six feet? MR. MOSS: No, I'm not okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: That's just what they proposed -- they proposed to modify my stipulation. I wanted it for all side yard setbacks. They've just agreed to the stipulation, provided it only applies to that southern boundary adjoining the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just build a giant solid wall ? You guys are sticking to that? Between buildings, setbacks along the R -1, what would your -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Strain, right now we have a separate line item for building separation that's shown as 20 feet in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So where would this apply, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it would only apply to a single side yard where you had a building separation. Because honestly, some of these multi-families probably aren't going to have lot lines between them. So in my guess the building separation will be the prevailing development standard anyway. Page 29 "--,..,.",' " -_.- . <t'P" .'''''''.____e 'M'~ e......... f~ "nf' I ......-----~-- '-'-~',"_.._~",-.~~'-'~-""'- August 20, 2009 So only where we would have a building that could be adjacent to our property boundary is where I think we might end up with a true side yard. But why don't we just make it -- if we made it 10 for the R-l, then you would have the 20-foot separation. And then l.D.'s issue of separation for the R-2 tract from our southern boundary we can handle with the 15 or 20 feet, whatever he said that he wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Wayne, by this plan you could come in and subdivide this any way you want. You could come in and say that I want to do two different product; I want to do townhouse in the north R-l and I want to do multi-family in the south R-l. And the difference between the townhouse and the multi-family would be six feet. Is that what we're saying? MR. ARNOLD: Well, it could be. But I still think we have a building separation standard that will prevail, regardless of the building side yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we comment on these things now, or is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we might as well. I'm trying to figure out how to get -- this is going to be -- we're only on -- we've got 28 recommendations that are problematic. We're going to have 28 items we're going to have to hash out in some kind of stipulation. And I'm trying to sit here -- figure out how to keep track of it. So honestly, if you got comments, let's just move them as we go forward. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I thought we were running through to see who was happy with each other, then we'd go back and comment. Because I've had some comments all along, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. If you get the commonality and then we can go back and challenge the others. Page 30 -_._~~."" --................-..-..-,..." .1IIl..____,,,.,.,o"',, --~-^._""_..- _...."._~~_-..."_"",._,._.'..",...,~ ..". 'c_'''' '~'~'W_'~~"_"M","",,_"'_ August 20, 2009 Because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have is that we can have all the commonality between staff and the applicant, but I don't necessarily agree with either one of them. So I guess we're going to go back and start all these over again right from the beginning. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's the consensus, the way you all want to do it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to know what we're doing, because I've been silent because I thought that's what we were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I don't mind. What I'd -- if the panel consensus seems to be we're just going to go through this list, tell us, though, on the table where it applies and we'll go back and start all over again and ask our questions right from the beginning. Because I've got them right from number one. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's move on then. We understand what you're trying to say with number eight. You're looking at a side yard setback for R -1 of 15 and a half feet or half the building height, and R-2 you're going to leave at six feet but you still have 20 feet between structures. MR. MOSS: Right. That's what they're suggesting. And that's actually number nine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: All right. So number 10, footnote number two in Exhibit B shall be revised to state that as long as a minimum 12-foot separation between principal structures is maintained, then any other applicable setbacks are respected. And if you look on the table, you'll see it on Page 11 of 21, footnote two. It's just some language that needs to be added to the end Page 31 '^",,"""""'''''' . "-,._._,--"" _m~__.-'_"~,>,,,,_,,_,,_,_ '-' ~-"'. "" 1. . T' . "."_",,,,"..,,.,.._=~"."~h" .-....,~,-~._-,--- August 20, 2009 of the sentence. MR. ARNOLD: We're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both parties are okay? Number 11. MR. MOSS: Number 11, the minimum front yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures on the R-l andR-2 tracts shall be 30 feet. That's what's required by the LDC. And they've asked for just 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet -- what do you guys have to say about it? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think in our meeting, if my notes were correct, we wanted to stick with our proposed 20 feet, because one, it's from our own internal road is where that would be applicable. And two, that, you know, based on our preserve area growing so greatly, we were left with a fairly narrow development envelope anyway. So the standard would really be one that affects our own internal project and it's not I don't think a standard that you typically would see a standard that's similar to that 20 foot. I don't think that's atypical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you disagree on that one? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 12. MR. MOSS: Number 12, the minimum front yard setbacks for duplexes and townhouses shall be 25 feet and 20 feet of having a side or rear-loaded garage. They've asked for those setbacks to be 20 feet and 15 feet respectively. The ones that I've provided are the ones that are actually required by the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you disagree on that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we do. And that's another one that's been a standard one. But remember, he's telling you if you were in a straight zoning Page 32 ~..._,.- --'~""""'-'.,-~",,"..."~ '1"'1 ~, ~11lr.''''I_'~'""""' 1lIllItII' .._ _ ~'__"i_~___~~~~"~'~',"_" '.,_~~,._._,._.__ August 20, 2009 district what the LDC would require. We're doing a PUD. And through the PUD process you're obviously creating your own development standards. So it's -- I don't want people to think that hey, you know, we're violating the LDC. In a PUD document you're actually developing your own standards and you look at the project overall. For instance, we're providing more open space than is required under the LDC. And in exchange for that we're talking about reduced setbacks. So -- and this again was a different -- this is a standard setback for side yard -- side loaded garages in most PUDs. And that's why we're objecting to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you would still have your 21 or 22 feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have our 23 feet from the sidewalk. We haven't asked for a deviation from that in the LOC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're objec -- you don't agree with number 12 then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13. MR. MOSS: Number 13, the minimum front yard setbacks for two-family structures shall be 30 feet and 25 feet, if having a side or rear-loaded garage. They've asked for 20 feet and 15 feet respectively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't agree with that? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14. MR. MOSS: The second sentence in footnote number four in Exhibit B shall be revised to state that the minimum 25-foot front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet where the residence is served by a side or rear-loaded garage. They've asked for 20 and 15 feet respectively. Page 33 ~..."..- ~-,.,-,,'- . ..~...'..," 'w'_"'_'~e'.._ -,-",-- ..~,.""..,.~'" August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Don't agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't agree with that one. Number 15. MR. MOSS: The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in the R -1 and R - 2 tracts shall be the same as those required by the LDC. If you look on Page 14 of the staff report, I've talked about some of the disparities between the accessory setbacks that they're proposing and what's required by the LDC. For instance, parking structures normally require a 35-foot setback, swimming pools a 20- foot setback and tennis courts a 20- foot setback. And they're requiring 10 feet for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys disagree? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16. MR. MOSS: All mixed use buildings, that is those containing multi-family residential and commercial uses, shall have a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet. And I think they're requesting 60 and 70 feet respectively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree or disagree? MR. ARNOLD: That was the zoned and building height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16. MR. ARNOLD: We can agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can agree to that? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What did he say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree. Number 17. MR. MOSS: Any multi-family building in tract R-2 shall have a maximum zoned height of 45 feet and actual height of 55 feet. The LDC -- or excuse me, they're proposing 50 feet and 60 feet respectively. And this was the concern raised by the side yard only being six feet along this boundary and having such a tall building Page 34 -- ..,-,,~.., . .,._.........,'~., .'. <_.~^.,.W"._"""".1.-"_ -"-,~- .._'......__.'.c.._..",..._"""'_ August 20, 2009 there. COMMISSIONER CARON: They changed-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we changed that to 20 feet. MR. MOSS: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I believe you're okay -- MR. MOSS: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- with the heights we're asking for with the 20- foot setback. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 17 from a staffs perspective doesn't need to be here then. MR. MOSS: Right, since they've agreed to change the side yard setback there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: Number 18, minimum lot widths for any purely multi-family residential buildings that may develop on the MU tracts shall be 75 feet. And the reason this was included was because on the table they just said that this was not applicable. So I just wanted to include what the conventional zoning district would require. I don't think they have a problem with that. We've discussed this. I don't think that was problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, waiting for them to respond. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this No. 18? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay. MR. MOSS: Number 19, minimum floor area of units in any purely multi-family residential buildings that may develop on the MU tracts shall be 700 square feet. And that of course applies to the units, not the building footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're okay. Page 35 ""'I ....... '*"". ...., ~ -"-',."., '~~'--';"-""'---"._-'~'- .>,_._-_..._~,,"-"',-~"'-",'--- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just let me know so I don't have to keep asking you. Just speak up -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't want to interrupt -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- say you agree or disagree when he finishes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- because he was reading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 20. MR. MOSS: Number 20, Exhibit Z in table two of Exhibit B shall be revised to permit 262,000 square feet of gross leasable area. They had 264, which was a mistake, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. That was an error. MR. MOSS: Number 21, no outdoor music or other amplified sounds shall be permitted. Staff included this because of the Stevie Tomatoes issues. And also one of the uses that's permitted in their table in Exhibit A includes outdoor auctioneering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agree or disagree? MR. ARNOLD: I think ours would be to propose a modification and allow outdoor -- I mean, keep in mind that a commercial component is in an activity center. We have commercial immediately to our west and to our east. I think Rich and I, when we met with John-David, suggested that maybe we impose a time limitation at which time any outdoor amplified sound would have to cease, and we suggested maybe 11 :00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you disagree? MR. ARNOLD: I guess we disagree with as written, but suggest a modification. And J.D. may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're all going to have comments on modifications. So we're going to come back through, start at the top again and walk through and then you're going to hear nine comments on each one of these. Page 36 ~-"'. _"~"w._.....,"~..>.,~"""...,._,_... , ~ . ....._'_''',.,.,.,.,.._'.M~__.,._..."_.....,... '_,._"..,____....___......._~_ . ..- -,"--...-".._,""..,...,~..,.,.---- August 20, 2009 So let's go to number 22. MR. MOSS: Number 22. No home improvement superstores, warehouse superstores or discount retail superstores shall be permitted. I've spoken with the applicants and they, when we met, agreed to this unless -- well, agreed to add unless the MU tract is purely commercial, then they would be permitted. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And thus we came up what I said earlier on was if it was above the C-3 type uses, there could be no residential immediately above it. And if we were to have a standalone residential, we would have to have the required LDC buffer between those two uses. MR. MOSS: And staff would be okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying No. 22 is okay to delete it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the MU tract becomes all commercial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it needs -- MR. MOSS: It needs to be modified to state -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to modify it. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. MR. MOSS: -- as the way that Rich has suggested it today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we have to mark it that it needs to be modified. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 23? MR. MOSS: No construction contractors shall be permitted. MR. ARNOLD: We disagreed, only because those were intended to be for the office functions of those types of contractors. If you're, for instance, Kraft Construction, office building, it's their office function. And I think we would limit any of that construction category to office use only. No outdoor storage and that type of thing. Page 37 ..... .. ---"",,~_.,._~.^,'."""",,---- ~ ......,~,._,-._. ''IlIRI1' _.',,-_..., ,,- ~--'-",'-"- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Staff was okay with that limitation, just so you know. MR. MOSS: All right, No. 24. These are -- well, No. 24 through 28, I believe -- No. 24 through 27 are stipulations that have been included by the environmental services department. So if you have any questions about those or if -- I don't think the applicant has any objection to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get that on the table first. Because we're going to go back through the top and start all over with our questions. So let's go to No. 24, 25, 26 and 27. Do you object to any of those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. MOSS: And No. 28 was stipulated by the utilities department. I don't think you have an issue with that either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we'd expect compensation for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, I have an issue with it. We'll discuss it when we get to it. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any issues with numbers one, two or three? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe other than the fact that we do not want to construct a wall for the gentleman who included that in the condition of his donating the right-of-way to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be number three, I believe it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is a disagreement because of the wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His Eminence has shown up. So since Page 38 .....'~.....,-,- . ,._--,_.....~.~"" .- ___"",,,,,,,,,,=,"'~~"''^'''''M''''''^ _ ,.. ._,.,._<....~...,__M""".',~.._"'.,_ ,', --".,--"........,."<~'.- ,- ,-. .'O.^~"..,,"_..~."'_~,.,,"_ August 20, 2009 that's the last remaining staff issue, may be he can ask us if the wall -- maybe he call tell us if the wall's a critical component of his approval of this or not. Nick, it's really good to see you again. You don't show up here enough, so when you do, I kind of have to give you a bad time. (Mr. Casalanguida was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I always enjoy the banter we do back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't show up here enough here. Your staff does a great job, but your presence is welcome once in a while. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks. John's been doing a real good job. And remember, mom's watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Hi, Connie. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Tetrault was kind enough to donate the land, and he understands that it's not just for him, it's for the neighborhood as well too. His building is very close to that connection that will be there. The whole neighborhood's been fighting to get better access onto the future Santa Barbara as well as now potentially to Davis. And the only consideration he asked for originally was to get paid for the property. We said we can't do that. He said, my home's close to this road. He goes, I'd like at least a little bit of privacy between my home and that road. So asking for an eight-foot is not necessarily a noise wall, just a privacy wall. I only think it's for about 350 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then pay for it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Rich, we helped you get here earlier, you and your client. We -- Page 39 "-'-._-'''' & "'''"'-''~ ,-_.,. '~>-'~ ...""'.., -,'_"='"'_"'''_~-~"'''''-'"''' ,','<,..,'" ..,......,.. '-""~><"'.',~--~-,~ August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the mic. there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We worked with the applicant to get here as quickly as we could. They've asked us to, you know, review this project quickly. And if this was an issue, we would have talked about it even more, because that connection is critical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us on this plan exactly where we're talking about? If this isn't the best plan, put one on that is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In this area over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your voice isn't coming too clear, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's right at the tip of my pen right there. And it slides down probably about two, 300 feet to where his driveway comes in right there. There's an aerial here? There you go. You can see the green here, it's their property site, and you can see the Tetrault home is right there. And so they're going to connect that to Sunset, which ends right in front of their property. So it's about two, 300 feet they provide a wall as part of that connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant disagrees with it and your position is it's needed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's badly needed and it provides value to the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The road does? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: He asked about the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd ask that you stay there. Because what I'd like to do now is go back and go into the questions that the Planning Commission may have on each specific item. And because you're already at the podium, I'd like to ask for numbers one, two and three to come up for questions from the Planning Commission first. Does anybody have any questions of transportation on numbers one, two, or three? Page 40 ~--, '"'''~~''-'-''' ""."" .~.,.,-..-...-"- ~'~"O'" ~ - -,,~-,- "'--.---_."..,~ '__'c_,'."".,,_ August 20, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on number three, let's go back to the wall then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The piece of property that's being donated to extend that road, where does it start and where does it end? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the entire frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property. It starts right at the comer of the green there and it runs south to the S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, right at that point where his starts on the north -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: There. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all that property up to that point owned by the developer that's -- who's the applicant today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's owned -- all the green is owned by them, and then their ownership terminates right at the tip of my pen there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they're putting up a 30-foot wide right-of-way, or how's this, is it an easement, right-of-way? What is it through their property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be an easement through the private property connected to what the developer owns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 30 feet on our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so the gentleman that lives next door wants a connection there. He's favoring it. And so he's providing an additional right-of-way to the county -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to extend that road further south. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county, instead of buying it, he's asking that somebody put in a wall for him as a way for him to donate the property. Page 41 ....._._...._..~~<'........- -.,_....,..,"""'.,.~., '~.~".",'-'......,...,.-- ..........-..-.,.-.-.."'-.-,.-..-"'--.-+....--.- ,--..,. .,.------ August 20, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's donating the property for the benefit of him and his neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does the road go after it leaves his property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It continues south and then ties back into the east-west roads. And there are a couple east-west connections that go back to Santa Barbara. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the way up to Mr. Tetrault's home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's up to Mr. Tetrault's home, it stops being built there, and then it would continue past his house by somebody else, which is this developer, all the way to its connection to, what is it, Santa Barbara? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would connect through here and also would connect potentially to Davis. This is the commercial area that the Tetraults and the other people in the neighborhood said they would use and they would be able to stay off the road and have better access to the commercial by that connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got Sunset Boulevard built all the way up to Mr. Tetrault's property, why is his property the only piece that isn't built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't answer that. It's a private easement, it's private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have an obligation to build 830 feet of Sunset to the south. So there's no way that a county sufficient road is built all the way to his property, because if he's only 300 feet wide, there's another 530 feet to the south that we're building. He's got basically a driveway to the south. But we're being required to build 830 feet of county road at our expense for the benefit of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's your 830 feet, Richard? Page 42 ..,~-, . ,..'__.M_"'_'"'~_" -'-.'-' "._~""". "'" - ...~~--",--,-,-,..,_.~...,_., ".--.-- August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me on this plan where the 830 feet you're talking about is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever direction. So it would be -- technology. We're paralyzed. It would be -- we end here, right, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'd go down to Cope Lane, which is off the exhibit. We're not building that? What are we building, Wayne? North of that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm glad I asked the question. Because if you guys don't know what you're building, we sure don't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, just to add on interconnection, because it's becoming such a critical issue and you hear about it almost every petition that comes up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, bring that -- I don't know, your mic seems to be -- you seem to be far away from the mic or something. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is that any better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. This seems to come up all the time with projects that come in. There's no way that transportation staff can recommend approval for projects if they don't start to simulate and connect into the neighborhoods. They pull trips off the road, they reduce trips that come up. It's smart growth recommended. And, you know, someone's willing to donate the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, okay. So essentially this gentleman that owns the property is donating land to the county. Page 43 ." ",-,,~ _",_w_ " . . '. ~"""'.,. ~"""""", --""~-"",---- August 20, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't understand why the county just doesn't build a little wall for the guy. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We couldn't do that as part of the budget. What we feel is if this property is to be up-zoned and increase the impact this can provide to the county, the way they can mitigate some of that is by making a better connection to the neighborhood. The people can use their project and not have to go to the other roadway system. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Will other people be using it other than this gentleman and the direct neighborhood? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly. Okay, well I -- we build walls all the time. I know it's an expense, we don't have a lot of money, but it's providing better access, keeping them off major roadways -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- why don't we just do an eight - foot wall for the thing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe had the budget to do that, we would certainly do that. But we're not asking for up-zoning and greater impact to the neighborhood. Neither is Mr. Tetrault. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's a give and take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to go back to the question I still haven't got an answer for. Can someone show me the -- what you are building? I'm not going to let go of the question, so someone's going to answer it sooner or later. MR. ARNOLD: Let me answer the question. For the record, Wayne Arnold. If you look at the exhibit that's also in your packet, it was a specific exhibit that ties into one of the transportation conditions that we're discussing. Page 44 ",w., -,-,_..,..._~."~_."~,----~,..;,.,.,--.,,,,, 10<'- 1.__"" ,. ,...".,.-......"--__,,..~If ~ "<f 1" .. '" ......,~"._.."-""'""_.~. .., ~..."~,,.__.,,- August 20, 2009 We agreed that we would build from our internal road south to our southern property boundary this interconnection and a two-lane road within a 30-foot wide area that's shown on this exhibit. And there's a notation that suggests that it's about 830 feet. That 830 feet is from our internal road south to our southernmost boundary where it connects to our neighbor to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And I think what's come into play, the wall is something that was new to us when we saw the staff report. But keep in mind, this is going to be a local interconnection. This is not a six-lane road. You have Santa Barbara for that. This is a road that serves very few homes. It's an unimproved driveway, in essence, when you go north of Cope Lane. It traverses a couple of other larger tracts, about 20 acres in size, that are undeveloped. And so you don't have a roadway connection presently. I don't think the county necessarily has the budget to go and construct a road. They're getting the benefit of an 830- foot road from us. And as far as I know, there's no other improvement scheduled to make the balance of this road south for probably what's at least another, I'm guessing, close to a half a mile to Cope Lane a paved road. It will remain a dirt road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I got to understand now where the 830 feet is on your property. Nick, you said that people are required to do interconnections. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what you think an interconnection is in regards to the GMP for this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that property which is a residential neighborhood to the south and undeveloped land -- Wayne brought up a good point. That land hasn't developed yet. That's to the west that abuts Santa Barbara. And if you build a network, a grid, and you start putting all these Page 45 .".~ _',.....'N_ _ ""'--"""'''~~~'"'"- "'-~''"~-_.~_.. ,- ..,-,_. August 20, 2009 connections in, everybody will have access to that, even the undeveloped parcels. So that GMP recommendation is whenever you have adjacent uses which is residential and now they want commercial uses, they can access those commercial uses by not going on that brand new facility we put on. They can stay internal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But an interconnection pursuant to the GMP, how do you get that interconnection to be required beyond the property of the applicants? Now -- and think about this, because you're saying -- I think you're trying to say that this applicant's obligated to provide this wall because that's the only way you get the donation of the land to the south. If that is your theory and if that's the way you want to apply it, I've not seen you apply it that way in multitudes of other projects that came in here. Now I'm not an advocate necessarily for this project, but I'm trying to say what's fair is fair. And if we're going to start this precedent with this project, then anybody coming in with an interconnection we'd better be looking at them to secure all the necessary elements so you can get your right-of-ways from their project's boundaries to wherever it is their next terminis of a road is. Because that's kind of what you're saying here today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, what's the difference of putting up a wall next to two incompatible uses? What this owner has said right now is I'll provide the property that you can do that connection. It takes trips off the roads, both mine and my neighbors. And all I want is a little bit of protection from that noise that's going to be generated from that connection. You do the same thing when you say it's a residential property and you want a wall put up at a certain height or a different connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have no problem with your argument, and I got no problem with this gentleman wanting a wall. Page 46 ,_.-.~-_.---.... -,..,""",,_. ~"..._,. .. ~.,,,_'c~ ..,y-."",,- August 20, 2009 I'm more concerned with who is the right person to say has to pay it. And while a developer is a great source of things to get done, once it gets off the property is it really something we should seek as an exaction from the developer? I'm not sure how you tie that nexus to his property. And that's where I'm frustrated on that one issue out of 28 we're going to be going through here today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. As part of, you know, making your connection to any sort of street system, sometimes you make improvements off-site. And that happens quite a bit. It could be a turn lane, it could be a bridge, it could be a driveway that you have to connect to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're public improvements, though. This is a private improvement to a private property owner for a benefit of a single private property owner, nobody else. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not one property owner, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wall is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. But he's the only one that would abut that closely to the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But if you instill a condition like this to benefit a single property owner over benefit of the public, I'm not sure you're getting where you need to be in regards to these kind of exactions. So that's my concern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just laying it on the table. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could you tell me approximately, you know, those prefab walls, a foot, per foot, how much they are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're $50. They're cedar crete; 50 bucks to 55 bucks a foot. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Fifty-five bucks -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Linear foot or -- Page 47 ~~,~ _...'....."----.,,,-....- - ,- -",,-,-"~'-~"" . ",,'y,'_.,"li<. ~.~,~-,~..~.-,~.~~,""_.. "''< "'._,- -"~"'~"-"'-- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been paying for them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Linear foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, linear foot. Go ahead, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Who -- does the county own Sunset Boulevard? Is it -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- the county's road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Parts of it are -- the right-of-ways are always ambiguous the way they're dedicated to the county but never accepted. Some of them are private easements, some of them are public easements. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So when the applicant constructs that portion of the road, who owns it -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- as their property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be still owned by the Tetraults, because it would be an easement. MR. KLA TZKOW: Is it a public right-of-way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The new section we're talking about, the dedication? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be dedicated to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there connections all the way to the south dedicated to the public as well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To the public and private, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They all have use for sidewalks and utilities and things like that, or are they just access easements? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Access easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 48 "M., '-"--'. ,.." -,,,,'-""""--' --,,,,~,,,., .., - .,~_.,"_",,,_,o.",,_ "'__""'_'_"'''"''''_'_''_"_ August 20, 2009 Anybody else have any questions on items one through three? MR. MOSS: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: If I may just add, the LDC does require some sort of public benefit for granting the flexibility that PUDs do offer. The applicant is supposed to provide something. And I know in this instance the connection may be that. But because the connection is going to cause a noise issue or a privacy issue with the adjacent owner, that's why the wall is being requested. So it's not -- the applicant is required to provide some sort of public benefit in exchange for the granting of the PUD zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What public benefit is being-- MR. MOSS: By the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the wall. Public. MR. MOSS: Yes, and I understand your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's private. MR. MOSS: I just wanted to put that on the record. No, absolutely, I just wanted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you -- MR. MOSS: -- to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if this county gets into a position where they've now acknowledged by putting such a wall in is a demand, that 30-foot wide right-of-ways create a noise hazard for adjoining properties, there's properties all over this county. The county has not done that before. And if you're going to make the private individual do that, I think that the county needs to start putting -- MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- walls up along all their roadways. I'm just looking at this as impartially and fair as we can. And again, it's seems like we're doing an exaction way beyond our means here. MR. MOSS: I understand your point. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that they are supposed to be providing some sort of Page 49 . "".,"-' ",.....~. ,........-"'.,.._-_.. _._."'_._-.,,~,--- August 20, 2009 public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then -- MR. MOSS: -- benefit in exchange -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Wolfley. MR. MOSS: -- for the PUD zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was vegetation -- has anybody considered vegetation here, as opposed to a wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got a proposal, after talking to Mr. Casalanguida. For the 830 feet, that really is to service the public. Instead of building the sidewalk, we'll take the funds that were going towards the sidewalk and put it towards a wall for Mr. Tatio, is that his name? Tetrault. So we would still give vehicular access for the general public -- now, keep in mind, we are building the road. And basically from our multi-family project anything south of that we don't really need. All of that's for the benefit of the public. So we would do vehicular access or interconnection versus vehicular and pedestrian in that particular case, and then Mr. Casalanguida can use those proceeds towards the construction of the wall for Mr. Tetrault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was wondering how much that land would be worth. What's the value of that land? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't tell you what the value of the property is -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- honestly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, now that he brought that up, now I'm concerned about people walking that without a sidewalk. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He raises a good point. Ifhe builds this sidewalk internally to his site, that's fine. Once he goes off-site, there aren't any sidewalks in the neighborhood anyway right now, so Page 50 -~'.".~ .,_.._..c,.,.~,...,.,,",;",,~~,...,......,......__ ..'" " .'.~ ~'''"'''"''''~''-''''"''''''''- " --"","~'~"~'--->-'> ".._,_.' ,.' - - .. '. -,,'-"..,'~,_.._. August 20, 2009 he would stop at the property line where he was going to build that section all the way down. And in lieu of putting in for a couple more feet, he would put up that wall. It wouldn't be more of a difference, because there isn't a sidewalk on Sunset now. That could be a project that could come later down the road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, if someone could be assured of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that the greater public good is for a sidewalk there as opposed to a private wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, you guys, I mean you both seem to be in agreement on this sidewalk issue. It doesn't solve my concern, although I'm just one of nine. So we'll just continue on, because right now an exaction that is unwarranted by the code, I can't get there. And for you even to volunteer to do it sets a precedent in this county that I think is not a precedent we want to get into. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you know, I don't want to belabor the point, we'll move on, but I've got to tell you, I don't think it's an exaction, I think it's mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, seriously, Commissioner. Because interconnection is vital to what we do. And if you look around this county, having projects integrated with the neighborhood so people don't have to go off network and on network to use that commercial area is critical. And we don't have the money to keep building six-lane facilities, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I -- well, no sense of saying what I've already said. So we'll leave that issue, unless somebody else has a further comment on it. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go on to number four. Anybody Page 51 ~""'c_'" ~,...._c__.._"."_,,' ~_ ...,,,..,,,",....',,-.. ~~,.,-- -~'".--'''''-'''~'"'-''.'.....,'.,-,^~--- August 20, 2009 have any questions on number four? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I just think it's unnecessary. No one's going to build -- you know, in our code the minimum size buildings has never been our problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this a requirement of our code? MR. MOSS: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit wasn't here as a recommendation, would it still be a requirement of our code for this project? MR. MOSS: Oh, interesting. Ray, do you think we would defer to the LDC in this instance if this stipulation were not included? For group housing structures. We're on number four, requiring them to have a minimum square footage on the ground floor of 1,000 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: For group housing? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: It's not required in a PUD. It can be changed and altered. That's just for SDPs that come in under standard zoning we would provide those minimums in the LDC. But as a PUD, it can be a different scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but where a PUD falls silent -- is silent, it falls to the LDC. The question is, is this PUD considered silent in regards to this issue, so does that mean the LDC would prevail ? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. MOSS: The PUD actually says it's not applicable. And that was my concern. Not that there was -- it was left blank but that it just said not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the PUD where it says that and find the correction and make the notation so that we don't have -- MR. MOSS: Okay. Page 52 -,.-...----. --',.~~~.-,~-'_" - - ,,,,,-.,,,,,,..,,,-,_.""- '-' ."'...~.,_o... . '" -,--.....-., August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the issue come up again. Where is it in the PUD that you -- MR. MOSS: If you look under ALF/CCRC independent living . In -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit B? MR. MOSS: -- Exhibit B. Yes, I'm sorry. It's table one of Exhibit B. If you look down three cells to minimum floor area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the N/A gets replaced with 1,000? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does everybody understand that? Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Brad, since you brought it up, is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. I just think our problem in this county is not tiny little buildings everywhere. MR. MOSS: It just concerned me that they were saying it didn't apply. I didn't know what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. MR. MOSS: -- they might have. I'd rather just have our bases covered than -- MR. ARNOLD: Can I interject there? And I think when we met with John-David, that was clear. He was talking about the actual building size, not unit size. And I think that's why we had put N/ A. Because in all other scenarios there, you're looking at really a minimum floor area for the actual structure, whether it be single-family -- in our case even a multi-family unit that's expressed as 750 square feet was intended to be the unit size, not a building size. So that's why we put N/ A, because in a CCRC you end up with a Page 53 -,.".,.. _0_'" ,_w.o_."__ ,_~~"",_,,_.,,.,~,,~~. ~ _ ._ ",,",,..,",_.H N~_...._~",_,., -,..,',<,'" ~,",,""--"- August 20, 2009 scenario where your units could be quite small if they're more of a skilled nursing size. But the building itself would be obviously much larger than the unit size itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think in order to make sure it's clear under Exhibit B where it says minimum floor area, it should say minimum floor area per unit. And then where we have added 1,000 under ACLF/CCRC, it should be asterisk number five, and number five should state that in this case it's per building. Does that -- MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clarify everything? Okay, Item No.5 on the recommendation list. The maximum height of group housing, duplexes and townhouses shall be limited to 40 feet zoned and actual height of 45 feet. During the discussion theR-1 is acknowledged that it's going to be at 35 feet along the 100-foot strip that adjoins existing residential. And then you're suggesting 45 feet for the others. And your argument -- or staffs in agreement with that, if I'm not mistaken, because they believe and you believe that the increase to the 45 feet for the balance of the R-1 offsets the ability to go to two stories for the R-1 along residential. Is that -- okay, does anybody have questions or concerns about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, John, you use the word group housing. MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they don't use the word group housing. Could you change yours to match their -- MR. MOSS: No, I'm going to change their document to match the language that the LDC uses. We don't have definitions for some of the terms that they use, and so I wanted to make it consistent with our Page 54 ..'-,_. . ._.....-, .,. " -, -".". ~._'",.~~.- .=,'-"-_....~ , -,.. '"~'.' ""'"......~- .. ---.-- August 20, 2009 LDC. It causes so much confusion. But again, because this was such a rush job to get this to hearing, a lot of things slipped through the cracks. That's why we're having to go over all these stipulations. Normally these are things we would have worked out before the hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're going to achieve parody, no matter which -- MR. MOSS: There will be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- way you go. MR. MOSS: -- yes. Ultimately there will be consistency between the terms used in the stipulations and the rest of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this day and age, why was this a rush job? Now you've -- that just brings up a whole nother question. I mean, we're in no hurry to get zoning in this county by any means that I can see. So now why was this a rush job? MR. MOSS: Well, they -- I had actually requested that they continue this project because I didn't feel that I had had ample time to meet with them to go over these outstanding issues. But they were in a hurry to maintain their dates. I mean, that's a question you'll have to ask Mr. Y ovanovich the explanation for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I think the time that you're going to waste of ourselves and the public today is only going to come back to have to come back for another redo anyway. So we'll keep plugging through it. I wish it wasn't rushed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, an alternative would be -- we have obligations. We've been in this process for quite a while and we've been -- and it's not J.D.'s fault, there have been changes in staffing that have continued to delay our getting through the process. And we have obligations to our clients to get through the process. Ifwe could do like we did with Fowler Free State where we go Page 55 ..._~_."._" ~'''MC_~__ '(1____.+.,,-''''' ^".~",._,,"-,,, "","..'."....,.",...>>,..,.. ,...,~ ~._._..,.-...._~,-_.._,-- August 20, 2009 back, we work through this, get you a document that goes through all this and the Planning Commission could agree -- if there are any subsequent changes at the next Planning Commission meeting that we hold basically the consent agenda and the regular agenda. You let us take a time out at the end of the meeting discussion, we'll go back, make all the changes and get a final document to you on that same agenda two weeks from now, we could keep our schedule to get to the Board of County Commissioners. If you would indulge us to do that, we can save you time and our time. But there were issues beyond our control, as well as beyond J.D.'s control to keep us on schedule. And we appreciate anything you can do to keep us on that schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, this is going to be a painful morning to go through these three pages, 28 items, step at a time, when it shouldn't have been into this state to begin with. Especially now when we find out it's here because it was rushed. It shouldn't have been rushed. I don't see a need for rushing zoning in this county. In this economic world we have right now, there's so much zoning out there that can't go anyway, I don't understand the need to have pushed this from the beginning. But I for one, and I know the other Planning Commission members, I doubt if we're going to let this go until every T is crossed, every I is dotted. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not asking you to. What I'm asking is if an alternative could be give us the -- give us a week to sit down with J.D., revise the documents. Because we have reached agreement on quite a few of these. I don't know if you still have comments on those, but we can get to you a finalized document. If you would allow us, at the end of -- if there are further changes requested by the Planning Commission at the next meeting, that would normally put us on a consent agenda. If we could make Page 56 "'-~'-'''" ._.~""..__..^~_...._.,^.. ^,'O ~.__._..,._.._~,...__ _ ..., ""..~~,"" ,.~ _ H_. - h'__"~_'~'_._"""_" "_..~-....~.._-_._-,,-~ August 20, 2009 those changes at that same meeting, that we could then get back to you to make sure we did it right, we could save you the effort. Now, it was -- rushed is not a fair categorization of this process, because we've been in it for quite a while. And there were supposed to be certain things done in a timely manner that didn't happen. And I'm not going to put blame anywhere, people's work schedule didn't allow it to get done. So we don't believe that this is being rushed, because it's taken quite a while to get here. But if that proposal works for the Planning Commission, we'd be willing to do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to get through some of this. I want to hear from the public today -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think you need to hear from the public today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we may have some general comments we want to make. I'm not sure today's the most productive without some further corrections on these documents before we review them, but -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Does -- and I respect what you're attempting to do. I appreciate that. But does that -- can we actually do a consent with you coming back with a -- with determinations that could be completely outside of the original concept? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that wouldn't be a consent. What he's suggesting is we finish up as far as we can go today. Because there are so many things at issue here, they get together with staff, come back with a better document, a whole redo of the presentation you're getting today -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Like it's tabled? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would just be continued. And then instead of having -- and at the continued meeting -- Page 57 .._",...,,-,. ...._,-_._",..~."_....--_."" ... --. "'...." ,..~.'-.........- _.'"..~--- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they would get our comments at the continued meeting, they would try to fix the language, if there is any language suggestions as a result of that meeting while we go on with the rest of our meeting that day. And at the end of the day we then hear it for consent that day. Kind of like we've done for some other projects at other times when they've been in this rushed state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, but I hadn't heard the word continued, so I didn't know where we were going with that one. I thought I heard him say -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever the preference is. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- he would be generous with us and allow us to come back on the consent. That's why I asked -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I wasn't asking to come back on the consent, I was asking for a hearing the next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the Planning Commission have any preferences in this regard, any thoughts from anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- my only concern is we're really down to the minutia, which is usually at the end of all the hearing. So I'm kind of -- you know, I'm a little confused at the order. It would be more fun to hear the whole thing and then if we feel like going forward, let's go through this minutia. In other words, Richard made a presentation, we kind of stopped and immediately got into the resolution without hearing everything I'd like to hear. That's my opinion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which is the -- yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is the public. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The public. We'd love to hear from the public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not -- I wasn't going to leave here Page 58 ,,-.,.... __" ..,.._"....__..,..w__...._"_~..>.,___.._,,~~'_..._.._. ,.,..,""",",," . '.. "" '~,'4F"'_~' ".w._.."............_ August 20, 2009 today without hearing the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was absolutely going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was discussing the order, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The order we normally go through is a presentation by the applicant, questions and a presentation by staff and questions. We amended that a bit today because staff had 28 recommendations, which is probably seven or eight times more what we usually see. So the suggestion was by the applicant, why don't we walk through those till we see where the areas of disagreement are to help us understand where we may want to have more questions. Is that not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know what we're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I thought that was a pretty reasonable process, Brad. If there's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying you asked the opinion of the process, that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the Planning Commission wish to continue in the manner we've started, or do you want to just let staff and the applicant work some of this out and we go into general questions and then public? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Is there a good chance that you can work it out? MR. MOSS: Yes. For what it's worth, I think we're through the hard part. This is stuff that can be easily remedied. The rush that I had was putting the staff report together. I had to start it a week late. And normally there would be a negotiation process and a lot of these things would be hashed out. But because I didn't have the luxury of time, I had to stipulate all of them. So the hard part's really over. If we can just come to some sort of Page 59 ,_._--- .. ".... ..... ~._~_..>.._.,..~ -''''''.'~''-- . .. ._-~..- """,-.-," -'-~"'-'>--'- August 20, 2009 agreement on the remaining stipulations, the PUD document can be easily amended and we could come back on consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you're not going to be able to come back on consent. MR. MOSS: Or come back in two weeks time, I should say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'm very concerned about what's going to come out of the agreements between the two of you that may not necessarily be in agreement with this board. So we're still going to have a lot of -- MR. MOSS: Right, no. And I want to have your input on this. A lot of these I just put out here to get your views shared so we could possibly incorporate them into the PUD document. Some of the departures from the conventional zoning district are not that dramatic, and others were. But I just wanted to throw all of them in. Since I didn't have time to negotiate them with the applicant, I wanted to make sure you were aware of what the departures were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, I hate to say this, but although the county and the applicant may be in agreement, my concern now is with the public knowing what they're agreeing on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We aren't done yet. We're still going through it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the only thing is, I guess that we're going to leave some of the areas that the staff and Richard seem to agree on, they're going to get together and come back to us on another document at another time. So I think the best way to approach it is to continue through this list, unless anybody else has a better idea. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off on number five. And the way that's left is you got R-l at 35 feet along the residential boundaries and then 45 feet for the others is suggested. Page 60 ~ .. ~~___<'. ..,........._N ,~,.,'_.._""..."..."" .~ .. ,_.~. 0...._"'''- ",_~,"",""".'.""'^ .........-'--_._- August 20, 2009 Does anybody have any concerns from this panel on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- want to discuss one thing. And I guess, Ray, you're the only I'd like to talk to. Is that -- we're discussing height here. In some of their site plans they show essentially that all their buildings will have parking underneath it. We've had PUDs in the past, and then we see the thing being built and we realize that they've taken advantage of the clause in the LDC that the County Manager can allow you not to count a story or the height or measure the height if you put your parking under the building. So if we -- when they're discussing height here, are they discussing height and then you're going to have the ability to do that later, or is this the real height, the expected height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can include the inclusive, but I think this was all -- all this happened before you had the term actual height actually added to the table. So the actual height is going to be governing the situation you just talked about. You have situations where you have standard zoning districts that the term actual height doesn't enter into the review of the building height. So I think the actual height takes care of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can be assured when we're discussing height here that that little phrase in the LDC, and I don't remember the exact location, but you know what I'm talking about, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. For the record, Ray Bellows. We're going to revise the table to show the actual that will include any underground parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so the Planning Commission knows, I'm not going to be taking notes for stipulations today, because Page 61 -.'--"" ~_..._"---,- - -"""",,-,"~"'--"",,-", />.~ """'~'''''''''' ,,~,,~,",-,;,...~ " - ~-~ ' -,,-, "'--"- August 20, 2009 I expect that at the end of the meeting today it's going to be continued. And then we'll do our stipulations after we see the final version, rather than try to list 30 or 40 or 50 stipulations today. With that, we'll go on to number six, minimum dis -- that one's been dropped, if I understand, J.D.? MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So six is out. And that's been taken care of by what kind of correction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was taken care of by the minimum distance of20 feet on the R-2 tract on our southern boundary. Because that's really where the issue arises. Because what you see is on our -- the remainder of our southern boundary is basically our preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me read number six. The minimum distance between group housing structures shall be one-half the building's height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry, wrong one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in the table on Exhibit B, group housing structures are 15 feet or one-half the building height under minimum side yard. So J.D., what was your intent of you writing this as far as where did you see the problem? MR. MOSS: Because what they were asking for was just 25 feet, and I was concerned about actual greater height. But we've discussed this in our meeting and we've agreed that 25 feet as the minimum standard would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying in this particular -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was looking at the wrong one when I made my comment, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We agree with J.D. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. Page 62 >...-,-~.,.."..,.."-, "'" ""-".-~.'-~ 111 "'-,-,.,.""..,,......'..," <~-- ,-"".".,.......~".<",--",.". ,...,"~-- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me on the table in Exhibit B, where is it you're referring to? Because this says minimum distance between group housing structures. So isn't that side yard as well? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under the side yard they already have 15 feet or one-half the building height. MR. MOSS: But on their document in the exhibit underneath group housing, or what they have ALF /CCRC, they were proposing just 20 feet. So there was a conflict between those two. MR. ARNOLD: The distance between structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the distance between structures, if it's -- is a minimum of 20 or 25 feet. But if they got -- no matter what the side yard, if it's two group housing units, the side yard prevails as well, 15 feet or half the building height. So really it's going to be 25 feet or half the building height. MR. MOSS: Right. I was concerned not only about the distance between buildings on the site but from the external property boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But if you put 25 feet in there as the minimum distance between structures, then wouldn't that also be the minimum side yard? MR. MOSS: Not from the external property boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but a side yard doesn't have to be from the external boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is one side yard, maybe. And so in other words -- and there really is a confusion. The distance between buildings is on a lot. One ownership, two buildings. Setbacks are totally different. Setbacks are from the property line to the building. So you don't always get what you want. Page 63 ~"""-' _~__~". 'm "...._,,"_ . tl _.___. _..."_.,-._...._~..- """',~._'_.~,-_.....~ "~~""-- August 20, 2009 I think you're going to find that one-half the building height to be a large setback on a 45-foot building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's saying that's 25. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, I don't think these things always end up getting developed. Richard, do you really subdivide this thing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the PUD process shouldn't be a subdivision process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, I think Mr. Schiffer's right. He's talking about it will be more than likely developed as one parcel, and we're talking about 25 feet between the structures on that one parcel. If we did subdivide it, then you would have the side yard from each of those lines that are created, and it would be more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because now you'd be talking about the side setback is measured by one-half -- 15 feet or one-half the building height, so you'd even have greater building separation in that case -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so with the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- than the 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- distance between structures changed to 25 feet, number six goes away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's take a IS-minute break to 10: 15 and we'll start on number seven when we get back. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody could please take their seats. Okay, we've had our break in the entertainment. We're going to come back and get back at it again. I have to ask everybody, including myself, to let's -- I've got to slow the tempo of the discussion down. Our court reporter's hands are already worn out. And she's a good lady, so I'm going to try to Page 64 -~"----,~ .' ,~..-.~- --~-,'_....... - <t' ..~.....,. """""~~'C"' -~,."",",~...... , .. - ,"",,,,....._, .. ' -~~......,-- August 20, 2009 accommodate and talk a little slower here today. So with that in mind, we left off on number seven. And again, we're going to go through for discussion -- we're going to go through the whole thing. This entire action's going to come back to us in two weeks for final review, and we're going to hear the public today. And hopefully with all the input the development team will come back with a little more, let's say, put together plan than what we've got here today. There's no -- the applicant does not agree with number seven. And it says, the first sentence in footnote number three in Exhibit B shall be revised to exclude multi-family in ALF or CCRC dwellings. The second sentence shall be deleted. Well, let's find out what the reason for disagreement is or where we're at with this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne, where are you? MR. ARNOLD: What's the question? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number three. Why are we disagreeing with it? MR. MOSS: Number seven. It was tied to number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number seven goes away with the corrections we made on the table -- MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for number six. Okay. Number eight, the minimum rear -- that one's in agreement. Rear yard setbacks for group housing structures shall be 20 feet; is that right? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? I'm sorry, I should have asked you earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John-David, the one concern I have is that when we have buffers and we have like setbacks, take a Page 65 ,..--- ~.~~~- - ,- .. -,....,.,._._-,,-,----~."-"-_..- 1_ ,'W' .., ",'~<" ~""--- W'__ ~--".._- August 20, 2009 rear setback, is the buffer allowed to be within that setback? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So on some of these single families, what would appear to be somebody's backyard is actually part of the buffer system? MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if I'm out there with my barbecue, I'm actually doing something wrong, correct? I mean -- so in other words we don't add on. So in other words if I've got a house 25 feet off the back of that property line, I've got a 10- foot yard, 10- foot little patio, a 10- foot -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- so in that I5-foot buffer, what is allowed to happen? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you mean what's allowed to happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you have a 25 -- let's say you have a 25-foot backyard and you have 15 feet of that to be a buffer. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you've got a IO-foot yard that isn't a buffer. If you wanted to put a swing set in that I5-foot area that is a buffer for your kids or you wanted to put a tool shed for your lawnmower, would you be allowed to do that? MR. MOSS: I don't think that would be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you utilize that 15 foot? Does anybody know what is permitted in that 15 foot? MR. MOSS: Would you put a fence to separate the buffer from the yard? MR. ARNOLD: Probably not. For the record, Wayne Arnold. The landscape buffer is recorded as an easement landscape buffer easement. It is also allowed by code up to 50 percent of the buffer to be utilized for water management and other open space. Page 66 ^---~'""~-'"~,-"~----,-..._~_."'--'_...< _M""'-''''''''__''. W' .,,-,.,'^ "-", _..~"--.,, I", l'" ~ . ,._._"~'H__""_'. .,_.-....~...."'""--- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In some of these, the rear yard is 15 feet. So that means if I reach my hand out the back window I'm in the buffer. So maybe we should be doing something about that? I mean, if you had a back door to a house, you're stepping out, the stoop, the steps are in the buffer, which they're not allowed to be, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, if you look at the map you've got on here where your R-l is against the other residential properties which are up against the lake, your rear setback on all your properties is 15 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buffer in that area, I can't read it on this plan, but I think it's 10 or 15 feet, is it not? MR. ARNOLD: It's a 10-foot Type A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have a five-foot backyard. MR. ARNOLD: Potentially. You would have a five-foot wide usable area, if that's the scenario that would develop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually it says a IO-foot wide Type A buffer or 15 wide Type B buffer to be determined at time of plat or SDP. MR. ARNOLD: And that notation is on there because that tract also allowed multi-family or the group housing uses that J.D. referred to. So if you have single-family to single-family at the Cook PUD, for instance, it's a IO-foot wide buffer, it becomes a IS-foot wide buffer if you have one of the alternate uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All of your uses have a IS-foot setback, as Mr. Schiffer pointed out. So in all cases he's correct in this -- and his concern is that your backyard is all buffer. Virtually unusable, except for the limitations in the Land Development Code, which at some point I'd sure like to get an input from staff, whether it be this meeting or next, what a buffer could be used for if it's also Page 67 __.._w.^..~..~...,,_.__.,,^.._._ " .' V -".._,.~,-~~ "-,,.>,..,., ._..,.~~.. - ~..'",-_.- August 20, 2009 considered a backyard. Because I think it doesn't -- if it can't be used for much, I'm wondering if you're really giving these people any backyard in the units that they're buying. And if that's what your intention is, how -- I mean, that's fine. I'm just kind of curious as to what it means for practical purposes. That's a good catch, Mr. Schiffer. MR. MOSS: I mean, we could just include external property boundary setbacks. There haven't been any included in this PUD document. And a lot of times you see that they're just simple standards from each property boundary. But they haven't done that, they've just done these setback yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that some of the projects that have come into us have had -- I have one here somewhere, for example, I think it's -- one of the other ones, Serreno (sic) or one of the other ones we've seen recently -- MR. MOSS: Yeah, Siena Lakes was that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they had a setback from the property line. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: And I think we probably could do that. I think maybe if it's from the PUD boundary, maybe we would establish it. Then if it makes you more comfortable if that 25 feet is from the PUD boundary. Because there could be some internal yards where the 15 feet may work, Mr. Strain. But I think the issue seems to be the distance behind a structure where it's our external property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think so. I think we're going to have to look at a perimeter property boundary. MR. ARNOLD: And we could do that. I mean, we have in other projects established a PUD boundary setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you have. That's where Brad's probably getting at, so -- okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this one is still open. Page 68 ~."., ----_.~-,...".,,~""'"--- .~."_._.~_..... _...~-..,,,.,-.~_.'_.-.,-"- "',_.._-,-_.."~~"-"" '--""'.-.--- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number eight is still open. They're going to establish property boundaries. Number nine, minimum side yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures. That one you agreed to would be half the building height or 15 feet. That's for the multi-family. Number 10, you agreed to that one, 12-foot separation between the principal structures as maintained. Number 11, you disagree. The minimum front yard setbacks for multi-family housing structures on the R-I, R-2 tracts shall be 30 feet. And by the way, has anybody else got any questions up through number II? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, J.D., this 30 feet, though, is the front yard requirement of a standard zoning district. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally in the PUDs we do 23 feet and 15, if it's a side entry garage. MR. MOSS: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's been acceptable to every PUD that's come through here. I don't know why this one would be any different. So I'm not sure number 11 is not -- it's not typical of your PUD language. MR. MOSS: Right. And I just put that in to make you all aware, this wasn't a radical departure from what's normally permitted. But I just wanted to make you all aware that there was a discrepancy here. Again, had this process worked out like it normally does, we would have discussed these things with the applicant. But I didn't have the luxury of doing that in this instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 12 and 13 are the same kind of thing; is that correct? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Planning Page 69 >-'.....- _._.~..,~., .--.',"".,", > - ".~~-,' ~_'~M_ August 20, 2009 Commission have questions up to No. 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 14, side yard -- front yard setback may reduce -- this really is the same -- if we go 23 feet for front entry and 15 feet for side entry, do we need No. 14? MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 15, minimum side yard and rear yard for accessory structures in R-l and R-2 tracts should be the same as those required by the LDC. Well, we usually allow -- PUDs are actually made to have deviations from the zoning districts. That's why we use them. So at whatever point you guys settle on your communications on that, we'll review it next time when you come back with some setbacks that you're proposing, okay? MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixteen apparently is an agreement. Mixed use buildings shall have a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60. Now, I'd like to know where that applies. What tract would you be putting that in? MR. ARNOLD: That I believe is what's in the activity center labeled the MU tract on the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that would only go in that MU section on-- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The set -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, do you know the Page 70 ~"''' ---,~- "-,.....,--~-.._..,,~- -. -. ".,.~,-.. _...,-,._~~~."<~......."""",-~~,,-,-,,,,---~. ,--.---...-...-".,-,.,----'-""""'-'- August 20, 2009 difference in elevation between the average elevation around Santa Barbara and Davis and the site? MR. ARNOLD: I don't. Let me check just a second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason I asked, since we are incorporating actual height, actual height is measured from that, it's not measured the same as zoned height. And I guess Ray, could you try to get that in all these applications? Because, for example, somebody could have a property that goes down. And what seems like a small actual height could be a tall building. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Schiffer, I think what I recall from our Free State project that's across Santa Barbara to the west, the finished elevation is going to be very close to the elevation of Santa Barbara Boulevard. So I think the distance measurement isn't like you're going to get a freeboard of a few feet, it's going to be close to the same elevation. MR. BELLOWS: Is it going to include understory parking in your actual height? MR. ARNOLD: We can add that inclusion, if it's necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, it would have to, because actual height's measured -- MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make sure it's clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- from the average crown of the road, so that's why we -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- invented it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., the correction that No. 16 would effect on the table -- the table's on Page 12. The PUD document's labeled page -- table two. Can you point out so we're very specific as to what elements under maximum height, and I assume it's the first column under commercial mixed use, residential, principal uses that's being Page 71 n"_ ._......,".,.,..,.._h.._._'_,.,_..",'_,._..~.",. ~__..~'.h _.._....,._-~-~-......... ~'--.,----,,-,.''"._..- '.'---- August 20, 2009 suggested for change? MR. MOSS: That's right. If you look under commercial mixed use residential, go down to the third to the last cell. They've got zoned height at 60 feet for buildings, including residential, and then 50 feet for commercial only. And if you look at the actual heights below that, 70 feet for buildings, including residential. So a proper mixed use building and then 60 feet for purely commercial buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And your changes would affect those numbers. MR. MOSS: Right. They would be just dropped by 10 feet, each of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at 50 and 40 and 60 and 50; 60 and 50 being actual, 50 and 40 being zoned? MR. MOSS: Well, for No. 16, just 50. Sixty should change from -- to 50 for buildings, including residential. And then the actual height should drop to 60 feet from 70 feet for buildings, including residential. That's just what 16 applies to. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it only applied to the mixed use buildings themselves that would have both residential and commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what -- but then commercial buildings would stay at 50? MR. MOSS: Right. And an actual height of60. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you got no difference between the two sets of buildings. Your residential, if it's above commercial or your commercial solid are all the same height, is that -- MR. MOSS: Right, uh-huh. Everything will just be 60 feet-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so then these tables -- MR. MOSS: -- zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- got to change again. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a zoned height of 50, which is your actual usable height. Page 72 """""___'~".~""""''''''''>'''''''''''''"_~_'O<_" "t _____ ~...','n_~O'O'_"" ..-_,.,.~...""._" _._.,_.,._,"-._'~-' August 20, 2009 MR. MOSS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then 60 feet -- and I'm saying this for benefit of the public -- 60 feet is the roof elements and the artistic stuff that goes on top to make the buildings look -- try to hide their ugly appearance. I'm being facetious. Let's go back to No. 17 -- or 18 then. Minimal lot widths for any purely multi-family residential building that may develop on the MU tract shall be 75 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're doing it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 18's in agreement. Sorry. Nineteen, 700 square feet is in agreement. And 20, the revision to the gross square footage of 262 is in agreement. Any questions from the Planning Commission on that group? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, we use the word leasable area. What are we really meaning by that? I mean, first of all, does that mean they couldn't do condo ownership, or are we trying to define an area other than the SDP requirement of exterior wall, we're actually within the building itself? What does leasable area mean? MR. MOSS: Wayne, I don't know if there was a reason you added leasable in there. I was just reusing the language that you all had included on your exhibit. So I would be fine to just changing it to just square feet of area. MR. ARNOLD: That's fine. MR. MOSS: But is there a reason -- okay. MR. ARNOLD: No, I agree, that's fine. It is confusing. I know we had this question somewhere else. It's just when you have commercial space, it's based on leasable area, typically, but just as well to eliminate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do have different areas, the building code. Even within the LDC we have the area that the Page 73 -"".,.._-""._--'.~'.~..-_..,." __.w._._,,_.'> .._ ,_._,_.._ --- August 20, 2009 parking requires, and then the SDP requires the exterior of the building. So is your intent to be the interior of the building? Which don't run away real quick. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think it matters in this case, Mr. Schiffer. I think we're fine with just changing it to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There might be a proforma somewhere that just frowned, but -- MR. ARNOLD: No, I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, No. 21, no outdoor music or other amplified sound shall be permitted. You're in disagreement with that. Any comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can only tell you from my perspective that's a good thing, not a bad thing. So I know you disagree with that. MR. ARNOLD: We disagreed and suggested an 11 :00 cessation time for any outdoor -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would that be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would that be like a -- you'd have to obtain a permit for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if it's in the zoning document, I don't even know if they can get a permit for it. They'd need a variance, wouldn't they? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I mean per event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit's in the zoning document that there's no outdoor music or other amplified sounds that are being permitted, how do you get a permit for something that's not accepted by zoning? MR. BELLOWS: You wouldn't be able to. You'd have to amend the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Page 74 .."...,.__w...._ ~..._~._. ~ ...... ,...,~.~_.._.""M'_~., -, Wl.... "','N'.., ."...,"'''-,.-...... _._._...~.~. ,.,',., -.."._.._--~,,- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But I mean if it were in, would it just be allowed any time, or would you have to obtain a permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't. If it's in the-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, but if it's not -- if it's in the PUD that you can have it. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there's a -- you're talking about the noise permit for outdoor entertainment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they would have to go through that process. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there wasn't an exclusion, that's what you mean. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. MR. ARNOLD: And keep in mind too, I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. ARNOLD: -- we are in an activity center for this portion. And if you are going to have mixed uses, I think that you have other projects in Collier County that are developed where having maybe a form of outdoor entertainment can be a very good thing for the community itself. And to preclude any outdoor amplified sound seems awfully restricted for an area that could greatly benefit from having even something that is a temporary event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is the intent of this the residential and mixed use? I mean, you're not differentiating where that occurs. I mean, so are we trying to keep some kid from -- MR. ARNOLD: I think I understood that to be the mixed use tract, the prohibition. But I think -- keep in mind, we're at Davis and Santa Barbara, two six-lane roads. We're adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club on one Page 75 '~-'.~ '~O"'__""_ - -".".".~._.",--" _..,,-""",' '.'"'_''C''''''''''' "~",'- ~.."._--,-- August 20, 2009 side that's commercial and we have commercial shopping center that's being developed to our west. And we might have internal residences on this tract as well. But as I think you all didn't see it, but there was an alcohol waiver permit that went for Mercato up in North Naples, and there are deed restrictions typically in those units when located within a mixed use community that discloses that they're subject to an active street scene, possibly outdoor activities and things like that. But of course there are limitations on the hours of operation, because you don't want to be a nuisance to the neighbors that may be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Wayne, we -- in our new noise ordinance we did make places like Mercato subject to the noise ordinance, which doesn't go along with what you just said. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: How about if we limit the -- any establishment having outdoor entertainment to the units facing Santa Barbara or Davis but no outdoor entertainment for any buildings facing residential tracts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think let's finish the comments from the Planning Commission, then you guys are going to come back to us anyway. Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to add to that little piece. Not too, too long ago Stock Development came in and sought to have mixed use. And they -- if I'm not mistaken, we gave them permission to have outdoor entertainment up to a certain hour at night. And I don't think that we forced them to have it internal to any set of structures. And that's right on a lake and that sound will carry right through all of the area. We did limit the amount of decibels to the ordinance that we have for sound, but we did grant that. So I think that's something to Page 76 -.'" ---,-"....-......-.'''--"''-''-. "~"'-"""'-".~-'_.._... 11"__ . '~,,,,,"_,,,'.,d.....,,,,",,';_" .. .""...,._"~.,,,.."," ,,,~.,,._~-- August 20, 2009 contemplate in this whole matter. To preclude entirely I don't know is the ideal either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I was just going to ask Mr. Arnold about what had happened, because I don't recall at Mercato. Which again is a mixed use situation with residents over commercial. MR. ARNOLD: That PUD document I don't believe had any limitation on outdoor activities. But their own homeowner association documents do have disclosures in them that allow the buyers to understand that they may be subject to outdoor noise and things like that. Then internally they establish hours of operation and things like that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But there are hours of operation, right? And what are those? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think they're established for that in the PUD. Because I think that -- the restaurants I believe primarily are closing at 11 :00 p.m. on weekend nights. But I also believe the Blue Martini that opened is open till 2:00 a.m. in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? MR. ARNOLD: But I don't believe they have outdoor music until 2:00 a.m., no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, there's one thing, is that everything within Mercato is within an association that they could address these problems. This concern is with neighbors in adjoining properties that don't have that association to do that with. So what do you think would happen -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, they don't have that right at Pelican Marsh either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you think would happen behind the Boys Club and Girls Club? MR. ARNOLD: That property is zoned commercial. I don't Page 77 _..,..,...,~......",~~ -,~,--.~,.'< -.,.,.-- ,_"~_.....~'.. -,0>,'<' ,~_.... ~,..,.,"..-~--- August 20, 2009 know what's intended. I don't know if that's their preserve. It's vegetated presently. I don't if that functions as water management and preserve area for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the mixed use area here is pretty isolated from the existing residences. So I don't -- you know, if we're worried about the residences in the project, Wayne's solution through the association would be the way to -- MR. ARNOLD: I mean, there certainly -- I know Rich represents the folks that own the Bayfront Center in Naples, and I know that they have a different process in the City of Naples, but there are disclosures I know there as well for homeowners to understand that there may be activities that are going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you guys know there's a concern over the issue, you're going to be coming back to us. Why don't you work something out with staff and then we'll review it when it comes back. That will -- because we could talk a lot about it, but until you guys sit down with it, it's probably not going to get any further. Number 22, there's a modification that unless the MU becomes all commercial, then that would -- then you could have those larger stores. Any comments, questions on that? MR. ARNOLD: We had drafted some language, and I know Rich mentioned this in his presentation, I think I gave a copy of that draft to J.D. But it essentially says that you can't put residential above any commercial building that contains uses that exceed a C-3 type use. And then if we had a C-4 or C-S type use separate from a residential building, we'd have to build a IS-foot wide type -- I think it's C landscape buffer, which includes a wall. It may be Type B. Either B or C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think during the discussion with J.D. on No. 22, these superstores, the warehouses, the Home Depots, the Lowe's, the Wal-Marts, if one went in there, you couldn't put it in Page 78 '._.......,.,,""'..............m l' ."",,_,___,0<',. ...,.._"."'_....._~>""-~,...^ ~~, -,,-,-,..- ",-",_,,~'<<~'-'-"'~" -,., " ,.,---~--- August 20, 2009 there unless the entire MU tract became all commercial. That's what I think you all had just talked about a little while -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's exactly what he's written. And I think in our development scenario you could -- you have a tract that's about 18 acres in size. One of those uses, all the water management function, except for some water attenuation, is occurring on the other tract. So you don't need 15 percent of the site to be used for that. So we can add a little bit higher intensity commercial. But you might be able to put a Costco, for instance, on 10 acres, in which case you would have eight acres left that would it be inappropriate to think that there might be a standalone office building that could have residential or a standalone residential building, for instance, on the remainder tract. And we're trying to offer a scenario where there would be adequate buffering, should that occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be interesting to see what you come back with then. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. 23, no construction contractors. You talked about intending offices only. If you -- your example I think was the Kraft building. I had to go there for a meeting not too long ago. And if I remember, in the back they've got more than offices. MR. ARNOLD: They do. In that particular scenario that PUD contemplated that they would have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's not a good example. MR. ARNOLD: Well, from -- it's their corporate headquarters building is what I intended to say. Antaramian had an office building there. I mean, there are other specialty contractors. The Galleria collection -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're trying to do, just word it properly when it comes back. No. 24, 25, 26 and 27 are all environmental issues that you all Page 79 <, ...,."...,~-"~.--._~~~.~,.,_. . ~~.,,,.;........... ___..~ ...,,,~,..., 'd, 'c...~'"."'"". .. ~"-->;._.,,.,.,-_.~ ". ---~'".~,-~.. August 20, 2009 agree to. My understanding of that properly? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And No. 28 is a well site. I don't know why you're being asked for a well site. How does that meet the intent of any provision in the code that requires a well site? MR. MOSS: Public utilities, in their review for this petition, asked that this be included as a condition of approval. They didn't give me any further explanation, I just did as they requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they paying for it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't say that. MR. MOSS: It doesn't say that they are, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, this is another one of those moves that I think is patently illegal and I'm not going to be in support of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had thought that there kind of had been an agreement reached that if they're going to require a dedication of land that there would be a PUD provision that says they would pay for it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I thought, too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That didn't seem to make it into the stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on the principle. Whether we like a project or not, it all has to be treated fairly. And if every department starts to decide they can make exactions of the applicants without limitation as these are, we're getting nowhere. And I think that's as unfair as your heights were to start with on this project, so -- MR. MOSS: I'll get some clarification from my next staff report and then actually ask someone from that department to come, if they want to defend their position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and they've done that before. But I still, I'm going to ask them where in the code there's a requirement to Page 80 -",--.-_._"'- ".""..,,,s._~~.....,_ "...... .'__w.,,,,_,'__.,, 'II "1' _'_'""._~.,'" ~-'''''''--' 'W"_~__ August 20, 2009 do that and how is that -- where's the rational nexus between their exactions and the application. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just reading what 28 actually says in the second sentence. And what it's saying is they want a meeting because the 30 by 30-foot well site easement doesn't satisfy the LDC. So obviously there's something more to it than just an extraction like we have seen in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If there's an easement for a well site, it has to be a certain size. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm more concerned about how the easement got there in the first place. So that's where my point is on that. Anyway, I think where we left off then, we finished the discussion of the recommendations, if the rest of the Planning Commission is satisfied. And we left off with the applicant's presentation. I believe you were wrapping it up with the exception of this interaction between the recommendation. So now it's staffs presentation. If you have any more to say, J.D., now is the time to say it. MR. MOSS: No, sir. Really, I'd just like to put on the record that with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, that this project would be consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and let's -- can we talk about the deviation they're requesting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're into now the general issues on the whole project, so why don't we, just like we normally do, go Page 81 0..'..............._..,; .,,",~,..,,",...... ~._.~..,.~..." _........~"....." -~"- o",_~._,..,.,. .,_. . -"""-"~-,,,,,,"._'.- August 20, 2009 through our general concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The deviation, you want to -- I calculate out there's around a 2,700-foot length to the cul-de-sac. And you want to put traffic calming I guess to quiet it down. But the reason I think the cul-de-sac requirement's there is for emergency vehicles. And traffic calming is a nightmare for emergency vehicles. So why can't you add another turnaround midway in there somewhere? A lot of other communities, you design -- you know, you have at least on this, the ERP submittal, you show a pretty -- I'm trying not to use the word boring -- you know, site plan where you run everything Fort Dix sty Ie down that road. MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair. If you recall, I think it was Buttonwood, Mr. Schiffer, that you raised the same issue. We had a similar issue with not an ability to interconnect to the south, and we also have had a preserve. And I think we agreed that we would provide a mid -- emergency -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Turnaround. MR. ARNOLD: -- type turnaround somewhere. And I can go back, and maybe that language would be appropriate here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But we can certainly look at that and I think accommodate an ability to make sure an emergency vehicle can turn without going to the end of the cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're going to locate that approximating in the mid-point; in other words, not at the other end. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think midpoint would probably work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the Page 82 .^~.~,- -_.. .~." _._...._.....,-...].,-."""".~,_, l' _...'._~.""..,~'"< ~. _"c' '., \ .. ....,_.,.~,....,..,.,.,._,....w=..,,,~...___~_.__"",,.~.......""... ~"._.,,,,,,,...- August 20, 2009 overall -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- project? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Wayne, no traffic calming devices? I mean, the fact that your design is like a drag strip might be a problem. But no -- because traffic calming devices are not -- I'm surprised the fire department would -- actually in emergency EMS would want to let you do that, but -- MR. ARNOLD: We were happy. I don't know that it's an issue for staff. But if you want to eliminate the necessity of putting in the traffic calming in favor of the turnaround, I mean, we would be amenable to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the condition that emer -- EMS and fire signs off on your calming design, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any general questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I need some explanations on a couple of things. On Page 21 of the staff report, in the neighborhood information meeting discussion the property owners expressed concerns. And the last bullet says one of their concerns was a type of commercial uses proposed. It says, residents were told that C-1 through C-4 uses were proposed and would be of the kind to attract surrounding residents as well as those that that have opposed MPUD. Yet we find you're asking for up to C-5 uses. What happened between the neighborhood informational meeting and today's meet -- or your application, I guess? Why the discrepancy? MR. ARNOLD: One, I didn't write the language that appears on your Page 21. But secondly, I think Rich and I recall that we talked about general commercial uses. The list of uses were also available. Page 83 _.~-~._-,~ - .......;,._,~ -"-"~,,, ~ ~.<. . H""'"_ .._'- ---~- August 20, 2009 And I think when you look at that list of uses, there are very few C-5 type uses. I mean, when you look at those uses, some of those clearly are C-4. Some might be a C-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But did you say or someone at that meeting representing the applicant say that they were going to be proposed to be C-l through C-4? MR. ARNOLD: I don't recall saying that specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., do you know where this information came from? MR. MOSS: I do know where it came from. I wasn't the planner on the project at that time. That was Willie Brown who wrote those notes from the first NIM meeting. I was only at the second NIM meeting. And I would like to say that the C-5 uses that they are proposing are -- we've restricted them now. They're the Super Target, those sorts of things, and also those construction SIC codes that are in the PUD document, which they've agreed to turn into just offices for those construction contractors rather than sites for your typical construction uses. So they are mitigated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to be getting into the uses in a minute or two then. On the disclosure of interest information, you have the name and address of the limited partnership, but you don't provide us with the owners of the limited partnership, so it would be hard for this board to see if there's any conflicts. Do you have that document that you could pass out showing who owns this project? MR. ARNOLD: I do. It is in my packet so I don't know what happened in terms of yours. But I did have a list identifying the owners of Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't get it. Maybe the rest of you did. Mine didn't have it, so -- MR. ARNOLD: I'll put it up on the visualizer, if you'd like, but I Page 84 ~""'_.""".' .~'._~~ , ~ ..".,,~. ........._...-_0 ~._..._..~_o ,"-~_..,,-_. -'--~'- August 20, 2009 have copies -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just leave -- well, that or just so the court reporter's got one, that's all. MR. ARNOLD: You can see Ray has placed that on the visualizer. There are four owners, three being members of the Hubschman family; the other is Teryl Beyrent. They all own a 25 percent interest in the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Under your PUD, Exhibit A, the permitted uses, under the mixed use tracts uses you have a lot of amusement and recreation services. A couple of them I got questions on. I did not bring my SIC Code. I can bring it next time. But under 7999, if I'm not mistaken that's a catchall for everything from firing ranges to rollercoaster rides. And I'm not really think (sic) it's a good idea to leave it open like it is in here. If you have specific uses on 7999 that you would like, just like we have on other requests we've asked you to list those and not group them. Why don't we go back to doing that here. Are you -- the idea of a bowling alley on your property, that's a pretty big attractor, it's a little bit noisy. Is that something you're -- a must have for you guys? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I think that we're certainly willing to look at that entire list. And you're right, it is a catchall under the amusement groups. And there are a lot of things there that obviously don't make sense, like a fishing pier, for instance. So, I mean, I would like to take a look at that list and have an opportunity to discuss that with our client, presuming that we're coming back for another regular look at these . . reVISIons -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think you'd want today's vote based on what we've heard today, so I'd think you'd want to come back. So it's -- we're going to be your request (sic), so I would hope you'd do that before we're over with. Page 85 ".....~..--... ,-"~""","~.,,,~~- '0' "M~___ ,"~.'~' -0 ..- -~ __eo'''''' ~,,''''-''--'~'.,,~- August 20, 2009 Under automotive repair services and parking, you have car washes as an accessory use to convenient stores. Car washes are pretty heavily regulated because they are -- usually they produce a lot of noise. I'm not too comfortable with that, but if you've got some argument that this is a better place than others for them, then fine. If you insist on leaving it in, just be prepared to discuss it next time. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I would suggest that we are in an activity center, and to limit it only to the accessory that you'd find like on many of those convenient stores that have a single bay car wash. I don't know that they are going to be offensive to our neighbors. And there are other restrictions in the LDC that govern car washes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your number five you have building construction. I'm assuming that's the one in which you intend to be office use only? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, under number nine you have construction groups. Are you assuming the same thing there? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under number six you have building materials, hardware and garden supply. Now, you're looking at lumberyards and things like that, but then that would apply to like a Lowe's or Home Depot is what you're thinking of, not a Raymond Lumber or a Naples Lumber Supply? I mean, are you looking at a lumber yard or are you looking at a lumberyard as part of a commercial operation in regards like a Home Depot or something? MR. ARNOLD: I think ours is more in the context of a Lowe's/Home Depot would be what we've complicated. And I think that's where there's also confusion on whether or not that type of use is a C-4 or C-5 use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Because you find them there as one being Page 86 -~","~,." ~~,",'=,,,,,"~,~ ilOIQ...... ",,_.C<M' ,,,....."".~"'"-;;'. .. """""""'C "-._'~-"""""-."- August 20, 2009 constricted in a C-4 zone category and there's another that's located in a C-5. So I don't really know. But those are not typically lumberyards where you look at a home improvement superstore, for instance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to take that group 5211 and strike out the first part of it so that you leave home improvements, superstores that sell lumber or other building materials included and not leave it so that you could have a self-standing lumberyard, I think that might help that category. MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair and easy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 30 and No. 40. Number 40 is videotape rental. I'm sure that includes DVDs and like your standard -- I don't know what the names of those groups are that do videos, and that's fine, but No. 30 says motion picture and video tape distribution. What's the difference? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure I know the difference. But I know they are two separate categories. I can read you what 7822, which is motion picture and video tape distribution is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Let's see what that says. I need Mr. Y ovanovich's glasses. No, I'm fine, just kidding. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I can read it. It's not for sale to the general public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's wholesale motion picture and video tape distribution? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: It says establishments primarily engaged in distribution, rental or sale of theatrical and non-theatrical motion picture films or in the distribution of video tapes and discs, except to general public. Establishments engaged in both are classified under 7812. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's someone -- they're not making movies there, are they? Page 87 o~,~'"_, '1 .... ",.,'-"">o-",,"y" . -""<<'''....,' "'..-.,.'....,. _._._.~.,- August 20, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: No. You know, I think probably we could just eliminate that, if that's an issue, and just stick with number four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might help clarify. I'm worried about what kind of movies could be made, but that's fine. MR. ARNOLD: And I think it's probably appropriate -- it's not in here, but I know Ms. Homiak's made this comment on others, I mean, to restrict this so that we have no adult oriented rentals or sales. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to come up ifit didn't-- okay, good. Then the last question I have is on your Exhibit F, your list of developer commitments. Transportation. One of the items that we recently addressed in the Siena, I think it was, project is we limited the traffic count to those that were portrayed in the TIS. So it was capped at peak hour and some other standard that John knows or Nick knows. And I'd like to follow suit from that document and put that language in here as well. And I think it was the Siena Lakes one that we just finished with. MR. ARNOLD: You just had it on Good Turn this morning on your consent as well. That was an addition that was made. It referred to additional trips and also peak hour new trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what that does is it ties you to what's in the TIS that you provided to this board today as part of this package. So that as Nick has told us in the past, the TIS's should be done for the most intense use, but yet they never are. So this locks you into whatever use you used in that TIS in regards to capping the trip load. So I'm sure staff will get with you if you don't know the language. And I think you just acknowledged you did, so that's taken care of. That's the extent of questions I had. Does anybody else have any? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, in our packet there was Page 88 .'~'" ._~~. 'OM_.. "----- ......'" .., -_.._~.,~.._"- "-~"~- August 20, 2009 a site plan that's called the ERP submittal over -- it's a drainage plan. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In it, it shows that the intention on the mixed use is to build three three-story parking garages and then have three other buildings that are retail or at least one one-story retail and the rest -- is that what you're intending to do? MR. ARNOLD: Not necessarily, Mr. Schiffer. I think this -- for the ERP submittal, we put forth the most intense development scenario for water quality purposes that you can. So we showed it as a highly intense mixed use development that could have parking garages and things like that nature. It may not develop that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it did, what would be the setbacks for those parking garage? Would they be considered accessory structures or principal structures? MR. ARNOLD: Let me look at my development table. I think it's probably going to just be one of the commercial or mixed use buildings. It would have a minimum setback from Santa Barbara of 25 feet, according to the development table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, so we -- this drawing does exist. So we do live with the potential of quite a few hundred feet of parking garage along Santa Barbara. MR. ARNOLD: Is the concern height or use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the concern is just the look, you know. But anyway, that's your potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the parking garages have to meet the architectural criteria? MR. MOSS: Yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that at least helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we know now Mr. Schiffer doesn't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean parking garages is Page 89 .,-_.~~ ---,-p .""..._,,"----,'-->~,., ..-'-.~---- August 20, 2009 a pretty limited protection, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions or any issues in our package for the applicant or for the staff before we go to public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have about five. The first speaker-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'll just come up-- MR. BELLOWS: -- Richard Rogan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to one of the most convenient podiums to you, we'll -- as your name's called. Go ahead, Ray. THE COURT REPORTER: None of them have been sworn in. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: None of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody wishing to speak, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. I thought we -- I didn't know they did earlier. Thank you, Bob. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. ROGAN: I seem to have lost something here. If you'll give me a minute. Well, let me introduce myself while I'm fumbling around here. My name's Richard Rogan. Can you hear that? Better? I'm the president of the Cypress Point Homeowners Association. And let me -- I hauled this thing all the way from home, we better use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, he'll need that walk-around . mIC. MR. ROGAN: Is that on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. ROGAN: Cypress Point is the 101 single-family homes that run down this side of Naples Heritage, and therefore are the homes opposite the common property line between Naples Heritage and Page 90 '~".,-,~,~"_... .<'^.....~,.,. ^-<...... ".""..._...~,.w~..~.,.. 'U'_ ...--.-'--.- August 20, 2009 Taormina. Just to set that into some perspective. I'm going to leave that up because I want to use it a little later as well. I'm also on the board of trustees for Naples Heritage for the master association, and so I'm basically here representing both. I'd like to start with a couple of pictures. I guess we'll have to do them one at a time. What that represents is that's the view of the site from our side, all right, from the Cypress Point side and looking across the lake. If you just flip to the other one, they're both just different views. I thought it would be useful to start by positioning what it is that we're looking at and what it is that we're interested in trying to preserve in some form or another. We recognize that the development is -- you know, development of any kind of going to have its impact, and it will for the most part all be negative. But we're asking you to help us protect as much as we can. That particular area is significantly inhabited by a variety of wildlife. We've got bald eagles and osprey on the one side; we've got bears, deer and panther on the other side of that extreme. So it's a very active area from a wildlife standpoint, and we just wanted to set that in perspective, along with the visual. In an attempt to try to protect at least the visual part, we're asking for a significant vegetation buffer. And what I've heard here this morning makes me even more concerned than when I arrived and didn't know what I was about to ask for. And I'd like to -- you know, rather than deal with type A's, type B's, 15 feet and setbacks, all of which was very interesting this morning but well beyond my ability to keep up, again, another couple of pictures that I'd like to use. And this represents -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Before we change those pictures? Ray, before we change those pictures, may I ask, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. Page 91 -,..,,- -.'-' ""-~<._..._- --."....-.". .,,--,",,"'- ~,._"'~",,- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that that strip of waterway that you're looking at? MR. ROGAN: Yes. What you saw are-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that that strip right along there? MR. ROGAN: That's right. What you saw is -- the first picture is a picture from -- the first picture is shot from this end, all right, back at the property. The property's here, Firano, the Toll Brothers development is here. We'll talk about that as well. One picture's shot from this direction and another picture is shot from that direction. But basically the property under consideration is right there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so the waterway is in fact on your property. MR. ROGAN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. ROGAN: Yes, it is. In fact, there's waterway, utility easement and then the property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. ROGAN: There's also a service road that runs down this area here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MR. ROGAN: There are -- there's, you know, a number of examples of the kind of buffer that we would like to see put up there. And here's a picture of the buffer at Madison Park, which is on Davis Boulevard, just immediately across from the entrance to Naples Heritage. Frankly they've done an extraordinary job of in our view putting in the proper kind of buffer. So, you know, first set of pictures, what are we starting with, second set of pictures, what is it that we could live with. And that's what we think is an example. As to what the vegetation is, what we're more interested in is Page 92 ,.-- . ,.~~...... -~~'.'"-'--'~"'-'^' ^ ..,-- August 20, 2009 height and density. Density becomes a significant issue along that lake from a security standpoint, particularly as -- again, I listened this morning and one of my fellow residents points out, obviously there's the prospect for children to be living there. We're going to have some liability exposure associated with children coming through and into the lake. So it's a visual, it's a preserve and it's a security issue that we think needs to be seriously contemplated when we talk about the buffer. Also of significant importance to us is that the buffer be built before construction. I've got two more pictures. As I mentioned earlier, we have that Toll Brothers Firano development there. At the time that that was constructed, we have -- we were granted or got a commitment from Toll Brothers to establish a buffer. We didn't, as I understand it, didn't ask that it be required that it be built ahead of time and so we now are well past our second year with no buffer, looking at what virtually is a construction wasteland in fact. With the passage of time and the growth of vegetation, the pictures actually portray it to be better looking than it is. And certainly once construction begins again we're going to have the dust, the noise and no buffer. So having been burned once by accepting the notion of a restoration of a buffer, we now have ample motivation to say no, we really want the buffer in before construction begins. Otherwise we may be confronted with the same thing that we have with Toll Brothers and Firano. The -- I was -- I've saved you -- or the early discussion about two-story versus three-story has saved you an awful lot of hearing from us on that three-story issue, and we certainly appreciate that getting settled in advance. I just want to be sure, however, that I understand it. And I heard you say a number of times 35-foot total height. And as a layman and a Page 93 ~,- --" ".~"._~. ---- August 20,2009 pedestrian, I assume that's 35 feet from the ground to the highest point in the building. That's what we're talking about at this stage? I see a shaking of heads. I guess I'm interested in clarity. Our interpretation is that there won't be anything higher on that building than 35 feet if it's two stories. If that's not the case, I guess we're not really excited about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., I think if you could just address that question, that's a good question, we'd certainly appreciate the answer. MR. MOSS: Yes, that is actually something that we'll have to clarify with the developer. The new commitment that they've offered today does say two stories and 35 feet, but they didn't specify whether that would be zoned height or actual height, so I'm assuming -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might suggest that we match it up to Naples Heritage so that they got no different than what Naples Heritage has. And that way I think it would be fair. If you can do whatever you do, they can do to that extent too. MR. ROGAN: That's true. Which is the reason why I wanted to put this map up. We have four-story structures at Naples Heritage, but there's a significant difference, and I'd like to illustrate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was speaking, by the way, in relationship to the product actually built in Naples Heritage against the property . Yes, I know you've got higher standards, but that's not what's built against the property. You've got a much lower product against the product (sic). MR. ROGAN: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so what I was looking at is the product standards they use in that strip of single- family residential in Naples Heritage is the same height restrictions they ought to be looking at for that row along the project that we're talking about, at least that's my thought. And that might be a good starting point before Page 94 ,~"",..., ,--q-- August 20, 2009 you come back to us next time. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets you-- MR. ROGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where you're trying to go. MR. ROGAN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one question on height. When they say the zoned height, that would actually go to the middle of the roof. It's the average height of the roof that gives you that. So essentially the peak of the roof could go above that. MR. ROGAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actual height is essentially from the center of the road to the top of everything. There's nothing above actual height. MR. ROGAN: Okay. I guess the major concern was this discussion about underground parking and whether 35 feet is really 45 feet. We certainly want to guard against that. Thank you very much for that clarification. I wasn't -- there was a lot of discussion during the 35-foot talking about within 100 feet of something. And I guess if there was a diagram that would clarify that, or I notice that aerial that you have I think is probably the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was within 100 feet of their property line. So if you go to their property line up against your lake and you go about 100 feet back, which is almost to that road, they couldn't have anything over that two-story limitation in that 100- foot area. MR. ROGAN: So starting from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that darker area. That darker area generally would be the restricted area. MR. ROGAN: Your property line in -- Page 95 ",.."... .._~.._.._.._.- "'-'---~"~"-' . "--- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, you have to put everything on record. I'm sorry. Richard, just want you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. Yes, sir, the answer to your question is in that shaded area we're capped at 35 feet -- MR. ROGAN: All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- zoned height. MR. ROGAN: Okay, okay. This is -- the 100 feet is not from that. You don't start -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's it. MR. ROGAN: -- at 100 and-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It starts at our property line and goes basically to that road will be capped at two stories not to exceed 35 feet zoned height. MR. ROGAN: Okay. And then on the other side of the cul-de-sac, the street, the other R -1 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, you need to sit down. Sir, you're going to have to direct your questions to us. Because all the interaction between you and the applicant should occur at your neighborhood informational meeting. And this is just -- this is more or less interaction between you and us, so let's try to keep it that way. MR. ROGAN: Okay. Then the other clarification then I'm asking about having to do with the 35 feet would have to do with the construction to the other side -- to the opposite side, if I can point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that won't do us any good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We can't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's talking about the other strip of R-l that's on the opposite side of the road. MR. ROGAN: I assume that's going to be -- still be 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ROGAN: Okay, I just wanted-- Page 96 .""'" H'.,.....__._,;,."v...._ "'"'''--'''- August 20,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the proposal currently. MR. ROGAN: Understand, understand. I guess the only other final comment that is of some concern has to do with, you know, if we step back and understand, as I'm sure you all do, that the ultimate development of Santa Barbara will result in the entire strip or the entire piece of property that runs adjacent to Naples Heritage all the way down on the west side. Ultimately it's going to be developed. I mean, it's just a matter of time. Our concern specifically with respect to this project is you had a discussion earlier about precedent. What it is that gets decided here having to do with this project clearly will become a building block for other projects that we'll be dealing with as they unfold over time down our western border. So we want to be very clear and very sensitive to the whole issue of compatibility and the value of our homes. In an earlier information meeting that was held, there was reference made that there we will be no so-called affordable housing in this development. I'm not sure I know what the definition of affordable housing is in a technical sense, but it's pretty clear that under current market conditions and certainly for the foreseeable future there's all kinds of homes available in the Naples area at all kinds of price points, so it would be hard to understand whether or not we have any shortages with respect to so-called affordable housing, or for that matter any need, given our current marketing condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been none suggested for this project, sir. MR. ROGAN: Great. Great. That's wonderful. I'm done. I appreciate you giving me more than my allotted time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've got two questions; Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Rogan, thank you for your comments. Page 97 ~,,,.._,,--~ ,,,,,..._~-,,,_......,-....,, --~-- August 20, 2009 I need a little bit more clarity from you. You opened up your remarks with the fact that you have even panthers and bears and so forth -- MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and there's an area that is apparently where the wildlife live. Relative to your property line and that lake, would you tell me where those critters live? Or are they actually living on the other property? MR. ROGAN: They're actually -- they're on both, to answer your question. They're on the other property, but they're also, you know, sightings all through our property of all of those, the panthers, the bear, the deer. They -- while I won't tell you that on any given day you can drive into Naples Heritage and find one, it's not infrequent that we see them. Including my own wife having her first panther sighting. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. You also spoke of security . MR. ROGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Your concern with children, possibility of the lake and so forth. MR. ROGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you never went further to indicate whether you had a desire to have a fence of some sort put there. Now, that would also impact on the easy flow, the easy movement back and forth of those animals. Please, tell me what you meant by the security issue and what you thought should be done. MR. ROGAN: Well, if we could -- I don't know if the pictures are clear enough, but if you look at the -- MR. BELLOWS: You want this? MR. ROGAN: No, what I'd like to put up are the Madison Park Page 98 e_ .."....,,,....",, ".."",,...-,-- ,,"_....""^~. ...'"~,~" ""-'~-- August 20, 2009 pictures, the second set. Yes. Yeah. That buffer, although only vegetation and no fence through the middle of it, is very, very thick. The prospect that you could pass through that with any relative ease is pretty slim. Now, I realize young children are creative and persistent and what have you, but what we're after is -- frankly, the notion of a 10- foot buffer as described in one of the documents I read doesn't feel like anything other than trees that are 25 or 35 feet apart, that doesn't feel like a buffer to me. That doesn't feel like it presents not only the visual buffering but the easy flow of buffering as well. I mean, should we ask for a fence or should a fence be put there? I don't know. But what I do know is it's got to be more than a bunch of trees that are 25 or 35 feet apart. And that doesn't feel like a buffer to me at all, for either purpose. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you would like a vegetative shield, basically. MR. ROGAN: Yes. A dense, tall vegetative shield. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't know whether it's even plausible to get trees that size to be able to place them and all the other vegetation at the height that is shown there. I'm not sure that's even plausible. But we'll certainly take that into consideration. MR. ROGAN: That would be great. Just one more comment. On the pictures of Madison Park -- and again, I'm sure there are other examples, but it's very handy for us, we pass it, we see it every day. But those pictures include two-story buildings on the other side of that buffer. And while they're visible, they're not all that visible. So whatever it is that Centex did there, they did an awesome job of accomplishing what it is that we think ought to be done on the other side of the lake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Rogan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 99 ~"'- ~ ~.~_."., .."",,,~~-'- ~,., ---.....".,- " ~''''~'''_.- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, just as I guess inappropriately Mr. Y ovanovich stood up, he did clarify that it's 35 zoned feet. So I don't know whether Madison Park, those two stories or 35 zoned feet with an actual height of -- well, 35 zoned feet means halfway. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want you to make sure that you realize that. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. Yeah, I don't know what they are either. All I'm here to point out to you is it's an example of something that really works. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I just want you to know that what they're proposing is 35 zoned feet, which is about 40 feet. MR. ROGAN: Yeah, which is -- we're looking for 35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're going to match -- staffs going to review your PUD against this one. And what's fair for you should be fair for them. And that's how they'll approach it when they come back next time, at least as a starting point. MR. ROGAN: Okay. All right, thank you again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Hold on one second, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the narrowest point between the lake and the property line, how much land is there? You said there is a utility easement. MR. ROGAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we're looking at pictures, that utility easement's cleared, it doesn't have vegetation on it, correct? MR. ROGAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how much land is from your narrowest point of your lake to the property line? Page 100 _.._, " -~.,""----.,....._'''~ ".. ",.~",._~ ".,,-," .<".~,,-_.- August 20, 2009 MR. ROGAN: I can't tell you specifically, but it is not a lot. In fact, again, just one more general comment about that map. The only side of Naples Heritage where our construction is not completely surrounded by a great deal of buffer is right along this property line. All right? If you look -- if you were to go through Naples Heritage and you'd look at our -- find our four-story condo buildings, they're in the core of the development and substantially surrounded by our own internal buffer. The only place that's not the case is down that line. And as you appropriately asked, if you look at that very narrow spot at the beginning of the lake, there ain't much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ROGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Phil Plessinger. MR. PLESSINGER: It's almost good afternoon, but good morning. I was the president of Naples Heritage master board when we came to a meeting here about the Firano property that Toll Brothers has built. And we were concerned then with the same problems we have now, as was mentioned. But once they -- they said there'd be no problem. Yet when property gets to be built and the people who could make decisions leave, it seems like those things just disappear. They don't worry about doing what they said they would do. And I think that's the whole problem that everybody's here today is to make sure that as Mr. Rogan said, that the buffer be built before any construction happens so that we do know that that's going to take place. If those -- the buffer that he spoke about across the street was nothing more in the beginning other than some small pines that were put there, plus they put a whole big mess of areca palms. And anybody who knows how fast those grow know that it's very thick and Page 101 - ,",,--~. "-'--- August 20, 2009 they really do make an intense buffer. There's nobody going to walk through that buffer right there, I don't think, because they'd get scratched to pieces. They'd be stupid. But those are the kind of things that I think could be done there. They grow very quickly. Madison Park isn't very old, and yet probably for almost a year you've not been able to mostly see any of those homes that are there. You can see a little bit of the roof side as you go by in a car. So I think that's -- everything else I was going to talk about, Dick did talk about. But I thank you for your time and the intensity of communication between the developers and attorneys and your board. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Phil (sic) Lombardi. MR. LOMBARDI: Hi, my name's Pete Lombardi. I also live in Naples Heritage. In fact, the southwest corner of this property that they're developing, I live across the street from it, so I know the area well. In addition to that, I'm currently the chairman of the Naples Heritage Community Development District. I'm on the board of supervisors, been on it for about 10 years now, so I know the property real well that we're talking about. One comment I would like to make is that there currently exists a chain link fence that would separate our property from the proposed development. The chain link fence runs -- it will start right where the Toll Brothers property ends and goes for about a half mile. That fence is owned by whoever the property owner is on the other side. Now, part of that fence, about a six-foot chain link fence, and some of it needs to be repaired, but most of it is in pretty good shape. And that would help prevent traffic back and forth between their Page 102 ,,'.,.---..... ~.'<<'" " """'-"., " ~."--...."~... ".""".~",~.~ August 20, 2009 property and our property. The major concern that I have is that currently there's nobody living on the other side, it's wooded area. And even where the Toll Brothers property is, they haven't developed much. And most of the people who live in there, single-family homes. Our concern is with the high density of this property, proposed property. You're going to have a lot of renters in there, you're going to have a lot of children in that area. We're worried that those children will be able to come across onto our property. You saw the lakes there, they're about 20 to 30 feet deep. They're very deep lakes. Young children can go in that lake, play around, and we would have a liability if they drowned in our lakes, because we couldn't control their coming over. Even over a six-foot fence, they could come over that fence. So that's a major concern on our part. The other thing, Mr. Rogan recommended this vegetation growth. That would be good. It would be a deterrent to some degree. The chain link fence would be a deterrent, and I recommend that stay and that be maintained long term. When the proposal was made when we had the initial meeting with the developers in March, I think, of this year, they had said that that section of property that would be developed close to our property would be single-family homes. Now we're not so sure. Now you're looking at two-story, three-story, maybe single-family owned or owned individually or maybe rented, we don't know that. So I think, you know, they have a very high population density request for their proposal. Very high. You're looking at what, 700 units or 500, 600 units in 89 acres. We have 800 units in 550 acres in our community. So a lot of density, a lot more people. And in my opinion, a lot more young people will be coming in that development. Naples Heritage has no young people. None. Not one, okay? So consequently we're going to have a problem that because they're moving in there that we don't have now. And we're concerned about Page 103 "~.~."," -,-,.,-~."- ".__.~-",-<."." "-~."-,,,'- August 20, 2009 the liability. Mr. Rogan mentioned something about the wildlife. The reason the wildlife comes around is it goes around that fence I was telling you about, goes onto the Toll Brothers property and comes into our property. Or it goes down the other end towards Rattlesnake Hammock Road and comes in that way. The fence does prohibit deer and bear and panthers from coming in where we are, but they can come around and get in. So that's about all I have. And we would appreciate any consideration you give us; one, in maintaining that chain link fence, and number two, some vegetation growth that would screen from my property looking over to that property. Currently it's woods now. On the other side right where that fence is, by the way, there's a utility easement, electric poles going on down. On their side of the property there's a road. It's not a paved road, but it's a dirt road that apparently people have used to drive in and out the property, and also the utility company has used to maintain their lines. So it's quite wide open. But right now we have some vegetation on our side, on the other side of the lake. But once they -- if they were to clear that property on the other side of that fence, it would be wide open and we would be looking directly at their property, which we wouldn't like to do. But then again, we recognize progress is inevitable. So if you can mitigate some of our concerns, we'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question. MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, thank you for your comments. The fence has been spoken about, and I'm not sure yet, do we know who owns that fence? MR. LOMBARDI: Yes. It's owned by the people on the other Page 104 ,."".-" -~. ~~"".__."...,.,,.,. ,'>,-~.",..,--"..-- August 20, 2009 side. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The property owners, the petitioner here? MR. LOMBARDI: Correct. Yeah, we had the same situation when we were dealing with Toll Brothers, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I would agree, that it would be their responsibility to maintain a fence, if they have it. But do you believe that it's their responsibility to provide security for your property? MR. LOMBARDI: Responsibility is one thing, but good neighbor is something else. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So you're asking as a good neighbor. MR. LOMBARDI: That's exactly right. I mean, who wants to look at a big building? You know, right now our backyard, you saw how serene that view is. We have the nice lake, we have a few trees on the other side. Once you see a two or three-story building go up, that's not very attractive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wasn't talking about aesthetics, I was asking directly about security. You have a concern about children possibly coming over. And we all share the concern about a child being injured or possibly dying. So that's not the basis of my question. My asking of you is do you believe it is your responsibility or their responsibility? Because they may build property that may have children in it, is it their responsibility to provide security for your property? MR. LOMBARDI: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you believe. All right, thank you. MR. LOMBARDI: That's because we have no problem now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think you may have created a Page 105 ..._hO'____..... August 20, 2009 problem for yourself on record here today, because you admitted that you might have a potential liability with people being harmed by the lake on your property. You -- MR. LOMBARDI: Yeah, but the lake exists now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- believe -- right, it does. But if you want to protect your liability if you own that lake, you may want to put a perimeter wall or fence up of your own to keep people out from being harmed by the potential of being drowned in your lake. MR. LOMBARDI: We have 19-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've basically said that here today. MR. LOMBARDI: We have 19 lakes on our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And sir, I work with the CDD myself. They have -- they put walls and security in for themselves, they assess the unit owners within their project for their own security. That's what a CDD is for. As chairman, if you could do that. And as chairman you might want to consider that, now that you've acknowledged you have a liability with those lakes. For your own protection of your people. MR. LOMBARDI: Yeah, but that fence is still up there, and we do not want that fence taken down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, thank you for your time today. MR. LOMBARDI: Right-o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: William Ball. MR. BALL: My name is William Ball and I'm a resident on Naples Heritage Drive. And I want to thank the Collier County Planning Commission for allowing us to speak today and hearing our concerns. I wanted to address the issue of sound, of music in the evening. And presently in our backyard we can hear music coming from over Davis Boulevard. And very frankly, it's not our type of music. It's not Page 106 -.... '" "..-- .....~ _..,...._...~M" ~, ,,-...,> -..-- August 20, 2009 chamber music, I would say that. And when you go over to this establishment, the age group is much younger than I am. And I really am concerned that we can already hear those sounds every night, that it will be additional music in concert with each other. So I would ask for consideration about that. You brought it up, but it's a good point, that I think in other areas, I think the representatives here mentioned Mercato. Mercato's a whole different area than what we have in Naples Heritage as far as single-family residential homes. I have a close friend that owns one of the restaurants up there. I'm up there a lot. I know that they have music up there. But it's a different -- little bit different type that I see when I'm up there, versus what we have in our neighborhood. Also, I wanted to thank the Chair for mentioning rushing this project. I don't see the need to rush this project through until every single answer is given, until every single argument is settled. We've got available housing all over the place in Naples. The subdivision or communities like Madison Park across the street and the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, you know, it looks like a desert. And I, you know, mentioned my own comments. The point I think, I have spent a lot of time out in Arizona, and it's getting to look more like Arizona than it is Naples. And I think that's not a very good precedent to set around the Naples community. I think the rest of my comments have already been covered by the Planning Commission, and I appreciate that very much. You represent us very well. And that's the end of my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Ray, do we have anymore speakers? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Bob Leeks. MR. LEEKS: My name is Bob Leeks. I'm a resident of Naples Heritage. My home is a single-family home, and it goes right smack in the middle of this proposed community. And right -- it goes right down to Page 107 ._._m.........._ _.,.,--~ ""~,,.,..._,,.~. m..... _."...~.,- August 20, 2009 the lake, okay? I wanted to address two issues today. One issue has been settled, and that's the height from three stories to two stories. And I, with my fellow neighbors and friends, I'd like to say thank you for that consideration in going that route. The other issue I want to address, we've talked about it, but I'd like to emphasize it a little more, if I may, and that's the privacy buffer. As we all know, when we leave our front entrance, we go out into Davis Boulevard. And many communities have been built along the side up and down Davis Boulevard, as we all know. In every case you will notice a large privacy buffer and the visibility from inside or from outside to the existing road, Davis Boulevard, is just very nebulous, you can hardly see any homes in there. And this includes, as we have said, Madison Park. And I may emphasize, if I may, that the Madison Park privacy buffer was placed in or put in early on in that construction. And the other communities which you can see as you go up and down Davis Boulevard that have a privacy buffer, I'll cite a few of them: Falling Waters, Moon Lake, Foxfire, Glen Eagle's Country Club. That's just only to name a few. And the privacy buffer as we talked has elevated hills, tall, thick brush, trees, many plantings which are indeed as high and landscaped on a regular basis. And the height of the privacy buffer is of keen importance to us as well. You know, as I mentioned, the homes are hidden in almost all cases as you go up and down Davis Boulevard. And the distance of the privacy buffer is, from our lake, again is a major importance. We all know how fast vegetation grows. Locating this buffer at a distance away from our property line and existing fence, believe me, is of prime importance. And regarding the privacy buffer, last but not least, as we did talk about is the timing of the privacy buffer. We all know what we're going through right now with our current economic recession. And Page 108 "'","" h_.,.~..__".,,_.>, A,... .... ~.<"~-'~ --.- August 20, 2009 this indeed has affected, as we all know, as we received our proposed taxes for' 1 0, we've seen our property values starting to not appreciate but going in the wrong direction. I have been in Naples Heritage for 12 years, and I may say that my friends and neighbors who have talked here today have also been in Naples Heritage for as long as I have or a long period of time. We have seen Naples Heritage develop into a beautiful community, which today it certainly is. Weare fortunate, all of us here, not only us from Naples Heritage, but all of us here, we're very fortunate to be living -- to be currently living in Naples. And when issues develop like this working with intelligent and responsible people and understanding people is certainly beneficial for us all. And let me just finalize by saying thank you for (sic) behalf of my friends and neighbors for letting us -- or giving us our voice today. We certainly appreciate that. And we certainly hope that we can work together in the future to continue to resolve some of these issues. And again, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That was the last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, there's not a necessity for rebuttal, I don't believe. But I think we're going to have -- do we have any final comments before we provide a continuance for this to come back to us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would it be helpful, though, if we were to put on the record some responses that I think will make them more comfortable at this time, or would you rather -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have -- certainly, you can go right ahead, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, there were some concerns that they raised regarding what was the height. Was it going to be -- is it 35 feet zoned or actual. Page 109 "'<'~""._'e~ ......."._~ " '---""""'---=--'"' ___'~,_.n""._._ August 20, 2009 We could agree to make it 35 feet zoned and actual from grade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I hope that for that -- obviously for the portion that we're talking about where we brought it down to two stories. So I hope that will address a concern that they raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's actually better than what they have, so that's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got their documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Also, we are willing to install the buffer. The timing of the installation of the buffer would be concurrent with the horizontal development, because we actually have to get back there with that segment of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like the clearing of the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. When we got back to that section of the property, we would install it before we went vertical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vertical. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I hope that will address the timing of the buffer concern and the height of the building concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the last factor you need to work out is the density of the buffer. And you can do that with J.D. by the time you come back to us. If you had some portrayals or elevations of those, it might help with the public that will be here at that time. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just to remind you, you may want to be taking a look at that fence where Mr. Rogan indicated that there was some -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're trying to figure out who owns it. We'll need to look at our survey. The survey would tell us whether it's Page 110 ,,-,.~-~ -..---.- August 20, 2009 on our property or not. And I want to make sure we're clear on the type of buffer. The buffers they're talking about are buffers that are on Davis Boulevard, which are buffers to major streets. I don't think you'll find the same type of buffer when you see -- and if you look at their own project, you can see that they provided very minimal buffer for themselves to whatever could be next door. So they obviously treated their roadway buffer differently. So when we look at Madison Park, we're going to not be looking at what's on Davis, we're going to be looking at what's, you know, adjacent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, if you were -- you have a required buffer by the LDC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to come back with some enhancements on that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that might be a good idea. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There was also a question raised about a dirt road back there, some persons accessing the property, followed by the statement, and also to main (sic) the utility lines. Is there an easement back there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll again look at our survey and find out what's on their property. I don't know what's on their property as far as survey goes and requirements. Mr. Strain, I agree with you, we will enhance the buffer. But I didn't want them to compare a Davis Boulevard buffer to what you would typically find. So when we come in with an enhanced buffer, I didn't want them to think it would result in the buffer you would find on Davis. I just didn't want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But also-- Page 111 .-. ...._._.,~. --..._,._~ .."... -." .---',-,.-.",..".-., ---"""'- August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the wrong expectations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Knowing that their project is a CDD, that gives them a community-wide ability to make improvements to their desired community. That's why CDDs were formed in the first place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the whole purpose of Statute 190. So if they have a real concern about the buffers there or the security which they expressed already, they have the absolute ability to do something on their own side as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'm fairly certain if you were to have a project to come through today, that lake situation probably doesn't happen -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we're not in public debate. I'm going to ask you -- MR. LOMBARDI: I know, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're going to have to sit down. MR. LOMBARDI: -- I've got to clear something up, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not a public debate. We're having a discussion with the -- MR. LOMBARDI: I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- applicant. Please sit -- MR. LOMBARDI: -- debating, I just want to clear something up. That area where the lake is, between the lake and the fence that I'm talking about, is preserve area. And we cannot go and put anything in that preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. LOMBARDI: So that's why we can't do anything-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. MR. LOMBARDI: -- in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 112 _..~H .". -.-.. August 20, 2009 Richard, did you want to have anything else you want to finish saying? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're happy to do an enhanced buffer there and I just didn't want to think it would result in the Madison Park buffer. And we'll come back with an enhanced buffer adjacent to that. I wanted to talk about the timing issues. And other than that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on this project of the applicant or staff before we let this go till they come back? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, I think I just want to make a comment. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- you did a terrific job of getting us through a real bog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Interesting. Richard or Wayne, are one of you requesting a continuance on this item till the next meeting? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we'd like to be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, at which time we could hold the -- reopen this public hearing and then hopefully have the consent the same day so we can keep on our BCC agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D. and Ray, the next meeting -- they're asking for a continuance. They need to be first on the agenda after the consent agenda, which we typically have. And then they'll be reheard at the end of the meeting to discuss the consent item so that they can get it accomplished on one agenda. Okay, is there any -- is there a motion to accept the continuance? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 113 ,.--- --~.._.~_._.__.~~,. ",....",--..-. ---- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. That ends the discussion on the -- whatever the name of the thing is on Davis and Santa Barbara. Our next discussion -- and I want to talk to the Planning Commission about timing. I think we could probably get through this one in a reasonable amount of time. It's the Naples Italian-American Club. Is there anybody in the room from the public going to be commenting on this? If you could, just raise your hand. Okay, thank you. So we have one public speaker. We'll have presentation and staff. Does the Planning Commission wish to move forward with this or take a lunch break or how do you -- what do you think? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Take a lunch break. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can't be back after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we just take a short break. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', does that work with you? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to take a I5-minute break, and we'll come back and we'll move through the last item on today's agenda, which is the Italian-American Club. So let's come back at 11 :55. Page 114 ^_'n'.^.~"."., _..~,._. "". .....-- "'--"~^ "----,- August 20, 2009 (Recess. ) (Commissioner Vigliotti is not present.) Item #8A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14192. MONTE CARLO CLUB CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody could take their seats, we'll try to get on with the meeting. And before we go into the next regular hearing, we need to fly back in time to the consent agenda. We've got everybody here. Okay. The Monte Carlo Club on the consent agenda, BD-2009-AR-14192, had an item to be added to the resolution. And the staff has added it and presented it back to us. It reads now close to the second to the last sentence, be it further resolved that the existing 14 boat docks are legal conforming structures. I believe that clarifies the concern the Planning Commission had. Is there anybody else have any questions on that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve that item on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 115 .~- ~,,~".- ~ ~ "- ".. ,<,,"--- -..,-.-. "'""'_M','_~ --,,'.. August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Ashley, for getting that done -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Murray abstained in that. And Mr. Vigliotti's gone. And Mr. -- did you vote on that, or did you abstain on that, Mr. Wolfley? Monte Carlo. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I was here. Was that the second consent agenda? I'm sorry, no, I was not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the first consent agenda item. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The first one I was there. That's where I thought we were, yeah. The boat dock. Yeah, I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion carries 6-0. And one abstention, Mr. Murray. Item #9E PETITION: PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, THE NAPLES-ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now the next item on the agenda is Petition PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, the Naples Italian-American Club on Airport Pulling Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Ms. Caron? Page 116 --~_.. -.- . """"'~'-o.-'~"". '-~"'O~"'W___> ._......~._,~".,-- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I did speak with Mr. Y ovanovich as well, and I spoke to Mr. LeCatta during the break, and we were all just handed a letter from the Carlisle in favor of the project. Did the court reporter get one? MR. DUANE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Bob Duane is here to answer any questions you may have that I can't answer, and so is Ray LeCatta, the president of the Italian-American Club to answer any questions you may have regarding operations of the club. I'm not going to go into a long presentation, because it wasn't too long ago that we came forward with a comprehensive plan amendment for this particular piece of property. And essentially this is the PUD to implement exactly what we said we wanted to do with the comprehensive plan amendment. Briefly it's a five-acre site at the corner of Orange Blossom and Airport Road. There are two development tracts: There's a Tract A, which is where the Italian-American Club will relocate from its current location on the property, and a Tract B that will be developed as an office and bank development totaling 34,000 square feet. And of that 34,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet can be for basically a bank branch. You know, bank offices can be within the other 30,000 but really the branch activity is limited to that 4,000 Page 11 7 "'^--'''''''--''-~-~-~ --',._--,_....~ ""''"'P_--'~- --"'-"- August 20, 2009 square feet. We've shown the access where it's supposed to be on Orange Blossom. We've eliminated one of the access points on Orange Blossom and eliminated -- and we don't have any access directly onto Airport. We show the interconnections to our property to the south, the vehicular interconnections. Those are the two arrows. And we have pedestrian interconnection to the west, which is the Carlisle. The Carlisle has reviewed our application and you see has issued a letter of support of our request. We have addressed transportation concerns and have agreed to the stipulations required by the transportation department. And let me just go into the parking deviation real quickly, and hopefully offer a clarification. For the Tract A clubhouse activities, and that would be, you know, the daily activities as well as dinners, dances for the club members, we will satisfy our parking obligations through the 100 spaces essentially that we have on our property. And we would further cap the number of people who could attend those events to 300 people. So that would be equivalent to the one per three seats that you find in the code. The deviation was intended to when we do an open event to the general public, the special events as defined in the PUD, that's when we would spill over to meet our parking requirements onto the Tract B property . So it's only for the special events that we would need to use the Tract B parking to meet the one per 100 square feet of building, which is the 200 number that you see in the staff report. So hopefully that clarifies it, that for club events not open to the general public we would satisfy our parking requirements on Tract A, we would cap the occupancy to the 300 people, and then when we go to a special event that's open to the general public, we would then Page 118 -.- ".-,.- . .- """HO.M .^-~----. -~_._"- August 20, 2009 have to provide verification that we have the right to use the Tract B parking for those special events. And it could be we could have an agreement across the street at the -- and we have those now at times with the government services on weekends when, you know, the office building's not open we've entered into agreements to use that parking for special events as well. So when we have a special event, we'll have to provide verification that we have the required number of parking spaces to address those special events. Your staffs recommending approval. Again, it's a brief overview, but you've seen a lot of this before. And we're available to answer any specific questions you may have regarding this particular petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Yovanovich, you and I had discussion yesterday concerning the flag pole. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yes. The flag pole, your concern was we wanted to make sure it's the flag pole communication tower that's been currently approved for the site. I didn't get an opportunity to find the conditional use number that went with that. And we would be willing to basically -- or intended to keep the flag pole communication tower that we currently have. We're not trying to get anything bigger than what we currently have. So between now and the consent agenda, we'll limit it to the communication tower approved by C whatever number -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The current tower. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Without expansion of the tower. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Page 119 ~,". .. ._.~"'-,,-~ '......,~~ .. ".----- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. We also talked about because we are doing the shared parking situation and there was discussion about the businesses on Tract B having to close at 5 :00 p.m. to accommodate the special events -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that we're having, that at least one of the many uses that you had there really weren't appropriate. And my most contentious thing I think is the funeral home, which, you know, couldn't really operate without nights and weekends. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we don't have an objection to getting rid of the funeral home. But Commissioner Caron, I want to -- and we did have a conversation, I called my client after we talked. And that's why there was actually some confusion on my part still about the parking deviation. And that's why for special -- it's only for special events that we're going to go onto Tract B for parking. We didn't want to include in the PUD hours of limitations on Tract B, because we may have a buyer who comes to us and says, you know what, I don't want to share parking. And we may make the business decision at that point to not have special events on Tract A. So that's why we don't have an hours of limitation on Tract B, because we don't want that limitation to create problems for the potential value of the property. So if we can't show appropriate parking for a special event, we won't be able to have them. COMMISSIONER CARON: So then let me get this straight. For the 40 special events -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty days. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, 40 days -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Total days, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of special events. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you're going to -- for each of Page 120 -"""_0 ="~'_' ~-'" -,.__.~.,.. -'-~"'-".-._~..".",'."", .. 'T r ..-.--.-- August 20, 2009 those you have to seek a separate permit? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's really not a permit process that I'm aware of. Maybe there is, Ray. But what we wanted to do was make it clear that we can have up to 40 days worth of special events as a matter of right, the number. In order to be able to implement those 40 days, we would notify your staff that we're going to have the -- I don't know, the carnival on, you know, whatever day, October 1 through October 5th, and here is our parking sign-off from our neighbor or from whoever else we need to satisfy the required parking. We would notify your staff about that. I don't know if there's a permitting process for that. If there is, we would go through that permitting process. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, how are you going to handle this now? MR. BELLOWS: There is a temporary use permit process issued by the county. There's an application form filled out and a fee paid. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And in getting that temporary use permit, they would analyze whether there's enough parking? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And they would determine if there's need to have sheriffs office at the intersections and things like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, great. Let's get to the 40 event days, whether they're a week at a time or a day at a time. The code allows 28. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: What is your reasoning for 40? I mean, what -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the board -- that's without having to go to the board to get more. So we're trying to upfront say we believe we may get to 40 because this is a good site, we've done events in the Page 121 -<<'<"~~"'"-""'__'_"*'-"~- -- c..._,..""'""...'""...-.""_N ~.._-- August 20, 2009 past. As more and more development occurs around us there's less and less sites to do these things. So we're asking for the permission upfront to go from the 28 to the 40. Because we could already ask the board to do it, we may as well do it as part of the PUD. And again go through the temporary use process -- permit process when those individual events occur. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Has there been any discussion with -- I mean, we just got today the letter from the Carlisle saying that they support your project. Has there been any discussion with them about either enhanced buffers or a fence? I mean, we are essentially talking about a commercial use up against a residential use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we -- you know, we obviously have been neighbors of the Carlisle for a lot of years and have had a good relationship with them. I mean, we work with them now with their parking issues. They are actually using part of our site. So I'm assuming they've seen our application, they're comfortable. They've written a letter of support of it. I wasn't in on any of the detailed discussions, but they are supporting the project. A fence will be required? J.D. has informed me that a fence is required anyway along that boundary, so that issue's been taken care of. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, all right, I'm sorry. Thank you, J.D. I didn't see it here, so I wasn't sure that it was. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The LDC already requires a fence -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's great. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- between that use and the Carlisle. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you, J.D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) Page 122 ...".~_._,-"'-_._~"... .- '--'-'-,'-'''''' ,._,<-,,,,,,,,,_,m.._.,,_.__.., ....0-_' ",,*..,~ '--"-.,- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me understand what you're agreeing to do then. First of all, you're going to cap the number of members on-site at anyone time -- I'm talking about Tract A -- at anyone time to 300 except for special events. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you're going to have special events, and the special events will use the shared park -- will only occur -- let me read this to you. Special events only if shared parking arrangement, provided that you need an excess of 100 spaces. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if your tract can hold it and it's going to take less than 100 cars -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're good to go. But if you want more than 100 cars, you have to show that you've got the parking, and you'll do that through the temporary use permit process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to eliminate the funeral home -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue. The interconnects shown here, can you label them as interconnects? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The tract line, can you take that off this plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why we would need to commit to that. You're not going to have a tract line in the middle of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the tract anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have any problem taking the tract Page 123 --~ -~-,.._-_..;-,."".".-,,^~ _~'O'._'O"__"'_ ~_.,,'" -. . ---_.---- August 20, 2009 line off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hours of operation. As long as there's no objection from the neighbors next door, I guess 11 :00 works. I know we've gone less with others, but that's fine. Under transportation requirements, do you have any problem with the capping language that we've now started to use in other projects that caps them to the uses in the TIS? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We -- correct, the -- yes, we have no objection to what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on Exhibit F, item five is I believe redundant to the requirements already in the code. And I think J.D. would probably suggest we drop that anyway when we get to his presentation. I don't know if you got any objection to that. I don't think transportation does, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, which? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five. Number five's already a requirement of our code, from what I understand, so -- Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, one thing you said, that the Carlisle's using it now. Does that explain all those cars there? Are they parking there during the day? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would that continue? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what we'll consider doing in the future regarding that parking. Probably not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And -- all right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, just one question of Page 124 -",~"' ,.-- August 20, 2009 Mr. LeCatta, is that it, if you could come up. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please? MR. LeCATTA: L-E-C-A-T-T-A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I just had one question. In your conversation -- obviously you've had many conversations with the people at the Carlisle. MR. LeCA TT A: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: In those conversations was it discussed that special events and activities would be until 11 :00 at night? MR. LeCA TT A: Yes, we have had discussions, because we've had events in the past where they've gone to that hour. And considering the level of hearing involved, they said they haven't had a problem with us in the past. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure that you had discussed the actual time. Mr. Murray, are you living there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but I couldn't resist what his face said. Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. LeCA TT A: And one more comment. Giving up the funeral home might be an inconvenience to us, considering the average age of our membership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You must all live in Naples Heritage. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have no lakes on our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, J.D., you want to follow this act? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There's no way you're going to beat it. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. Page 125 ,.~"",",""." ",~,-.,_,,____v_.,_,<,",", .______........._0._. ._~'-~- August 20, 2009 F or the record, J ohn- David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff is recommending approval of this petition, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the PUD document. The only clarification I wanted to make was regarding Mr. Y ovanovich's commitment to go through the temporary use permit. Commissioner Caron, you asked Ray, and I think Ray wasn't aware of the fact that this proposal would allow them to automatically be granted 40 days of temporary uses. And they wouldn't have to go through a permit process, and so the parking situation wouldn't be addressed each time. COMMISSIONER CARON: It just gives them the 40 days, it doesn't give them the permits. So they're going to have to do that. And if that's not clear, let's make it clear. Because they need the temporary -- MR. MOSS: That can be made clear -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- use permit. MR. MOSS: -- in the PUD document that they can-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Yovanovich-- MR. MOSS: -- granted the 40 days, but they need to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- was saying that they would do that. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are both talking at the same time. One of you -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- needs to wait to the other. I don't care which one. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that Mr. Yovanovich was saying that they would seek the temporary use permits for all of the special events, so -- MR. MOSS: Very good. Just as long as that's clear and we can Page 126 . "".~ ""..._ u.__....._--......_......, ,.-,',_.. -_.~"..^ ._-~'-".,,- August 20, 2009 incorporate that language into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I thought Richard said that for special events that had exceeded a parking requirement of 100 spaces. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's right. And it was because we don't have the ability today to tell you exactly where those 100 spaces -- anything over the 100 would come from. We would have to show you that we have the required parking. And we talked about this, as you don't really -- the only process you really have is the temporary use process to make you comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any time you have a special event in conjunction with the operation of your membership facility, which is Tract A, and combined they need more than 100 spaces, you would then come in for a special event permit. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that under-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that language needs to be clarified by J.D. when we come back for consent. Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, this may be my naivety, or Ray can answer, but I thought that PUDs had to be 10 acres. This being a five-acre. MR. MOSS: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Is this in an activity center? MR. MOSS: No, it's not an activity center. It's in-fill. MR. BELLOWS: The land development -- for the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Development Code allows for PUDs outside of activity centers to be less than 10-acre minimum if they meet the in-fill criteria. I assume John-David has verified that and that's why Page 127 -- ".,~.,^' ..~,.'"">,---_."- ,._.~"..,- ---~"..." ..~~--,- August 20, 2009 we're here today. MR. MOSS: And it was included in the subdistrict language that was created for this parcel, that it be a PUD when it came in. I don't know if Corby needs to elaborate on that? Corby? No. If you have any questions, though, about the MP consistency, you can ask Corby. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of either staff or the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One gentleman's here. MR. BELLOWS: Tyler Day, to be followed by John Garbo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like John Garbo's left. So Mr. Day's the only one. MR. DAY: Unfortunately John is not here because he had a luncheon engagement. We're going to be talking about the same thing anyway, basically. My name is Tyler Day. I'm the former president of the board at Villages of Monterey. I'm also a vice president of the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community Alliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you bring that mic. a little closer to you? Thanks. MR. DAY: I'm sorry. I'm a vice president of the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community Alliance, and out here speaking for that group of what we have seen of the Italian-American Club designs. I don't know the details specifically. It looks very attractive and would be a nice addition on Orange Blossom. Page 128 -,....,,~_..~.< '. ".,. . ~"-" "<'..'.'. -".~.,..,,,.".,- ".....".."..-.....-..-'.< ...._.-..~'....- August 20, 2009 Our concern, however, is something that is in our missions statement, and that is the safety of Orange Blossom, specifically traffic safety. And we have one concern with regards to the design that can be modified and that concern can well go away. And I would like to address it as the one entrance and exit off Tract A that goes onto Orange Blossom. This -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use that walk-around mic., or point to the one right there in the overhead. That might be -- that one right there. That way you can -- try to use -- you're going to have to use the carry-around mic. to do that, though, sir. We're going to have to hear you on record. Thank you. MR. DAY: Okay, are you able to see where I'm pointing now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. DAY: Okay. Basically what we have is we no longer have two entrances to the Italian-American Club. You have the one entrance and exit here. Our concern is the fact that right across from it on the other side you have the entrance and exit to the library. And basically what you have -- and this is the opinion of many people within our association, which by the way represents roughly 6,000 people living along Orange Blossom and eight different communities -- and that is that you have basically without this being a right turn in, right turn out, you have an accident waiting to happen with regards to the traffic that's coming out of the library and the traffic, heavier traffic now, because there's only one entrance that will be going in and out of the Italian-American Club. So we would like to have it considered. And we have talked to the transportation department, and they understand our concern, while not having made any commitment, obviously yet. But we feel that the traffic that's coming from the west to the east turning in and traffic coming out, going from here to the end of the road, to Airport, should be addressed as a right in/right out traffic. Page 129 ......'......._--~... .. '~T.~__", --....... --~.--._~ August 20, 2009 This could mean a possible extension of the median in the center or a methodology of crossing from the library into here without having a left turn out across the traffic and going right into the traffic that could be coming out of the library. We see this -- and all of us were going to speak on this; unfortunately I'm the only one that's here -- are deeply concerned with the traffic situation, especially in view of the -- what we would anticipate as a heavier traffic for the Italian-American Club and this one entrance. So all we're asking is that this be a right in/right out turn at this entrance here, and I think this will resolve many of the concerns within these communities with regards to this very nice building that's going to be put there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the place across the street is the county facility with the library and everything in it? MR. DAY: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've got a full turning movement, both right in/right out, left in/left out. Because I use that one all the time. So why would this one be any different than that one? MR. DA Y: Well, what you're doing here is you're -- people would be crossing the Orange Blossom Road and may well have an opportunity to run into the traffic that's coming out of the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'd have to make the other side right in/right out as well, because otherwise you've got a opening in the median. So you want to make the library right in/right out? MR. DAY: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't help your people, because they'd have to go out on Airport and find some way to make a U-turn and come back in and get to the library that way. MR. DAY: Well, these people, they would -- who came out of the library, they'd go down about 100 feet and make a U -ee and go back the other way. Page 130 ~_e ."-,'._--_.,,...,,- August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get into the library if you want to go from your community to the library? You couldn't make a left back in, so you'd have -- because you'd be virtually having a solid median across there. So you'd force everybody out on Airport Road to make a U-turn to come back in and use our li --I'm not sure there's a good solution to what you're suggesting that would make it any safer than what is here. MR. DAY: Well, we'd just like to have it looked at and addressed to see perhaps if there is one. Because we can see really potential accidents happening, and I don't -- I'm not a traffic engineer, but I am representing a number of people who brought this point up and are concerned about that. And we would like to express it to the Planning Commission, Mark, and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not trying to disagree, I'm just trying to understand your philosophy. Because if you do that for this opening, I'm not sure it solves anything as long as -- because of the other one in regards to the amount of turning movements you'd create by blocking that exit out. MR. DAY: Yeah. Well, I mean, you have a lot of precedent around town. For instance, on Goodlette- Frank where Pine Ridge is, you've got a right in/right out at Carica Road, North Carica Road there, and that seems to work very well. But there's a median in between that helps prevent accidents for people trying to cross the road and running into traffic. And I see this -- we see this as a concern that when it's a safety concern -- part of our mission is not only the environmental beauty of Orange Blossom but the safety as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a couple more questions from the Planning Commissioners, then we'll ask transportation to address your issue as well. Mr. Wolfley? MR. DAY: Thank you. Page 131 ---"". - --- -"'--~". ....-. .,''''','-~ -"~"- ,~."...,,- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just shaking my head that I think that would be more of a -- you know, having to go -- if you're coming from Airport, you'd have to go and make a U-turn. I think that's a lot more dangerous than just turning in. And I just -- I'd like to hear from transportation on this. MR. DAY: Yeah, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Then Mr. Schiffer. And then we'll have transportation come up. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I definitely would like transportation staff to address this. I understand your concerns, Mr. Day, because you have a very busy situation across the street at the library, and you're going to have a very busy situation here with the Italian-American Club -- MR. DAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and the future bank and medical offices. And the problem becomes the stacking of these -- all of these cars that are trying to get across. MR. DAY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It becomes a real issue of safety, and that's a concern. MR. DAY: We agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I think we should hear from transportation. I'm not sure there's a good solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know that intersection well. I live in that area. I think the problem is that the Orange Blossom, the library, has a double entrance and exit. In other words, there's one lane, a divider, and then the way out is on another divider. So I think you're right, if you're coming out of this thing, which lines up with the entrance portion, and you've got to make that turn to the west catching up with people coming out of the library on their own separate drive, that could be a dangerous situation. Page 132 _....,.~. . .~....- - -.......----...-...... - ~"~..---- August 20, 2009 MR. DAY: Yeah. And mainly it's that this is the traffic that would have to cross the median right into the face of the traffic that's coming out of the library that is going to go west. But in the past and other places a right in/right out turn has been able to be much more safety efficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, John, can you come up and address this from transportation? Thank you, sir. MR. DAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate all your input. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, let me say -- Ray, while he's doing that, could you show the aerial and blow up the alignment of those driveways. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. Trying to say it all at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you forgot your name. I was wait a minute. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It is a long last name. It's hard to pronounce. All right, did we have a specific question on the location of the driveway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The location lines up apparently to the library across the street. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman's suggesting that they're concerned about it being open a full access intersection. And really, they're looking at considering it to be a right in/right out. And I think you've heard us express an analysis that is possibly needed. And I'm wondering what it would mean for the library's exit if this was limited to right in/right out and that median was shut. Then wouldn't you at the same time then force the library into right ins/right out? And then what does all that entail? How much problem could it-- Page 133 --",,,"._~-_...,._-,--.,.. ..,--_._...,...,,-.- '...."..."......,n_.'..''"''__ August 20, 2009 if there is a problem or is it a better design or what? MR. PODCZER WINSKY: That is correct, it would require the library to have a right in/right out and potentially a directional left in. To close all left-out movements onto Orange Blossom you'd be closing off both driveways, both the north and the south, from making that left-out turn, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And that would have an impact on the library. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to get into the library then, if you did that and you were trying to live in, say, Monterey and you came out and took a right on Orange Blossom, you'd have to go somewhere else to get in? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, you'd have to go through the intersection right now of Orange Blossom and Airport and make a U-turn at that intersection. If it's going to be allowed in the future. We haven't made it that far in our study yet to make sure whether or not that U-turn would be allowed. It may not be. There may not be sufficient room when the eventual median is installed there to allow a full U-turn at that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those folks coming into the library to get back onto Airport, they'd have to go down somewhere else further down Orange Blossom, make a U-turn and come back? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. They'd have to make a U-turn through the median there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's just what we've got to consider. Mr. Schiffer, then -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And one of the issues-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron. Page 134 .,.,"~,-~ ".~..~'..- '~'.'-'- ' ~--.--- August 20, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- we have right now is that the intersection there is in trouble. That's one of the conditions that we have on this PUD is that they contribute -- when they come in with their office, to contribute prop share towards the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to bring the mic. a little closer to you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, do me a favor and turn around and see how this driveway lines up with the entrance portion of the library but not the exit portion. So don't you think this would be safer if they closed the exit portion of that and just made it -- you know, line these -- I mean, everybody knows how to handle looking at cars approaching them. The danger of this thing is as the people pull out of this they're going to have that second drive, which is going to have cars coming at them from both directions. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand where you're coming from. We'll have to take a little better look at it when it comes in for the final SDP. And when we do that, we'll have the traffic engineers take a second look at the traffic that's coming out of the library. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And I want to get measurements on the difference there and the offset between the driveways to see how they line up precisely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think that's the danger. And the library has another -- you know, people could go further west and then create the exact same maneuver here. They don't have to do it right at this access drive. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. Page 135 ,~.__R_"~ < .~,_...."_.".. '-"~'-'''''-''''.''''''---""""".,..,,.~.,., August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, first I would think that you would need -- we would want you to do that by consent, not when it comes in for SDP. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that analysis needs to happen now. Secondly, looking at the library property, and I have no idea, they have a right in and right out onto Airport? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then they have the two on Orange Blossom. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: You've made -- is there a reason there couldn't just be one entrance and exit on Orange Blossom? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If the library were to come in for-- you're asking about the library accesses, correct? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. If they were to come in we'd take a second look at the accesses for the library and reevaluate how their spacing is, how their driveway spacing from the intersection is, as we do with every other site in the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but yeah, I really think we need to see an analysis by consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. John, I don't know, I -- from your response I got the sense maybe you're being too gentle. I think what we're suggesting, that Commissioner Caron is suggesting or others are suggesting, that we don't wait for the library to come in to -- we need pro-activity. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Understood. Page 136 ~- .'r._....-<, .""".' -"""-'~"~~"-""';- -~,~",,_.'" .~.,.~'"~--- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And if it's an unsafe situation and there are no means to change it other than creating other additional unsafe situations, it would strike me that the library has -- the county has an obligation to cure a potentially unsafe situation. So you're not going to rely upon the library coming in to you and asking for a change; am I right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. With reference to the number of driveways, we would only be dependent upon the library coming in. With respect to this specific median opening, we can take care of that during the SDP process for the Italian-American Club. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm still not clear in my mind when you answer me that way. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The focal point here is if you have -- and I think Brad Schiffer brought it up wonderfully -- you have two opposing driveways. People can see and they can measure and qualify. Doesn't guarantee you wouldn't have accidents, but at least it limits it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But with that other driveway a little further down, that's a danger point. So I just want to be clear in my mind that what you're telling us is that now you're cognizant of that and now you're going to evaluate that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to determine whether that should be closed. Do you have the authority to close it if you determine it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we do. Collier County keeps control over the median openings. We have full authority over whether or not they'll stay open. Those are at our discretion based on safety and turning movements. Page 137 -" -"..... .-.--- -. '^'-'-""~ -"="-'_.'--~'--~" ,-,,, .~.,-,._~-.._,- August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you move that aerial further to the west so we can see down -- that would be to the left of the document, for Richard's sake. See that other driveway coming out of the library property? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a full turning movement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to see a little better picture of it and I don't recall right offhand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where the driveway is in question that we've been talking about, the one on the Tract A property, where it lines up there, what if those two properties, the library property and the Tract A property, had left-in only? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe we'd have a objection to that. And if it's a safer situation, we will definitely consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the concern is a left out and crossing traffic coming and a left out from the library. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you converted both to left-ins, the library people who wanted to make a left out could go to the north and go out on Airport that way, and the people here could go out on Airport by going to their southerly exit on their property. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that might just solve everybody's problem and be the least complex way to do it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It would. And we would also have to verify that further to the east that the U-turn is possible -- I'm sorry, further to the west -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: West. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- that the U-turn is possible. That it's safe -- Page 138 ^'....,..,,--, ---"~'"'~- -- _.'._""'_ ~H".._', ,,_._" '.'--$~'.'_. August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, if it's too narrow ofa road and they can't make a U-turn, you're back in-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. And that's about the only reason I'm leaving anything in question, because I'd have to check the adjacent U-turns to make sure that they're safe movements as well before we commit to closing left turns at the library. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- but John, this is -- it's a problem. And you know that with all the mitigation that's happening up here at the intersection, we're not solving anything, we're just trying to make it a little bit better. We're always going to have a problem here, based on everything that's being developed around here. This is a mess. So I think we need to make it as safe for the people on Orange Blossom as possible. And I really want to see you take a look at that before consent here -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, that's our intent-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in two weeks. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- is to make it as safe as possible. One of the issues at hand here is that during the PUD -- and this is for everybody's edification. During the PUD the entrances are typically considered conceptual. We like to take a much closer operational look at them at SDP before they're constructed. And the reason for that is we get a lot better look at the actual construction that they're going to create as opposed to the potential construction that they could place on that site. Right now we're looking at the maximum number of trips that they could put on this site. At SDP -- at each phase of the SDP we'll be looking at what they're actually constructing during that phase. If the square footage comes down, if the number of members comes down, if the total office space at the end of the building changes we may end up looking at a smaller impact than what's shown in this traffic study. Page 139 ,..".___.....,.....^,.._._......u. ^~'-""'- -- ".','~.........."..~~- ""'_'""__~'_""n",_ August 20, 2009 This is the maximum they could produce. And again, along those lines, we keep the right in the LDC to modify those median openings at any time for safety purposes to turn them into a left only or whatever is safest at the time that those applications come in and generate the traffic. COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't often see the government modifying themselves, we normally see them exempting themselves, so I would feel a lot more comfortable if this -- some analysis was done on this ahead of time so that we would -- the people in the neighborhood would know. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In the traffic study we do have the number of left turns in and right turns out, right turns in. I mean, we've got all of that. We just don't have the library background traffic included in that turning movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John, this left turn -- if they don't do left turns out and the library's locked into right turns and they have to make -- so people have to go down and make a U-turn, when can you have to that anal -- that safety factor, that analysis figured out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You could ask for it probably prior to the consent hearing. After this meeting but prior to the consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It definitely is a concern. I wish it was brought up before today's meeting so we could have had it analyzed by now. I don't know if your department looks at those things that far ahead of time, but it would have been nice to have discovered it before today. I saw the two gentlemen both had their hands up. So maybe we can get some relief. Would each of you come up one at a time and let us know what your question is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I quickly, Mr. Strain, since Mr. LeCatta is with me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 140 ^'~"-'~'~"" ~-~.."~,.,,.__.. , -'"-~._' -"~--- 'H" _ ,"",-...,-..-"",,,---.- August 20, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- remember this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or are you with him? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with him. If you'll remember, we had this very same conversation during the compo plan process. And the compo plan language required that the Orange Blossom and the intersection improvements would go through a public design process to address these concerns. These weren't really -- we don't design roads as part of the PUD process. But you wanted to make sure, and I can read the exact language if you need it, is that there would be an advertised public hearing process for the design of the improvements to Orange Blossom Drive. And the county has started that process. They've already had the first advertised public hearing for the preliminary design of the improvements to Orange Blossom. So those were intended to take separate tracts. We weren't supposed to be designing the median openings as the PUD process. So this process is already in place where a preliminary design has been done, they had a public meeting, they received public comments. The next step will be to go to further design, final design of the road improvements. The PUD requires that we go through the public bidding process for the road improvements. So the residents will have then another opportunity, if they're still not happy with the design, to bring those issues up during the award of the contract to implement the construction design. So I don't know why we're getting into such a level of detail right now on the access to this particular project when it very clearly says they were going to be treated as the normal design of road improvement process for county roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we respond to the public, the public has raised a question, and we will do our best to answer it. That's all I can tell you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I've got a question. Page 141 ,-".,------~-,._-< ,......~"" ,...... .... .-.-.'" August 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that gentleman whose hand is up probably can answer the question. You've just indicated that there was a public process that we probably lost sight of, okay. And then naturally that question then should be posed to this gentleman, was it advertised. And if it was, was his 6,000 member association -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- aware of it and did they attend and pose the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. DAY: Thank you, Dick. I think Dick will verify that we were there -- am I on -- and that it's a further concern now than it was before, because we didn't know exactly where Tract A or Tract B of the Italian-American Club is going to be. Now that it's going to be facing Orange Blossom, we know that will attract more traffic for them. And also the fact that there's not two entrances and exits, but now just one. And once again, it is right across from the exit and entrance for the library. It further raises our concern with regards to the safety of this area, this access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are two entrances and there are two exits on this property. One is on Airport Road, I believe. MR. DAY: No, I'm talking about on Orange Blossom. Those people are going, say, from west to east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the fact that there's only one on Orange Blossom and now there's one on Airport is advantageous, not detrimental. Mr. Murray, did you have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up with you, sir. MR. DAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have to understand, I absolutely respect what you've brought up here, and you can hear Page 142 ..".,._" .-.-,' -~ ","",~~-""",".^,.-..._., ~~'w~.,_.'""""".~~..,,______._ August 20, 2009 from my questions. But you said that these issues were posed and you weren't even as aware as you are now of what the potential is. What were the responses that you got to your questions? And -- MR. DAY: Well, the responses, sir, were exactly, in all due respect to Dick, that we would handle it at another time and that as we get further on with the Planning Commission and with the other meetings that were planned that we would address this. Our concern is, as it is yours, that this major concern regarding the potential for accidents is not swept under the rug and it is addressed and it is -- and I'm sure it wouldn't be because all -- you're professionals and you're really very good at what you do. All we want to do is express the concern that we see accidents in our corridor that are going to happen possibly to our people or other people, and we think this is avoidable with the proper transportation planning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I just may finish with my conversation with you. MR. DA Y: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I so much respect that you're bringing it up and I'm certain that everyone here respects what (sic) you're bringing it up. But there is in fact a process, and that's what the gentleman from transportation was indicating to you. And I suppose -- I'm not trying to answer any body's statements to you, but I think the fact is you are entitled to work closely with them. You now know who it is you can talk to -- MR. DAY: Yeah. We've-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and you find out -- MR. DAY: -- already talked with the transportation department. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, if you've been working with them, then you have -- it seems to me you have -- you're right along the way. And we've taken your message, so your message is Page 143 ~"._-, ^-" ~,.,- '" "'e",.."_",,,.,_,.,,__~"...^..__~...___.~"_'_M____"____ August 20, 2009 with us. Thank you, sir. MR. DAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: You had a meeting with the community? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Ifwe did, I was not involved in it. This is -- this would have been on a capital project schedule, not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can verify that yes, we have. If you give me a moment -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously you have. I mean, everybody has said that transportation staff has had a meeting. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question is, according to the language in the GMP are you required to have more than one meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That I couldn't answer for you. I'm not sure. Do you guys have any opinion on that? MR. SCHMITT: Normally on something like this there's several meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys will have to use the mid. MR. SCHMITT: Normally on something like this, it's the capital project for the intersection, transportation has several public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, a quick question. If in the SD P process you realize that this is only going to be a right in and right out, do you have the ability to move it further to the east? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we do. Page 144 ._",~",~---,-~",---,_.,-""-"~'-'" 0" ,__.,.,.... " "* ..".. ....._;,"""'_'''_._._~..."..,__.O'._'.'__.~,_,~'''_,_.,__.__._____,_ August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, looking at the way the turn lanes are, would that put it into more of a dangerous situation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I would have to take a look at the westbound left turn to make sure that it's sufficient length to accommodate the traffic coming into the library. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think if you do determine right in/right out, you really should get it away from the library intersection to avoid the confusion. The another thing, those of us that live out in that area, coming out of here and having to go north or south isn't all that inconvenient, because Carica is blocked off, like you said. So essentially if you did go west you'd be going up to Vanderbilt or down to Pine Ridge or the middle of the pines to get around anyway. So the right in/right out is not going to be a big problem here, I don't think. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. -- anymore questions of transportation? I think, Mr. LeCatta, you had a real quick comment. We let the other gentleman speak, so you might as well, sir. MR. LeCA TT A: Since the accident potential was brought up, I feel that anything -- any kind of a solution that involves U-turns provides a greater potential for accidents. And I bring your attention to the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U. S. 41. With the construction of the Mercato, they closed that median, so the left-hand turn into the rear of the establishments on the, let's see, southeast corner, banks, restaurants, was closed. You have to now go to the intersection in the turn lane and make a U-turn in order to go into those establishments. And what happens is -- and I do this because one of my banks is there. And when you do this, the people going north on U.S. 41 that are in the turn lane that can make a right-hand turn with or without a light, I'm not aware of those people making U-turns. Page 145 .- """'-''''-~'-~'~~'''~ -~,....,.~----._-,~,,--- August 20,2009 And I know when I do this I have to have my hand on my horn, because I have a green light to make aU-turn and they're just coming and they're just not aware of the fact. So U-turns are really very dangerous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it is a complicated issue, and that's why we want to make sure it's getting analyzed and analyzed fully from everybody's perspective. MR. DAY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously U-turns can be an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any final questions from the Planning Commission? Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion before motion. I have a series of stipulations, and then we got the traffic issue to discuss. But I'll read off the stipulations, if the Planning Commission has no objection. One is that they'd cap the number of members on site at only one time at 300 except for special events. They'll remove the tract line that's on the master plan. They'll note that the interconnects -- or interconnects to the south. They'll eliminate the funeral home as a use. They'll have special events only if -- and the special events will use the shared parking arrangement, only if they're in excess of 100 spaces needed that exist on Tract A. They'll drop the number five from Exhibit F. Page 146 .--".,,-,--'.._--_._~..,._...._...._.- , . ...-........-.- " A -_ ..~.'-",.,.,*.~..=.- <-.."..-. , ,.,.. "-~-'~'-"--''''-'''''''~'''-~.'-'"'~'' _.~._'--._---'~- ,~--~._~~,"...,~~~-- August 20, 2009 And they'll cap their trips to those that are mentioned in the TIS, as we have asked the other recent projects that come through to do. And now as far as the traffic issue goes, any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The flag pole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm sorry, what is the issue with the flag pole? COMMISSIONER CARON: There isn't an issue, it's just to make sure that it is limited to what it is today -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The height. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in terms of height and numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Limited to the height and quantity of flag poles today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this goes to Ray. Ray, again this one uses the term leasable area. You know, I'm not sure what that term means. We studied areas. I know what the areas that the LDC, the Bill Lorenz memo of last August doesn't, you know, consider leasable areas. So how do you look at these PUDs when they use that term? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Some of the compo plan changes creating subdistricts refer to leasable space. I'm not sure if that's the case in this situation. But it should be floor area, that's what the LDC basically uses as a measure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you interpret the word leasable space? MR. BELLOWS: No, they are different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are? MR. BELLOWS: And we had that problem actually on the Mercato one where they were talking about leasable floor area, and we Page 147 _'O'~',.....,.,.,..__,.,",_,_._~._,..,.."~..,,,.w.','~~_'~"_"__.,.__~,~,_c^,.",.~_,___....-",,,, ~ .. ............ -".~","-,-".,.,". , ."..~_.- ____,'-...' '"'.'___'"';'m',~..''' "_".~,'_'._"^ ,_.,___"~",',m'_" August 20, 2009 actually had to go back and correct that subsequently with another amendment to reference floor area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you converted leasable -- I mean, is the equation exactly the same? In other words, you'd remove the word leasable. MR. BELLOWS: They can be different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can. And the reason leasable is different is that you wouldn't want somebody who uses thicker walls shouldn't have a bigger bear (phonetic) than somebody who uses thinner walls, I guess. MR. BELLOWS: A floor area would account storage areas, where leasable would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So what do we do here? What does this mean? MR. MOSS: The applicant has stated that they would be okay with just limiting it to gross floor area rather than leasable area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll make that change then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to change leasable to floor area instead of leasable. Any other suggestions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we talked at length about the traffic issue. I think it's been certainly put into the floodlight. And I know that transportation has got to finish an analysis. I'm not sure that rushing an analysis for another two weeks from will do the analysis justice for either side. I'm content in letter transportation continue with the methodology they always have and making sure the analysis is done right and in reaction to the neighborhood. And they've committed to do that. So I think that issue is settled that way, as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And they're already in process, Page 148 _', .~v. .~--._,>.,.,,~-- III .I__.~"_<i"""'_~"'""",~"",.,^~" "^",' ...,"~ '" _' _'W'~"'''''_;_ ''''''''--'>>"""",---'''-'---~-"'''''-'<'--'' --- August 20, 2009 from what we understand with public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we've got eight stipulations we've made here on the record. Does staff have those? Are they clear? Okay, are there any other comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll would make the motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or second it, whatever the pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the first to speak so it's yours, . SIr. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would offer that we recommend to the Collier County Planning Commission that PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, known as the Italian-American Club commercial planned unit development be forwarded to the BOCC with a recommendation for approval with the with the afore read stipulations by the Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And of course the staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there a discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question was asked about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not your discussion but we'll let you discuss. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, the gross lease. I just -- before Page 149 """~.",_____,__'_",~,,,,,u__,,'_'~"_""_'_",",,",,,'~'_' .-,-=',...._-..~' ~. '. -,. -.."., _ . "".,...."'e.'...'~.~_,_.~..,_~._"~"."'___,, ,,~,'____~,__. ___'_'~__','__ August 20, 2009 you vote, I just wanted you to know what the subdistrict said regarding the gross leasable area issue. It does specifically talk about the district, which encompasses two parcels, not just ours, it's 74,000 square feet of gross leasable area is the terminology used in the district. So we would like consistency, which would be 34,000 square feet of gross leasable area. I just bring that up. That's what the district said, because there was a question about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I wasn't against it. I was just asking what it meant. Ray, if you need away to determine it, there is an association called BOLMA, Building Owners and something. You could just use their methodology to derive leasable, which is what they do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, no, I don't think there's a problem deriving it. I just want it to be consistent with the compo plan. If the compo plan represents leasable, I don't have a problem, but if it didn't, I'd rather prefer just to go with the LOC. COMMISSIONER CARON: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does what? COMMISSIONER CARON: Say gross leasable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the compo plan. So it looks like we stay with the compo plan. Okay, so we'll strike that one stipulation that number eight in which we would to changed it to the floor area instead of the gross -- is that okay with yours? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I amend my motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second agrees with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and the second accept the amend. So now we're down to seven stipulations. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 150 ._- _____~_.._....h~.._ "O'_~~"" ~'-" ."~'''''''''''''' ... "'__..,..,,,^,.,_",_....,, ,'" ~..~..<.,......M_ ...~" ~_.. .,,_.' ..., _' ,. ..'_._ August 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. And I think that's the last item on our a general Dan today unless there's any old business, which I have none. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn -- Mr. Schmitt, did you have -- is there a motion for adjournment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 151 _..-"....,_..~...~._,^~-"._.._-",--~-,---_._"_..".".,-,--...,,', ._~~.,,'"_. - e -,,"-...-- -'~-,,,.~. ".,.." '~,""'--'~~'-" ,'",-'-"--' .~.'" ..... ._.,,"-~-"-....~"'"'<~"".~-~- August 20, 2009 We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:51 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 152 ..~_,.-<_"" _.',._""._'.. .,_.___..,._,"_,.'o'^,..,m.",.."..>~,""""__ , "",,-,..",~,,~..,.,.",-",-~...._-~_......, -'._~-"" -----~--- Co~r Count" ~ ~t~~ frlWY\ -- ..... ~ - - Community Development & C6[ZO{oQ Environmental Services Divisic Zoning & Land Development Revie ~~esd September 16, 2009 Mr. Rocky Scofield Turrell Hall and Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B Naples, FL 34104 Reference: Petition No. BD-2009-AR-14192, Monte Carlo Condominium Association Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, August 20, 2009, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2009-AR-14192. A copy of Resolution No. 09-02 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-2942. S~A~C~V--- Ashley Caserta Senior Planner AC/hr Enclosure cc: Monte Carlo Club Condo Association, P.O. Box 7622, Naples, FL 34101 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Peggy Jarrell, Addressing Mariam Ocheltree, Graphics File (j) 2800 North Horsehoe Drive. Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400' Fax 239-643-6968' www.colliergov.net CCPC RESOLUTION 09- 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2009- AR-14l92 FOR A TEN FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM TWENTY FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06.E.l OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A 30-FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE TWENTY ADDITIONAL BOAT SLIPS ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 2004-04;[, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 10-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a 30-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips in a RMF -16 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found that this petitioner has met the criteria required by LDC Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, l:he CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BD-2009-AR-14192, filed on behalf of Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc. by Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. for the property hereinafter described as: BD-2009-AR-14192 REV. 8/20/09 1 of 2 Lots 1 and 2, Block B, of the Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision, as described in Plat Book 8, Page 62, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Club Condominium) be and the same is hereby approved in accordance with the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the existing 14 boat docks are legal conforming structures. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 8' -I b day of AJ it~+ ,2009. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COL IER CO\~~ttRIDA V cuJk! I ~~ M P. STRAIN, Chairman o eph K. Schmitt mmunity Development and Environmental ervices Administrator ~oved as to form and legal sufficiency A~ A- L.rO eidi Ashtbn-Cicko Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation Attachments: Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Exhibit B - Site Plan CP\09-CPS~0093 7\ 15 BD-2009-AR-14192 REV. 8/20/09 2 of 2 ~- ~ - . Conditions of Approval: 1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Reflectors and dock numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings; whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 07-62 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion; 3. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion; 4. A Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed docks; 5. Any boat moored at this dock shall be limited to a draft of 3 feet or less. CP\09-CPS-00937\13 Exhibit A EXISTING SLIP COUNT S OPTIONAL. ALL SLIPS N SLIPS LENGTH AND PROPOSED) ...,"":c, 14 30' p.~~..' . ?fJ -oi:'P/:\.. ~~ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL '1t~~~~< SLIPS LENGTH S, 20 30' 34 TOTAL SLIPS 0 7f! 200 EXISTING LEASE AREA: 8,873 sa FT PROPOSED LEASE ADDITION 16,076 sa FT TOTAL LEASE AREA 24,949 SQ FT I I ) PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LEASE AREA SEAWALL (335 sa.FT. :1:) EXISTING \ SUBMERGED LAND I ~ LEASE AREA (O.R. 2654 PGS. 2668-2677) (8873 sa. FT. +-) / VANDERBIL T { LAGOON /I', MLw-o.5'~1 MONTE CARLO CLUB 10684 GULF SHORE DR. VEGETATION I NAPLES, FL 34108 LINE I I LEGEND I 213' . . "CAUTION MANATEE AREA " SIGN J ... "MANATEE BASICS FOR BOATERS' SIGN I (PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LEASE AREA (16,076 sa.FT. :1:) I NOTES: <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONL INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. <> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW. <> APPLICANT OWNS APPROX. 712 L.F. OF SHORELINE. <> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,145 SQ. <> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 1,440 SQ. <> TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE: APPROX 2,5855Q. FT. <> WIDTH OF WATERWAY AT NARROWEST POINT: APPROX 213 MHW TO MHW) E h'b' B <>TOTALPROTRUSION FROM MHWL:30 FT. . X I It <> TIDAL DATUM: MLW=-{).5' NGVD, MHW=+1.5' NGVD. <> SURVEY COURTESY OF' COURT GREGORY SURVEYING- SURV DATED: 10-28-04 ~ 11 II A ' DESIGNED T.TeT. REVISION TAB NAME l.' Turr~, Ha ~ SSOclates, ~c. MONTE CARLO CLUB DRAWN JML 12-19-<15 SHEET 30F8 Manne & Envrronmental Consulting DATE 11'(]5-04 07-11'(]7 SCALE 1'= 100' ~ 35&4 Exchange Ave. Suile B. Naples, FL 34104-3732 PROPOSED DESIGN JOB NO. 0420 EmaiI: tuoa@tum:ll-associates.COID Phone: (239) 643-{)166 Fax: (239) 643.{j632 SECTION- 29 TOWNSHIP- 48 S RANGE- 25 E ,_........_~-'.-.-.." ,.~-" ""', '" cJWer Count.y -- ~ - - - - Community Development & Environmental Services Division Zoning & Land Development Review September 17,2009 Mr. Eric Schneider Turrell Hall & Associates 3584 Exchange A venue Naples, FL 34104 Reference: Petition No. BD-2009-AR-14226, Cowden Boat Dock Extension Dear Mr. Schneider: On Thursday, August 20, 2009, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2009-AR-14226. A copy of Resolution No. 09-03 is enclosed approving this petition. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-2942. Sincerely, A~ C o-^- ~ Ashley Caserta Senior Planner AC/hr Enclosure CC: Mr. John Cowden, 413 San Juan Avenue, Naples, FL 34113 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Peggy Jarrell, Addressing Mariam Ocheltree, Graphics File (i) 2800 North Horsehoe Drive' Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400' Fax 239-643-6968' www.colliergov.net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 09-~ RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2009-AR-14226 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 26 -foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 46 -foot boat dock facility in a Residential Single Family (RSF-3) zoning district, which facility extends into a waterway in an Agricultural district with special treatment overlay (A-ST), for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: Petition Number BD-2009-AR-14226, filed on behalf of John A. Cowden, as Trustee of the John A. Cowden Revocable Trust dated January 25, 2008 by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 695, Isles of Capri, Number Three, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 66, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 26- foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20- foot limit to allow for a 46-foot boat dock facility in the Residential Single Family (RSF-3) zoning 10[2 district wherein said property is located, which facility extends into a waterway in an Agricultural zoning district with special treatment overlay (A-ST), subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 2. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this J. 0 # day of Itvg US +- ,2009. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Jos ph K. Schmitt unity Development and Environmental ervices Administrator Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 1Iz-? wM . Steven T. Williams Asst. County Attorney 09-CPS-00939/9 STW 6/26/09 20f2