Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/03/2009 R September 3, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 3, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat (Excused) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David J . Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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 VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 6,2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-1409L LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, is requesting a Rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), the Oak Grove PUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a 764,524 square-foot continuing care retirement community (CCRC) to be known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. The approximately 29.25-acre subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) 1 B. 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 PA, 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) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-I1100. 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) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 20,2009) B. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14231. Peace Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc., represented by Margaret Perry, AICP of Wilson Miller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, LP A, requesting three Conditional Uses for a church, child care center, and private school in the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district pursuant to subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c., of the Land Development Code. The subject property is located at 9824 Immokalee Road (CR-846), in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) C. Petition: PE-PL-09-260, Collier County Airport Authority represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a Parking Exemption pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Section 4.05.02.K.3. The parking exemption seeks approval to allow construction of a new parking lot within the residential PUD known as the Marco Shores PUD to serve employees and patrons of the Marco Island Executive Airport. Subject property is located on a 1:l:: acre tract within Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 15. CONTINUATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MEETING OF MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2009 A. Discussion of a new meeting date 8/6/09 eepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr 2 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise -- not to be sworn in by the court reporter but for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY And our secretary is not here today, so let's start with roll call. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Mr. Vigliotti is not here and Mr. Kolflat is not here. They -- I know Mr. Kolflat has reasons not to be here today, his is excused. And I'm sure Mr. Vigliotti has, but we'll verify that when we see him next time. Page 2 September 3, 2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA And with that, we'll move on to the addenda to the agenda. We are going to be hearing one project that was continued to today's meeting. It's Item 9.A. It's the Taormina Reserve, the Highlands Property of Lee and Collier, Limited. We had agreed last time that if the applicant can successfully take our comments and put them into a format that we can review on consent, we'd do the consent on that one at the end of to day's meeting. So what I would like to do is take 9.A after the regular hearing, review it on consent under old business, so it would be 10.A under old business. Is that okay with the rest of the planning commission members? That's an assumption we get through it to a point where it goes to consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that, I don't know of any changes to the agenda. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning commission absences. There's been a little mix-up in the information we've been given in our schedule for September regarding the AUIR, and I guess from our discussions last time. It keeps bouncing back and forth. The 23rd is definitely one of the days. Every agenda has had that. But some agendas have shown the 24th, others have shown the 21 St. I believe the 21 st is the correct time; is Page 3 September 3, 2009 that right? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. It's always been the 21 st. I'm not sure why it was different on the calendar you were given. But it's been the 21 st since the day it was scheduled. Originally it was the 21 st and 22nd, but we put a day in between. So it would be the 21 st and 23rd. I do think you will finish this AUIR in one day, though, as we discussed previously. And we'll talk about the 23rd, because you were -- and that's last on the agenda as a possible date for the continuation of the floodplain ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's noted there that it's 8:00 in the morning. I have no personal objection to that, but that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use your mic, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. I noted that it's listed as 8:00 in the morning. And while I have no personal objection to that, that's different than what we normally do. Is that what we want to do? MR. SCHMITT: The room is advertised as 8:00 being taken, but I believe the advertised is actually 8:30. I will confirm that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, that meeting in particular is over at CDES, it is not going to be in this room. So that's where we have bigger tables. It's a dual committee meeting with us and the productivity committee. Also changes to the schedule: The schedule that was originally in our packet only showed two regular meetings in October. The one that was passed out this morning is a little more detailed, it shows a meeting for GMP amendments on the 19th and 20th and a carryover on the 29th. So for those of you setting your schedules for the remainder of this month and October, that's kind of where we're at. Page 4 September 3, 2009 If anybody knows they're not going to be able to make any of those meetings, just let us know if you can't as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the -- in September I show the 29th and 30th as overruns for the AUIR. Is that -- I don't know where I got that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have it. I doubt it ifbased on the fact we better not be spending any money, I can't see how we could run it over that long anyway. So -- and Tom, I know that you don't have a lot of discussion because we don't bring a lot of issues up that affect the school system in regards to some of the issues, but I know that on the GMP hearings the 19th and 20th in particular of October a lot of that stuff would certainly -- I hope you can attend those two meetings. MR. EASTMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHMITT: And Tom needs to be at the AUIR. This will be the first AUIR where we actually address the public schools facilities element. So that will be a presentation by the school board staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, that was one I was hoping he wouldn't attend. MR. SCHMITT: I suspect you may have -- that may be the area where you have a lot of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'd like to see us get control of the school board. That would be real interesting. Nobody else can do that. MR. SCHMITT: Tom says no comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's enough for the schedules. Let's go on to our approval of minutes. And the minutes that are in front of us is August 6th, 2009. Does anybody have any changes or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend Page 5 September 3, 2009 approval or to have it for approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All 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. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NO MEETINGS IN AUGUST CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recaps. There was no meeting in August so there won't be any of those. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Chairman's Report. During discussions I've had with staff on today's agenda, one thing I found is that the County Attorney's Office had not been getting a timely review of some of our consent agenda items, and so there will be Page 6 September 3, 2009 recommended changes. Is Heidi going to be here today, Jeff? Oh, there she is. I've never seen you sitting there before, Heidi, you're usually in the back or up here. Okay, when we get to the consent agenda, Heidi does have some changes that need to be made. And I think the Taormina Reserve, there may be some changes or comments at least in how that was processed. I would ask that staff please make sure that from now on the County Attorney's Office can sign off on all these documents before they even get to us. Because if they haven't, just keep them pulled from our agenda until they do. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, will do. And I'll continue to meet with Heidi to work out any issues to improve the process. Item #8A - Discussed and continued to later in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091~ SIENA LAKES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that, we'll move into the consent agenda items, and there are two of those. And I'll need Heidi's input for these. The first one is Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. It's the LCS Westminster Naples, LLC. And that's also known as the Siena Lakes CCRC/PUD. A lot of acronyms there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Good morning, council members. F or the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. The ordinance that I approved is a little bit different than the ordinance in your package. I'm just going to note what the changes are so you have them for the record. The first is on the ordinance on Page 1. Exhibit G has changed to Exhibit F, because we dropped off Exhibit G, which is the conditions Page 7 September 3, 2009 of approval. On your Exhibit C.5, which is the site amenities, on the one that I approved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go page by page. Because we've got to make our changes before we vote so we know exactly what you're talking about, Heidi, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So on Page 1 in Section 1, the second line from the bottom, it says in accordance with Exhibits A through G. And that's changed to A through F. And the reason is that we dropped the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: On your Exhibit C.5, which is the site amenities -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that look like? COMMISSIONER CARON: This. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's a picture. I'm looking for a listing. So okay, you're referring to the exhibit master plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, there's just a notation at the very bottom that will indicate that this is graphics for illustrative purposes only. Because the owner had testified at the hearing that this was conceptual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, there's C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and all these are the graphics, and the last one is the one you're referring to. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the language you wanted to add? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Graphics for illustrative purposes only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to note for the record that your Exhibit D is a new Exhibit D. It's different than what was presented to you at the last hearing. However, graphics and the owner Page 8 September 3,2009 have confirmed that that is the correct legal for the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean the first one was in error? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if we have two different legals, was the first one consistent or incon -- or what does that -- how much different was the first one than this one? MR. BELLOWS: Well, this is the first I'm hearing of this, and the planner assigned to this isn't here today, but I will check into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's put this off for approval till later. That's a critical question. Because if the legal was wrong, that may mean the advertisement that started the whole thing could have been wrong to begin with. I'd rather make sure we're on firm ground with the right legal that was advertised correctly, and then that is then consistent with the one that's being approved. So Mr. Y ovanovich I believe is the attorney that represents them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Terry Cole has just confirmed that the legal description attached to this document is the same legal description that was in your staff report when this item was heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how come it's -- we have Ms. Ashton telling us it's different? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, it may have been in the ordinance that she got had a different version. I don't know if she reviewed the one in the staff report. But I'm looking at the one that was in the staff report, and it appears to be the same one that we have here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which one you advertised? MR. BELLOWS: That's what we'll have to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because somewhere, if there's another Page 9 September 3, 2009 adver -- another legal description that's not consistent, then we may have a problem, and I'd like to find that out before we make a motion on a legal description that's not well founded. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I think it's pretty critical that our legal department get the correct legal description, or else how are they going to review for us? We can't -- you know, they can only do so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. That's why I want to make sure this is right before we proceed with an approval. So Ray, while -- between here and the time we go to Item 10, we'll have to defer this to another approval period on Item 10. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we're having someone call back to the main office and verify the advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Since our location maps are derived from the first legal that we got and that appeared to be correct, I assume the advertising is correct, but we're going to verify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, any time the county legal's office has a question, it needs to be fully vetted and verified. So it won't hurt to have this happen a little later. Mr. Y ovanovich is going to be here all day anyway. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, I do have the package that went to the CCPC, so I'll meet with Mr. Cole and show him the two legals. May I for the record just make the last change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What is that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, the last one is on Exhibit E of your list of requested deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's item two. Your copy reads a deviation from the LDC Section 6.06.06.A.2 (sic) to require a -- and we've inserted the six-foot. Page 10 "",,,,",,._1'0',_ September 3, 2009 And then it goes on to read as you have written in your package, sidewalk on only one side of -- and then the rest is the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, a little advertising in the back there for a minute. Okay, so we would insert the word six-foot in front of sidewalk. Just for the record, when you read that section, it's 6.06.02.A.2. You had read 6.06.06.A.2. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I just want to make sure it's right. Okay, and that's all the changes you have to the first consent item? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away, because we have a second consent item. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, I'm getting another file. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to postpone the vote on that consent item until -- it will be Item 10.B on today's agenda. That will give staff enough time to verify that the Exhibit D in this proposed consent matches the legal advertisement in the newspaper, Ray, okay? We're matching Exhibit D up to the legal advertisement. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, THE NAPLES ITALIAN- AMERICAN CLUB. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, let me read the next one so we know which one we're going into. Petition PUDZ-2009-AR-14141, the Naples Italian-American Club at 7035 Airport Pulling Road. It's another consent item from the Page 11 September 3, 2009 previous meeting. And Heidi, do we have any issues there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are just a few changes from the ordinance that I approved. In the first whereas clause, I just corrected Mr. Y ovanovich's firm name, because it's been changed. The new name is Coleman, Y ovanovich and Koester. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And your copy did not have a reference to Exhibit G, which is conditions of approval, which were added in this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where in this-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That would be shown under Section 1, the very last line in accordance with Exhibit A through G. And then that would also be shown on the second page where we identify the list of exhibits. There would be an exhibit sheet, conditions of approval, that's under my signature line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Then I just wanted to note that one of your items in your CCPC motion was that the project is limited to the height and number of flagpoles that exist today. So I was looking for that exact language. The language that reflects that is on Exhibit B, paragraph G, and it states only one tower shall be permitted on the Tract B, which shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. The owner indicated that it's not a flagpole, it's a tower, and so we're asking that that just correction be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that matches the intent. Yeah, the flagpole is really a communications tower. Is that in agreement with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, does it have to keep the Page 12 September 3, 2009 flagpole shape, or can it be any kind of a tower? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent was to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. My recollection of the intent was that it was to be nothing different from what it is today, should it ever have to be replaced. And I remember Commissioner Caron stating that, and I agree with that. That was my -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So pulling the word flagpole out means they could take it down and put any kind of communication tower. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the language that the owner and Mr. Moss agreed to is only one tower shall be permitted. I think that's consistent with one flagpole. And then shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. The language is quite different, but I'll let Mr. Y ovanovich comment on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Should we just add the phrase it shall be limited to the type and to the height -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of the existing tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only one tower limited to the height and type of that existing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, I think that was the intent of the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, one at a time. Okay, only one tower limited to the height and type as that existing shall be permitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're comfortable that type means flagpole? In other words, if they come out and say it's a decorative tower but this time we want to try a tree, which I've seen, Page 13 September 3, 2009 not good looking, would that work, or would type lock it in to be the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the County Attorney's Office would have to tell us that. If we've referenced the type, meaning our intent being the flagpole, does that stay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we say flagpole type? MR. SCHMITT: Or just use the language which would be disguised as a flagpole, because that's what it is. Essentially it's a communication tower disguised as a flagpole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, limited to the height and flagpole type. Only one tower-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or you could put existing tower/flagpole. I mean, if some people think it's a flagpole, but it's a tower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're getting real complicated here for a flagpole. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I'll defer to your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good with that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That eliminates the idea of that big tree they have up at Animal Kingdom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, the word type means -- I'm not sure what that means. Again, it could be interpreted as a means of decorative tower. Why don't you just use the word flagpole? Flagpole type I thought worked well. What's the down side of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- well, okay, I'm not against Page 14 """'''''_'''_O''_'__~_~><>_''''_'","","_'''_'''''V''--' September 3, 2009 anything, I'm trying to get through this. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what he's suggesting is using the term flagpole type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have the word flagpole in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in there, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does everybody have the language? Does the court reporter -- I'm sure she has multiple references to this now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I read it one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want me to read it or you want to read it? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever you prefer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it. Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B, which shall be limited to the height of the existing tower. Well, that's redundant. So after Tract B we would have a period. And I'll read it one more time. Only one tower limited to the height and flagpole type as currently exists shall be permitted on Tract B. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Works for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, are there any other corrections? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just one, which is if you go to your master plan on Exhibit C, and I'm referring to the two arrows that are on your south side, you'll note that one of them says shared access and vehicular connection. The other one does not. And I've requested that the master plan be revised to indicate Page 15 September 3, 2009 that the other one is also a vehicular connection point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That certainly was the intent. So-- okay. Are there anything else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there anything from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there have been several changes recommended. Is there a motion to recommend approval on the consent agenda for the Petition PUDZ-2009-AR-14141? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. And I assume all those are with the changes that have been recommended by the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 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. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, with that, we will move into our advertised public hearings. Page 16 September 3, 2009 And by the way, for the reporting office upstairs, thank you very much for the coffee this morning. It's keeping me going. I'm sure that Cherie's not appreciative of my quick discussion here, but I'll try to slow down. Item #9A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, TAORMINA RESERVE MPUD The first advertised public hearing is Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-III00, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, Limited, for the Taormina Reserve. This is a continued item from our August 20th meeting. The developer went back and made some changes. We have a new staff report and some changes in front of us, and it will be that document we'll probably be working from mostly today. Richard -- oh, before we go into it, anybody wishing to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Everybody that may want to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich on this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have spoken to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. We went over things that we'll be re-discussing here today. So with that, Richard, it's yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. Wayne Arnold is here as well to answer any questions you may have. And I think that's it, because I Page 1 7 September 3, 2009 think we got through a majority of the presentation last time. You have in front of you the revised PUD document that we met with your staff on to go over their concerns, and the documents have been revised to address the staff concerns and comments. Since then we've obviously had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Strain and Ms. Caron regarding further comments regarding those documents. And if the Chairman will indulge, it may go quicker if I go ahead and address those comments. And we've made those changes to the documents already and we'd be prepared to do those. But just for purposes of the public discussing those, I'll go through the changes that we're prepared to make, and if there are additions, we'll obviously discuss and make those changes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, for the record, though, when I met with you, I made it clear that the changes -- or the concerns I had were mine -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they're subject to the whole Planning Commission. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I'm going to go one-by-one. So if there -- and if your colleagues agree with you, Mr. Strain, we've made those changes. If not, we can always go back, again with the goal of making the consent agenda for later this morning, I hope. And I'll just -- if that's okay, we'll go that way through the process. Or if you prefer a different process, let me know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that works. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would start with basically Exhibit A, Page 2. Under SIC -- under the first A-I, under the groups, SIC Code 7941, that is professional sports clubs and promoters, we would agree -- a comment came up about stadiums and ballparks. And we Page 18 September 3, 2009 would prohibit stadiums and ballparks within that code. Then going to the next Page 3 under item six, we need to add a note to Group No. 5211, which is the home improvement superstores where it says no unroofed or enclosed outdoor storage permitted. We would clarify that to say that this prohibition does not apply to landscaping and nursery. I don't think there's an issue with the outdoor nursery and landscape aspects of these types of uses. And in fact, if you look at 5261, it specifically allows retail nursery. So we wanted to address that inconsistency, if you will, about nurseries being allowed to be outdoors. And I believe that was all the changes to Exhibit A, the type of uses that we were -- we discussed and are prepared to make. Mr. Chairman, would it make sense at this point to see if there are any other comments regarding Exhibit A before I move to Exhibit B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay, any other questions from the Planning Commission on Exhibit A? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, let's go back to the first page and you can help me with something here. On the second paragraph we talk about for each acre developed for group housing uses. And it goes on to explain what they are. The maximum number of conventional, conventional dwelling units authorizing the PUD shall be reduced by seven units per acre. Under the conventional, we don't have a limitation on the number of units per acre to begin with? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. When you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, the comprehensive plan basically provides -- in the urban area the base density is four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Page 19 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: When you get to activity centers, that number can go up to 16. And if you're in a -- oh, crap, whatever word that is -- you can go another three. If you're within a certain distance -- a density band. Within a density band you can go up to three. So that's where the number seven comes from, because this area is in the density band. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, then you've answered my question in that regard now, and I'm satisfied, thank you. On this schedule, I don't quibble a lot about certain things, but I thought it was interesting. On Page 4 -- you can leave it in there, I suppose. But under 6011, that's under 10, depository federal reserve bank, I just wondered, I mean, I don't really have an issue with it because I have no expectation that we're going to put a federal reserve bank in there. But I will go to Item 12 and talk about the eating and drinking places. And we have it here for 11 :00. But when we go to your recommendations that are in here from staff we talk about 500 feet. And we need to get into that a little bit more. Because I know in some of the others we've done, we've talked about 2,500 feet from a residential. And I recognize that we're also talking interior here, that was another effort we had to try to minimize the noise. But 11 :00, did we agree to 11 :OO? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe there was any -- we had thrown that out there as a discussion item, and we've included it in the document because we had committed to that. I don't think there was resolution from the planning commission as to even if any was acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put your site plan up on this so we can see where the 500- foot circumference would come into effect and what area that leaves in which you could have this outside entertainment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In particular because of5812 and 13, I am -- you know, I recognize we try to strike a balance, and Page 20 September 3, 2009 that's important here, but sound does travel and it is a significant issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put this right side up, it might be easier to read. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have control. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ray's busy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just exercised control, Richard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my point here is that 11 :00 seems a little late to me for amplified music and televisions, because I can imagine them being outside, I can imagine the sound being a problem. I think we ought to modify this at least a little bit and start talking about if there's going to be any music and TV, it ought to be inside after a certain hour rather than 11 :00. I think 11 :00 is quite late. I don't know if any of my fellow commissioners agree with that, but that's a thought I had. So let's see if there's anything else. Yeah, you don't have an expectation for funeral services and crematories as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if I have an expectation of those services there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't. Not considering-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess you could at some point, but I -- is that a problem, that use in an activity center? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, I'm a pretty liberal person in that regard. I don't quibble a lot about it. But it seemed an odd juxtaposition for assisted living and so forth and funeral services. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's an all-in-one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the extent of my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Communications groups. And I cannot remember, unfortunately, and I just noticed it and I marked it but never went back and looked. Does that include any towers or Page 21 September 3, 2009 restriction on dishes, receiving and broadcasting? Says towers and dishes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 4812, 13,22, 32, 33 and 34. We'll check, but I don't think we envisioned communication towers. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it says broadcasting in there, and generally the broadcasting needs something to broadcast it out of. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll check on that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It could just be on-site then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Exhibit A only? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 2 of20, in number four under the automotive, 7521, that is for garages, parking lots, parking structures and tow-in parking lots? And it's for a fee base hourly, daily, monthly contract or fee basis. Does that mean it can be a towing company? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's 7521? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're looking under the -- Wayne's got the SIC Code book, so -- 21. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a place where you're going to store cars for a fee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're checking on the communications towers and you're checking on the towing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The towing lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Towing lot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If towing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just say you don't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: If towing lot's a prohibition, we don't want that. We'll prohibit towing lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 7521, excluding any tow-in lots. Page 22 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's fine. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. And on Page 6 of20 under 21, again it's at 5735, that's retail sales of videos and discs. Could it include no adult oriented. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number is that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 5735. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page? MR. YOVANOVICH: On Page 6 of20. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 6 of20. Under 21. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anybody on the Planning Commission on Exhibit A. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. On Page 8 of20. 5999. I mean, I don't know if it's a -- under that listing there's gravestones, monuments and tombstones and sales barns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's an issue, we can delete that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, sales barns, I don't even know what they are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't either, so -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think they're standalone things that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So take out sales barns and the tombstone CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No gravestones or sales barns. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just take out the category. It's not anything -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess crematories are going to go then. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, they're taking out the Page 23 September 3, 2009 whole thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, art dealers are allowed under 5299, hearing aid stores are 5299, architectural supplies -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's 5999. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, is that 5999? I'm sorry, 5999. We were talking about the right number, I said it incorrectly. So I mean, we would agree to eliminate the two uses you just discussed from that category. If there are others in that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Gravestones, monuments, tombstones and sales barns. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We'll -- excluding those. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the communications towers, Wayne, did you finish researching that, or Richard? Why don't we say no communications towers. Do you have a problem with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I mean, you're talking about standalone communication towers, Mr. Wolfley, is that the concern? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, that and you could also have a dish farm on a roof. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or on the ground. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, or on the ground, but-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is a dish on the roof an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have to be-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If you're broadcasting, those are pretty large dishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't they have to be blocked from view, any rooftop elements like that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That answers my question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we -- I think the LD -- I'm not sure but I think the LDC addresses that. Ray and Wayne, I would defer to those two to know for sure. Page 24 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so I guess what we're saying is no communications towers -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for number one, and no dishes, no communication dishes unless blocked from view. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm just saying that there could be a tower, it just -- it can't be, you know, a certain height. I mean, if it doesn't exceed the height of the building, I wouldn't be worried, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, what I'm saying is that COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want there to be a radio broadcast tower on -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is a true statement. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- this site, because you don't want the RF reigning down on the homes that they're going to have on this COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we've got that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- part of the site. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- already. But I guess it was just a visual thing for me. But yes, let's just keep it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you have any problem with taking out communications towers? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's the issue. Anybody else on Exhibit A before we -- before I ask a question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a naughty laugh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I told you I was concerned earlier when we met about the exchange on a per acre for seven units. You Page 25 September 3, 2009 could do a 10-acre -- this is on Page 1. You could do a 10-acre CCRC, give up seven units but pack it with 300 units if you wanted to. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying if you wanted to. And in my discussion with Ray at one point on this matter, it was suggested that we could be looking at FAR -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be regulated to the .45 FAR. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually .6 in this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where? It's written in the PUD at .6? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe under the group housing development standards. That would be Exhibit B. And it may also be in -- we didn't? Well, if we didn't, then we are at the .45. I thought we were at .6 only because we have been doing that. We'll check -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't think I saw it in here. If you guys can point it out, then we want to make sure that the second paragraph doesn't conflict with whatever point you find it at. But lacking that, it would be .45. And that needs to be put in here then to make sure that we're consistent with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Exhibit A before we go into Exhibit B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit B? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit B, table one, footnote number six. To make it consistent with what we've been saying all along, and the master plan is on the visualizer, the shaded area is where we agreed to limit ourselves to two stories not to exceed 35 feet, and that was both zoned and actual height of 35 feet. We propose changing that footnote to read, for the areas shaded on Exhibit C master plan, the maximum zoned and actual height shall be, and this is what we would add, two stories not to exceed 35 feet Page 26 September 3, 2009 above finished grade. That's consistent with what we talked about, limiting it to two stories so there could not be a three-story building within 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we've got to add these. The asterisk six under maximum actual height over on the table itself on the left-hand side, left-hand column. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be there, as well as the zoned height, and then that revision to number six as I just read in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before I forget, we never did finish Mr. Murray's discussion. He brought up an argument about the . . nOIse Issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He talked about it, we never finished it. So I want to run back to that real quick. And I need you to put your aerial on here. If you have an aerial with the overlay of your site plan, I think that might be the best way to approach it. Well, right side up, too. There you go. Okay, there was a restriction on noise from the -- not after 11 :00 and 500 feet. If you look at where the R-l is and where it goes all the way to the left of that front row, that comer, 500 feet from that corner would put the limitation up into that long MU building with the two short ones in front of it along Santa Barbara. That means the southern two MU buildings could not have any outdoor entertainment with the 500-foot restriction, from what I can best judge by the scale. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. It's one inch equals 200 feet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, one inch equals -- on this one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, then I can't read scale. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is probably not to scale. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's about halfway up, according to -- I guess the photocopy shrunk it down, obviously. But that's what the scale reads. I'm not saying it's to scale, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I think you're right, it's about Page 27 September 3, 2009 halfway up. So that means, Mr. Murray, they could not have any outside entertainment that they're referenced in here in the south half of that commercial project, which means they'd be basically limited up against the Boys and Girls Club for the nearest neighbor. And then Firano, which is the other residential tract, would be separated from them by that open space of trees which, if it's one inch equals 500 feet, that's probably about 500 feet as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just gives you the reference you were asking about earlier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. If I may, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Given that that's the upper half of that long building is what we're relating to, do we know how far from the -- let's say the lowest point, the middle of that long building, which we'll arbitrarily call the point of -- the distance where we can allow it. Diagonally down to the R -1 going through the woods there, what would you understand the distance to the first house in the R -1 ? Is that 2,500 feet, 1,000 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if this is approximately 500 feet, you know, that would get you to about -- that would be 500 feet going straight. And then, you know, whatever the minimum setback requirement is. It would be -- it's going to be over 500 feet. Clearly it's not over 2,500 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I don't -- you have to understand that I'm looking for equality and making certain that we're consistent with what we approach too. I understand this is a mixed use, and people who buy there should be aware that that may be the case, so I'm not quibbling about Page 28 September 3, 2009 that. But the amplified music and 11 :00 is the key factor for me. I think it should be earlier than that. I don't say a great deal earlier, but that would be my view and so that's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any comment to that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to change the time? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if it's the consensus of the Planning Commission that 11 :00 is too late, is there a suggestion that Mr. Murray would like to make? I mean, I don't know if it's the same consensus. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there isn't any consensus, that's why I spoke what I -- you know, what I attempted to get across so we could have this conversation. I would see 10:00 as being reasonable. And if they wish to have any amplified music inside, you know, as long as the doors are closed and it's fine, they're performing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So outdoor amplified music or TVs need to cease at 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think that's fair, reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just so I -- I like your idea of keeping things consistent. Do you remember what we did on Lely? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there we allowed -- we allowed that to 11 :00. In fact, I'm not even sure we had a time restriction on it, now that I think about it. And we allowed it to be that it can cross that lake. So there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be upset if or when that ever gets built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm just trying to understand, do you remember what time limit there was on that at all? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't -- Page 29 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I recall 11 :00. That's why I thought this was consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't here for Lely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, this is Lely? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lely. That was about two years ago. We had a commercial -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, we've had several since then about noise, and I think it's been about 11 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so all the other ones, generally 11 :OO? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem 10:00 or 11 :00. Let's wait and see what the audience has to say when they come up, and maybe that will weigh in on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea, yeah. That's the purpose of the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll hold that one and see what kind of public comment we have on it. And let's move on to finish Exhibit B. Two suggested changes on the asterisk six. Anybody else have any questions on Exhibit B? (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's table one. Table two, an issue or a question was raised regarding the multi-family setbacks from the external setbacks. So if you'll focus on the second column, starting under minimum yards external where there are references to three NAs. Those actually should be the same as the commercial, so those should be 25 feet from future Santa Barbara, 25 feet from Davis, and 25 feet from the eastern project boundary for the multi-family buildings as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just to make sure. Did we Page 30 September 3, 2009 on table one also add footnote six to the maximum actual height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Anybody else on Exhibit B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, do you want to move to the next one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before we go on I-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- want to talk about -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I apologize, but I missed the change that Mr. Yovanovichjust made. And since there's no consent, I just ask that you read that in again on Exhibit B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's going to be a consent this afternoon or when we finish. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know, but I'll be proofreading it to make sure that they've complied. So I apologize, someone -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No problem. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- was asking me a question so I didn't hear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under multi-family, under the minimum yards external, working our way down, it would be 25 feet from future Santa Barbara extension, then 25 feet from Davis Boulevard, and 25 feet from the eastern project boundary. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to talk about the southern Page 31 September 3, 2009 boundary between the mixed use and the R-2. What are the setbacks there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is actually within the project, so that's not an external boundary. The external boundary is further south between the R - 2 and the vacant zoned ago COMMISSIONER CARON: So what is the separation? What is the internal yard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twenty feet. That would be considered a front under the internal boundary -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- criteria we talked about, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just confirming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe you can talk about it again. If you have an MU and Santa Barbara is the main road and you have an R-2 and Santa Barbara's the main road, why would a front apply between the two sides of the MU and the R-2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a corner. We have situations throughout the county where you front two roads and it's considered a front. COMMISSIONER CARON: And my question to you was, is that considered a road or is that just an internal street to the PUD? Is it actually a front? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can stipulate to that. We intended it to be, and so if we need to make it clear, the answer is that was our understanding, but if there's any question about ambiguity, we'll make whatever revision will make the Planning Commission comfortable that that will be considered a front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how -- I want to know how you think you're going to do that. If you're just going to say that's a front because you're going to agree it's a front, then that's just another way of reinterpreting your setbacks. It can only be a front if that's considered a road. Does that mean you're dedicating that section of Page 32 September 3, 2009 land to the county and is the county willing to accept it, and are you putting it to county standards? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, you don't have to be a road -- to be considered a road, it doesn't have to be a county road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're saying that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be our private road. And if there's a concern, Mr. Strain, we're happy to eliminate that concern by putting a note wherever you deem appropriate that that shall be considered a road for purposes of that, or we can just simply put, across the southern boundary of the MU tract there will be a 20-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather you did that, then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Either way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I don't want this conflict about whether it's a road or not is going to come up here when we get further into your document anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not looking to have conflict in the future. That was our understanding, so it's easy for us to make that note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your internal boundary setback to your southernmost point of the commercial or MU tract will be 20 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are going to have fun writing this up today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess we would -- Mr. Strain, so when it comes back, would we just make that a note in that table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you make it a -- just asterisk the internal and put it down below as another note, yes, like you did in the other table. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we plan on doing, I just want to make sure we're all going to be looking in the same place for it. Page 33 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the Exhibit B tab Ie? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm sorry, I'm on C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go on to C, Richard. And Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, you know the property line or that end of the western, the R -1, the shading? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I assume that aligns up with some logical point, right? Should we note that, or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It lines up with the -- I know that, but if you look on -- this shading lines up with the residential project to the north on the aerial that you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we just put something there, either a dimension or that note that it's -- other than that, Ray, what would you do, just scale it and -- MR. BELLOWS: I think that would be the best way to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The best way. How do -- where do you scale it from, the north-south line of the MU tract? MR. BELLOWS: Well, if possible, maybe we could even put a dimension in there. I think that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm suggesting. But where do -- I think the measurement might be from that north-south, that eastern tract line of the MU tract going east. How far east would you go before that shaded area kicks in? Because that MU tract eastern boundary line is not going to change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a note that states that -- a little arrow pointing that it's the western edge of such and such a PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, why don't we say that -- I think it's referred to as the Cook PUD. So why don't we make it coincide with the boundary of the Cook PUD. Page 34 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you're done with that, Mr. Schiffer, I have one other note that we would want to make on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, you can make your note first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, the enhanced buffer that we agreed to for Naples Heritage would also be an enhanced buffer along the Cook boundary as well. So we would make that note to the PUD master plan, have it go all the way around in the shaded area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the enhanced PUD buffer not only faces the Naples Heritage, it also faces the Cook PUD, which is the Firano -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was something that hadn't been __ that wasn't spelled out. And there's text in here that needs to be changed to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reflect it as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's the landscaping exhibit. I think it's F, maybe, but we'll get to that, Mr. Strain, and we would make a change there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of your change that you're just suggesting, to get that implemented, you would need to strike the first reference where it says 10- foot wide Type A buffer or. Basically you're going to have a 15- foot wide enhanced Type B buffer for the PUD for both those scenarios. And they will be continuous in the shaded area. And that -- Page 35 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- gives the Firano the same buffer that Naples Heritage has. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I just wanted to ask -- or I'm making an assumption that to the Cook PUD to the north of there, that that treed area is preserve. Do we know that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is that -- you mean to the west? COMMISSIONER CARON: To the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North of your R-1. COMMISSIONER CARON: To the north of your R-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between Cook and your MU. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about this? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that is not within the Cook PUD. I think that's actually part of the Boys and Girls Club project. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe that's a preserve, but I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But we don't know whether that's actually a preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, again, I think it is, but I don't want to be held responsible if I'm wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, that sort of makes a difference in terms of buffering. Why would you want it to stop here when perhaps it should go the entire length? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's zoned commercial property. That's within -- I believe in the activity center and zoned commercial. It's zoned C-3. So if there's going to be a buffer requirement, I think the C-3 parcel should have to bear the burden of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't -- the C-3 would be the more intense use, so they'd end up having to put a buffer to buffer the R-1 Page 36 September 3, 2009 that you would put in. COMMISSIONER CARON: And a wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the master plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, there's just one notation. You have a note two. All acreage are approximate and subject to modification at the time of SD P or plat approval. And I would suggest that you add, however, they should be no less than the minimums required. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Brad may have lost site of it, but he was the guy that brought up the midpoint turnaround. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in there. It's in a different portion of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it. Okay. You tell me it's there, it's there. It's not in your master plan and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's I believe in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- commitment section. Am I correct, Wayne? He's talking about creating turnarounds for the fire department or emergency EMS. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exhibit E. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe I missed the darn thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right, Exhibit E under the deviations. It says streets with land (phonetic) area less 600 feet shall have traffic calming devices installed at an -- wait a minute, there's another place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Too fast? Page 37 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's trying to take -- THE COURT REPORTER: I just didn't understand what you said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was -- actually, it's not deviation one, it's B.9 on Page 18. And it reads, the developer or successors and assigns shall provide a stabilized emergency turnaround meeting local fire prevention code criteria approximately midway along the cul-de-sac of the primary internal roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see it. I read it but I didn't see it. It happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't think Exhibit D has gotten any legal description, so we'll move -- Exhibit E is the deviation. Does anybody have any issues with the deviation? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only comment, would it be wise to add a sentence to reference them to B. 9, send them over to that? Because the reason we're giving you the deviation is because you're going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, can you explain? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, just a sentence in there that references U.2 Exhibit F, I guess it would be I.B.9. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be fine. We would just basically say also see Exhibit F. I guess that's I.E. I'm sorry, 1 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B.9. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- B.9. That would be fine. And there's a reference on the master plan to that deviation, so there would be mul -- that would be a cross reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Exhibit E? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Exhibit F. Page 38 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: F. When we get to -- our change would be to C, the landscape buffer provision. The first sentence would say, an enhanced 15- foot wide, and then we would insert the words Type B landscape buffer, shall be provided along the eastern property boundary adjacent to Naples Heritage PUD for a distance of approximately 500 feet south from the terminus of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop. Adjacent to the Cook PUD and the Naples Heritage PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to add that later on, but that's okay, we can do it there and adjacent to the Cook PUD boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to add that at the end of the sentence, Mr. Strain, to complete the thought on where the 550 will be measured for Naples Heritage. And then we would just simply say, and along the northern boundary for a distance consistent with the Cook PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I don't care, as long as you get it in there. I wanted to make sure you didn't skip it. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then if you go further down, Mr. Chairman, I believe you pointed out that the LDC requires that for a Type B buffer that these shrubs are supposed to be four foot on centers, not five foot. So we would make that change from five-foot centers to four-foot centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On B.6 on Page 18 of20, developer shall construct a six-foot high privacy wall constructed of materials. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had that question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which materials? And where is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we meant -- Page 39 September 3,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know what we meant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we were -- you know, precast. We weren't going to commit to a block wall -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but we were talking about, you know, solid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Concrete fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Solid precast. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are some issues with this one in that we don't know that there's an easement to place this wall on the property owners property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is easement -- there's questions with numbers one, five, six and seven. But I thought we were still on the landscape one. So I don't know, did we move back to number six or are you still -- have you finished with your landscape issues? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, I have finished the revisions that we were going to suggest to this exhibit. I know there are questions regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before we get into Heidi's questions and mine on those other issues, let's just discuss the issue Mr. Wolfley brought up and get that one resolved before we go on to the next. There's a material issue on the walls. What kind of material would the wall be made of? Let's forget about whether it can be done or not, because that's going to be the next challenge. So let's just talk about if it could be done, what kind of material would it be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne? Solid precast materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I seem to recall eight feet. Page 40 September 3, 2009 I don't know where that came from, but I thought it was an eight-foot fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I think it's always been six. I could be wrong, but I thought it was six with the -- the neighbor was requiring in exchange for an easement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He requested eight. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did he? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it was for a distance of-- yeah, remember, we were talking distances there, lineal distances on the thing? And maybe that should be listed there. It's just sort of nebulous. Well, I guess there's an address, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I think your staff was suggesting six feet. And if you'll recall, we were objecting altogether. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then they added that. But they'll give us a credit against some other requirements, so it became a non cost issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that was it, those two things, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, going back to the landscape under C, you read, and it's in the third line, you read 500 feet and it says here 550. I just want to be sure -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 550. And I think it was mid sentence when I was reading, so it's 550. You're correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we use the word precast, could we add the word concrete to that, just so somebody doesn't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- have a cast plastics fence. Page 41 September 3, 2009 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to transportation, B.1. Under 1.i it says, completion of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR951. It's already complete. I drive it every day. I drove it to get here. So what do you mean by that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? I believe it's supposed to go to four lanes. I think it's two lanes in that section right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you mean the completion of four-Ianing of Davis Boulevard; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask transportation department, what is the worst case scenario as to when that will be completed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Until the 12th of never. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning, for the record. I checked yesterday with our management staff, and 2010 is when that piece of roadway, piece of Davis is being let for bids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me repeat my question. What is the worst case scenario as to when that will be completed? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't know the construction schedule, but I'm going to say 2012 for completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's if you get your bid out in 2010, if the funding stays there, and if we don't have another debacle like Vanderbilt Beach Road that went from two years to five years or whatever it took to complete that little piece of road. So that means these people could move in -- could start the development on this property next week or whenever they got the PUD approval and their SDP approval. They could go in and build their buildings. So say within a year they got buildings sitting there and that they just couldn't use those buildings until the CO for that road -- they couldn't get the CO till that road was substantially Page 42 September 3, 2009 complete -- and that would be another correction on this -- and that substantial completion is unknown. And the practical application here is that if that were to occur, they would approach the Board of County Commissioners to show how unfair this is and how they've had all these millions of dollars sitting there in completed structures and now they can't get the CO and how unreasonable that is. So I certainly think tying any project to a CO -- any CO of a project to a road completion is very problematic for this county . We should tie building permits, not CO's. And I don't know of any other way around that at this point. And I'm certainly not in favor of tying CO's to roads, because we have no control over when roads get done, nor when they start. So -- and Richard, I know you're probably not going to agree with that. But there's another problem. Because if you take that certificate of occupancy and the completion -- and the unknown completion date of Davis Boulevard and you apply it to number five, your commitment to install Sunset Boulevard shall remain valid for five years. Well, knowing the -- from the date of PUD approval, which is, say, this year. So there's a good chance that the four-Ianing of Collier Boulevard will not be complete within that five-year time frame, and then the county loses the benefit of the construction for the remainder of that connection. Now -- which brings into another issue which is concerning the right-of-way and what transportation is doing with this privacy wall. You're taking public money and you're applying it to the benefit of a single private property owner for a wall along a 30-foot or 50-foot roadway that we don't require anywhere in Collier County. I don't know of any of those -- in fact, I have a roadway like that in front of my house, and if you give this man one I want one for my house. And I think every person in this county's entitled to one. Page 43 September 3, 2009 I don't care that he's going to give you an easement. That's fine. What you have to do to work out what he -- how he gets that -- how you get that easement is not a matter of a developer paying the money which should go to the public benefit. And that's not what I see happening here. It's going to a private benefit. Can you shed some light on why this is being done this way? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. The -- initially the public benefit that's perceived by us is that it helps keep some of the local trips off of the arterial roadway network -- Santa Barbara extension that will be in place, Davis Boulevard -- by providing that interconnection. F or us the only way so far that we've -- that based on the communication that we received from the landowner who's dedicating the remaining little key piece there, his condition that he has stated so far is that he would like a wall in exchange for providing this last remaining 30 feet for this roadway easement connection. So far we have been agreeable to that. There's -- like I said, we have viewed it as a public benefit because this connection helps take trips off of the overburdened hurricane route that's there at Davis Boulevard, the Santa Barbara extension. That's kind of where we've been viewing this from. If the board's perception of this is different, we are certainly amenable to removing the requirement for the wall and simply working with what we have left. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I may, the County Attorney's Office recommends deletion of this Section 6, based on what we've heard today. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Section 5 or Section 6? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. You were talking about the six-foot privacy wall. Page 44 September 3, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. That one, which is number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Without that six-foot privacy wall, let's take that off the table, not -- we all got to discuss it, but right now let's assume that's not on the table. Then we have another problem. Because we have several policies in our GMP that seek interconnections. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're referring to interconnections between local streets. The interconnection of local streets between developments, safe interconnection of such local streets. If you move this map up a little bit, this aerial, the primary street that I believe transportation has more right-of-way already acquired, if not all, is the one that's not shown on here. You see that white line to the right where you've got that street coming up? That's Shadow or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sandy Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sandy Lane. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sandy Lane is almost -- is that already under easements? Does the county already have easements for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I did check the deeds last night. Both Sandy Lane and the majority of Sunset Boulevard already have 30-foot easements that have been lessed out from the properties along the roadway center lines, basically. Each property that adjoins each road there, both Sandy and Sunset, has a -- and I've got the deeds here. They all have a less the 30 feet along that roadway alignment for the purposes of right-of-way or for the purposes of a roadway. A lot of them are spelled out a little bit differently in their deeds, but that's how they're shown. Sandy Lane in its entirety all the way up to the property line is within that lessed out 30- foot easement each side of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's a much cleaner one than the Page 45 September 3, 2009 Sunset Boulevard one you're dealing with. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, correct. The only-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason you didn't do Sandy Lane is because the developer put a preserve between the cul-de-sac of his residential and the end of Sandy Lane, which is two or 300 feet. The preserve that's on this property is significantly larger than the minimum preserve required. I think it's -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We actually have an additional reason that we chose to follow the Sunset Boulevard alignment. And I did confirm this yesterday. Cope Lane, if you go a little bit further south, there is an easement for Cope Lane that is owned by the county that would connect to the future Santa Barbara extension. Apparently strategic planning has shown that we wanted to basically reserve the right for a signal at Cope Lane. And if those four parcels that front Santa Barbara extension and are bounded by Cope Lane and are bounded by Sunset -- you know, it's kind of hard to describe unless I've got a map in front of you -- those parcels would gain access from Cope Lane and Sunset. We're trying to minimize access to the limited access roadway that we're constructing with Santa Barbara extension today. And I can point this out on a map, if you'd like. Will that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, we have some concerns in the County Attorney's Office as to number five. If there's to be a requirement at all, I think the requirement can only be as to the portion that the owner owns. And this commitment seems to extend off of this property . I've not reviewed the deeds for Sunset. Based on what I heard -- I can't say his last name; John P. I'll slaughter your last name, I'm Page 46 September 3, 2009 sorry. What I've heard him say, I have concerns that the easements that you might be requiring him to construct are private easements and not public easements. So our recommendation, if you do decide to go with this type of commitment, is to limit it to be built on his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I wanted -- most of the developments, in fact, if you go to look at the consent agenda and the master plan that we just talked about on the Italian-American Club, we showed two connections to the south on that five-acre, maybe it was 10-acre -- it was a very small parcel. This is a parcel much, much bigger and we're only showing one connection to the south. But in this case we're making them make commitments off-site in regards to those interconnections. That's inconsistent with the way we've done things I think in the past. Now, I don't mind getting as much as we can when things are done, but I think it has to be equitable in every case. In this case dropping that eastern connection to Sandy, Shadow, whatever the word, whatever the name of that street is, I don't understand why we're going along with that. I mean, I understand it's a preserve. But it's more preserve than required, it's in the urban area, and you can mitigate those things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I take you through what our attempts were with the Water Management District, if you wouldn't mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll take you through -- we've been going through with the Water Management District permitting as well, okay. And our first attempt to get a site plan approved was this. So we had a loop road close to the boundary. We then attempted to get that approved, which would have made it very simple to interconnect our road to Sandy Lane, if I got the right name. The Water Management District said no, that's good wetlands, Page 47 September 3, 2009 you're going to preserve those good wetlands and this is what we're going to give you a permit to do. So we attempted through the process to accommodate staffs request, or at least make it easier for staff to implement the request of interconnection through the permitting process. The permitting agencies have said no, they will not issue a permit for that to occur, so we are where we are because of the permitting requirements. It was a substantial change to what we had originally hoped and intended to do on the property. And yes, it's more preserve than is required under the county, but it's what's required by the Water Management District, so we're kind of stuck with it. And it's not unusual that, you know, the preserve requirements of the other permitting agencies exceed the minimums required by the county . So, I mean, we'll show an interconnection to our neighbors on Sunset, and we had committed to building that portion of Sunset on our property. And then the wall issue came up and kind of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I don't doubt that the South Florida would have done certain things in response to the way they had things presented to them. But I also don't see a value in a wetlands that has a lake dug on it, both sides of it, the one at Naples Heritage, as well as the one on your property. It's bounded on the south by developed properties that certainly look filled, and roads on this point. And while that may be a wetland, to get a road connected to that cul-de-sac over to the other road, I don't see why that's a hard task to do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand what you've just said, and I've got done a lot of permitting through South Florida. I just don't agree with you that that's impossible to do. Page 48 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, then let the county do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going back to what our GMP says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMP requires for interconnections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it doesn't require interconnections, it CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it prefers -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- says where feasible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- interconnections. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right where it's feasible. And we don't think that's feasible in that area. But if the county wants to go through the permitting nightmare and mitigate for that interconnection, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one, Richard. Now, back to John. If the number five is eliminated and number six is eliminated, both our concerns with the County Attorney's Office, as well as others, maybe, what does that do to your department's review of this project? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you'll give me a moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Removing number five in its entirety sort of eliminates any predefined method of interconnection that we would be able to obtain at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way the County Attorney said is remove the requirement for them to build stuff off their site. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would still be required to retain that portion of the paragraph that required them to do the things on their site. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Up to their property line. Page 49 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is consistent with the way we've made everybody else do things. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. At this point the direction that I have is that we'd like to continue to keep the developer responsible to construct the remainder of the roadway where we have ownership or rights that are public at this point. Specifically across the frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property, or where we have or are obtaining those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to the portion that's off-site, you need to give them some kind of impact fee credit or something if you are to require that he design and construct that portion of the roadway. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. That's understandable, and I think we'd be agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we're here today trying to resolve this. And I'm not sure I see an agreement between you and the applicant working all these details out to the satisfaction of the legal department and ones that in my particular concern eliminate the taxpayers funding a private fence for a private party. Ms. Caron, did -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry, number six, I don't think we have an objection to removing that at this point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think John may be reading number five incorrectly . We're required to build that portion of the, I'll call it Sunset extension only on our property, okay? And we're supposed to do 200 feet of it first. And then if the county gets the right-of-way, we'll extend to the remainder further south only on our property. We're never going off-site to build Sunset. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Y ovanovich, can you confirm for the record that the 200 feet, the initial 200 feet is on the developer's property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The entirety of the 830 feet, is my Page 50 September 3, 2009 understanding, is on our property. So the first 200 of that 830 we will build. The remainder, the 630, we build only when the county gets the necessary off-site right-of-way . We're not -- this commitment in our mind never required us to go off-site to build the road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Perhaps it would be helpful if we look at a site plan, because that wasn't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have the cross-section -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- what was presented to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- as part of the PUD. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron I -- did you have a question, Donna? Then Mr. Murray -- then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think if you look at Exhibit F.1, that's where it's going to show you where that first 200 feet is. And essentially they're constructing that 200 feet, so they have an entrance into their R-2 piece of property. Anything below that that goes down to the edge of their preserve there, that's another whatever it is, 600 and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what did somebody say, 680 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, where you see -- well, somebody just took the pen away, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Will get built if the county ever gets the rest of the access; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That 830 includes the shaded area all the way down to the pen, okay? And all of that's on our property. We only build the shaded area to access our R-2 tract initially. If the county gets the necessary right-of-way I guess to make the interconnection happen, we'll build it to our border, our boundary. Page 51 September 3, 2009 That's what that commitment's for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think too -- but I think where Ms. Ashton was -- the reference in the last two sentences is a bit confusing. This requirement for the construction of the remainder of the connection to Sunset Boulevard. Basically you wouldn't be connecting to Sunset Boulevard, because it doesn't exist. You're just saying the remainder of the construction shall remain valid for five years. Because if the -- Sunset Boulevard doesn't exist, does it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We've actually found a little -- I found a little bit different story than that when I checked out the deeds on these properties. The 30-foot easements that I was talking about, or the 30-foot lessed-out portions exist all the way up into the Taormina PUD. There are one or two parcels that show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it already exists all the way up into that Taormina PUD, then why are you putting this private fence up? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Again, the one problem is that we're missing one key piece, one key 30-foot easement portion of this. Where it should be 60 feet wide, we're missing 30 feet of it, and that would be the frontage of Mr. Tetrault's property. That's the one core piece that we're missing. As far as the 830 feet, if it does not cover beyond the property line, then that's what we've agreed to and then we'll -- it will cease there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton, did you have anymore? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, there are some issues I think that are unresolved here, and we need to be clear on the ownership of the area that's being required to be built. And if it's owned by the developer, then we need to have an arrangement for the conveyances of easements, if this is going to be part of a public road. Page 52 September 3, 2009 If you're going to require him to build this road, based on my understanding of the nature of this road, we are going to be required to give him impact fee credits. And we also need to address the maintenance of the roadway, if it's going to be public or private. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. For the portions of the roadway that are outside this developer's project where he would be constructing, if it's his requirement to construct that extension, then yeah, I believe that would be subject to impact fee credits. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But he just told us that this is all part of his project, so I think -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The part that's off-site. For the part that's on-site -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would suggest that when we take a I unch break -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know how long this is going to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a break in about 10 minutes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- that perhaps we meet and try to work out some language to see if we can propose something that everyone would be able to live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let me throw this out, because I don't want to go work it out and then there be issues here. We have some recent experience with this for Siena Lakes. We constructed a, quote, public access drive for the Lakeside residents. The public could use it, but it still was essentially a private road, and it was a private drive. And I would -- that's what we envisioned was going to happen is the public would be able to come across this drive. But I think what John was saying is it was our development's responsibility as far as the road goes, so it would be a private/public Page 53 September 3, 2009 partnership, if you will. And that's why I don't believe the impact fee issue came up on the portion of the road on our property. Correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me understand this. Sunset Boulevard, all the way up to your property, will be a public road. But when it gets to your property, it's a private road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it will be with public access. We would maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what agreements -- for example, this then plays into that earlier question we had about the road between the R-2 and the MU tracts, now making that MU building a corner lot. So if it's a public road -- well, it's not a public road, you're saying it's going to remain a private road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are all kinds of examples where the developer access roads, they look like roads, are basically drives that the public uses and the developer's responsible for maintaining. This is not a new concept. And it goes on all the time through the approval of SDPs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And DCAs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and plats and all that other good stuff that happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason that this wasn't done in a DCA? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would -- there's two parties. I mean, it's just us. It's a PUD commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a lot of different pieces to it that could have been worked out before they got to this meeting. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. Page 54 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- to my way of thinking, now the more we see this, this 30-foot section that we're talking about is really not appropriate to this activity here as being a part of it. What -- given impact fees and the fair market value of the easement, if granted to you, those dollars combined, would they not be the amount that would equal the cost of constructing a fence? Or would the cost of constructing the fence be greater than the fair market value plus the impact fee? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, I don't have a good answer for you on the cost of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, but I think that that's got to be -- seems to me that this is a county activity seeking to achieve something. I don't object to that, but I think it's inappropriate to the way it's being put. It seems to me that if we have an issue with the gentleman and he wants something, a quid pro quo type of thing and he's entitled to certain things legally, let's find out what the value of that is, and maybe there's such a differential that that's why it becomes one of these let's try to get it in this way. I understand what you're trying to get, but I think it does really present a problem for us. And I have a question about the legality of private roads. Now, I recognize the laws in different states are different, but I'll use as an example, I think it's typically understood up in Radio City up in New York, once a year they close the access. People cannot walk across any part of that property. That is done to preserve their right to have it as private. Are the laws in Florida such that you can have a private road that is public? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You can have a public access roadway that is privately maintained. And that is -- that's the direction Page 55 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's different, privately maintained. But it does become a public road, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Access. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, public, public access. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's our concern. We can call it a public road. We just want it to be 30 feet wide. The way -- with the lanes we talked about, with the one sidewalk. And we don't want this thing to grow to 60 feet. We're okay with 30 feet, building a public road, with a lane in and a lane out with one sidewalk. We just don't want all of a sudden the utility companies to say, you know what, since it's now a, quote, public road you've got to put utilities in here. So now it's now 40 feet wide and it continues to grow. If we can just make it clear it's 30 feet wide under that cross-section, we'll dedicate it to the public and we'll be done with it. Is that acceptable? That's our -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, are you stating that it would be a public road but it would not include public utilities is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- what your proposal is? So that would be what would have to be stated in the easement document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the way to do it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait till they're through talking. And John, this question's for you. Essentially, John, now you have a 60- foot wide access easement that actually runs up into this property, correct? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. Page 56 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only piece you're missing -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe for the most part, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you're missing a gap to the neighbor to the south, okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would they not then be redefining that access easement? I mean, the drawings we show, the one that was on the screen, it stops when it hits the project. But wouldn't that have to continue through their project anyway and connect to their -- at least their main road here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, with all due respect to John, he has not done a complete title search on the property. He's not submitted a legal description for this right-of-way to any title company to review to find out who owns what and if there are any easements on there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, you know, this whole discussion is irrelevant. We've agreed that on our property we will provide a 30- foot wide road, we'll craft the limitations during the break. We're taking care of our property. I don't care what's off our property. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't matter. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- if I may, based on the deed that was attached, I can't confirm whether there is or isn't a private or public easement. So my preference would be to stick with Mr. Y ovanovich's property. I'm hearing him say they'll donate to the county a 30-foot easement. Any public utilities has to be within the 30 feet, if any. And that they'll -- I think he said they'd build the first 200 feet to their entrance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, then, the question kind of is, is there an existing -- on their property, forget off the other properties, is there an existing 60- foot easement on their property? Page 57 September 3, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Within their property, no. I believe it's 30 feet. But again, Rich is correct, I have not done a title search on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then Rich, the next question's kind of for you. The drawing that's up there, that black arrow kind of hides the detail. What would the intent be then, that you would bring a road down, swerve it, and then on the center line of that easement you would construct the road? Or would you do it solely on your property side? In other words, the detail of -- you can see the black lines going to the black arrow, which is kind of -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be on our property. That is our property, it would be on our property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, that drawing will essentially have a 30-foot road -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that will come down within a 30- foot easement? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you will fill the eastern side of the center line of Sunset Boulevard with asphalt for your part of that easement. Doesn't make sense. If they have a -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Unless the other 30 feet is available off-site, then we would add that into the design requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then they would center it on Sunset. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I just have one -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- question, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the maintenance of the roadway would be the developer or the county? Page 58 September 3, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The portion that is within the developer's property currently would be the developer's responsibility to maintain. We can't require them to maintain it off-site. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just -- but it will be 30 feet of paving. That doesn't -- I mean, wouldn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 24 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there be a road within it? Yeah, that's what I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 24 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're not going to pave the whole 30 feet, you're going to have a 24-foot road within that 30-foot easement. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right, 24 feet with the six-foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And John, the question is, what are you really going to gain by this access? This does run down to that Cope Road (sic), right? And then what is really going to happen with that? That's going to essentially become the back road of future commercial development? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point we don't want to preclude it from becoming a back -- essentially a reverse frontage road for the four parcels that front Santa Barbara. We also want to give this -- you know, give the neighborhood the opportunity to use this for another access point, an interconnecting access point up to the commercial area so that we can connect a commercial area within this PUD to additional residential areas to the south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That will keep roads off of the primary network, off of the primary Davis and Santa Barbara extension. Page 59 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your intent is to filter these areas that are essentially the center of the screen. These people are going to be filtered up their roads and come through the back way to get to their commercial. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: They'll have the ability to, yes. They will still have access. No changes to their access to Santa Barbara extension, it's just they'll have another route that they'll be able to take to reach the commercial areas within this PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, during our break you need to consider your department's position in consistency with the GMP with the elimination of number six and the changes we discussed. My intention when I started on this line of questioning was simply not to see taxpayers money spent on private property improvements that were unwarranted. How we get there for that property owner in acquiring his property is not something I think this developer should be involved with, because it also sets the developer up for an inverse condemnation claim that later on tolls this project indefinitely from any claim of sun-setting. I don't want us to be in that position either. And that factors into the Collier Boulevard extension and all that. So with all that in mind, I'd like to take a break, I'd like you to talk to Heidi Ashton to make sure everybody's on the same page and we're not avoiding setting us up for problems down the road if we don't complete the extension of Davis Boulevard and all the other issues we just talked about regarding this -- what's to be done on the developer's side. And with that, let's take a break to 10: 15 and come back and resume. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. Page 60 September 3, 2009 We left off where the transportation department was going to get with the legal department to resolve any further questions and let us know if they still find the project consistent, should we remove paragraph six, if that ends up being the consensus of this board. And looks like you all are still talking. Okay, I feel like the county commissioners now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're being ignored. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now, we're eliminating -- proposing to eliminate number six out of the developer -- out of this agreement. But -- so the county's going to have to do something off of this agreement with that landowner; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's up to the county. I have no idea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But you're saying it has nothing -- or she's saying it has nothing to do with this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the County Attorney's Office said. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: With this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I started questioning too. So that's kind of where we're at. But I'm not sure what that impacts if it doesn't happen. And that's what we're trying to find out from the two that are talking right now. So Richard, let's move on -- well, they're finished. John, I think the question was consistency with the GMP if we remove number six. They're still providing the interconnection, they're still providing the road system on their property. Are they still consistent with the paragraphs in the GMP? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I believe they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Heidi, is there any lingering issues then? Page 61 September 3, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your discussion with John and the changes to five and six. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't completed the language, but let me read to you what we have so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We're just going to tweak it a little bit. But it currently reads, the developer, its successors or ex -- sorry, let me try again. The developer, its successors or its assigns shall provide for the potential interconnection to Sunset Boulevard. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of design, permitting -- and permitting of approximately 830 feet of limited access roadway. Then it will go to, at or before time of first SDP developer shall convey to Collier County a 30-foot public access easement. This is the part we have to tweak, whether it says over the east side of developer's property, as conceptually depicted on F .1. Because I need to clarify that it's along -- I don't know if it's 830 feet. I don't know the distance. That's the part that needs to be clarified. Then, which may include public utilities if it does not conflict with the paved roadway and sidewalk. Developer shall design and construct the first 200 feet -- I didn't put a time limit on that, because since it's going to be accessed to his site, I would expect that would be early on -- and developer shall maintain the 30- foot easement until Collier County accepts maintenance responsibility. The first 200 feet he'd be maintaining, that's his access point, it won't be until we accept maintenance responsibility. And then the remaining portion that's, you know, grassy would be his responsibility until the county constructs the roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Heidi? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for you. In the Page 62 September 3, 2009 first portion you said design and permit but not construct. Then you added design, permit, construct -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The first 200 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- 200 feet. That leaves 631 feet as for construction not defined. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we want-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's part of the 30 feet that's conveyed to the county. So it will be up to either the county or a private party to construct that portion of the road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But as I understood it as presented, that 831 feet was all part of the developer's property. If that's the case, wouldn't it be the developer's responsibility to construct that road? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, maybe Mr. Yovanovich can clarify what they're willing to construct. The easement they've agreed to donate at no cost to the county. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's what we agree to do: The 830 feet of this roadway that's on our property, all 830 feet is on our property, we had agreed to design and permit all 830 feet. We had agreed to construct the first 200 feet of that as part of our -- and we would do that as part of our first SDP for the R-2 tract, because it's related to the R-2 development. We do the designer permitting as part of that first SDP. We would construct the first 200 feet to provide access to our development on R-2. We know we have to do that. The balance, 630 feet to the end of our property, we would build if the county got the necessary easements for there to actually be interconnection. And they have to get those within five years of the PUD being approved. If they don't get the easements then, we don't have to build that 630 feet. It doesn't mean that the county can't come back over that 30-foot easement and build it later, but our obligation to Page 63 September 3, 2009 build it goes away. Now, when we -- and we may get an SDP later than five years, okay, but if the county has already acquired the right-of-way at that point within that five-year time frame, we're still obligated to build it and we'll build it as part of the R T SDP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So Rich -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it seems reasonable that we should have that in the language. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Rich, you're saying that the 630 feet would not be on your client's property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is on our property. I've been saying that all along. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So then what is the interconnection that you're -- what are the easements that you're waiting on? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's off-site. It's when you guys get your off-site easements so you can -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you talking about between the arterial road and your client's property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: See where they're pointing to Sunset? Right there. You guys. Off our site. You see the pretty, green trees? That's our site. South of that is off our site. You don't have all the easements you need, in my opinion, to connect the road we're going to build to our border all the way to Cope Lane. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Paragraph six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you -- wait till everybody else gets done speaking. What did you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think it should be tied to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph six is off the table. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's gone. Page 64 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. But that's the property that you're talking about. That's off-site. And it's described right here on Exhibit F .1. I don't know what the issue is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought the exhibit was pretty clear. And I thought -- you know, we can tweak the wording, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to put in 200 feet of this roadway to get your own -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right-of-way -- your own buildings anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the county finds a way to acquire the right-of-ways for Sunset Boulevard to be connected to Cope Lane to the south, or wherever, then you're going to build the rest of that roadway if it happens within five years. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that's on their property. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Within your property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that's within the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, within our property, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we got 800 and some odd feet I think it totals out to then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 830. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All on your property -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that you'll agree to build in two phases. And that's kind of where it's at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything off property you're not-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- committing to-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, he's saying he'll only build the Page 65 September 3, 2009 additional 630 feet if the county gets the easements for the rest of the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it happens in five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it happens in five years. Which is the point I want to ask: Why did you peg it at five years? MR. YOV ANOVICH: At some time we wanted to know whether we had a financial obligation to do this. Because, you know, it's got to cut off at some point. So we picked -- and staff was fine. They said we'll either get it or we won't, the easements off our site within five years. And then your financial obligations go away. If they get them later, we'll take on the responsibility of building that 630. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it then means that after five years, assuming the negatives occur, that the presumption would be that the county would come in and do 631 feet of roadway on your property . MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within their easement that we're giving to the county, pursuant to the revised language. We're giving a 30-foot easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that part of -- I mean, have we a budget for that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? I don't know. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last thing -- okay, basically what we're going to do is see a rewrite of number five. Number six would be dropped. Number seven, John, why is that in here? That's proportionate payment and that's already I thought in the GMP. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it is already in the GMP. What Page 66 September 3, 2009 we wanted to do with number seven was to spell out that all of the individual SDPs and/or plats that occur within this PUD are subject to Policy 5.8 as of the time of zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that differ from what's in the GMP? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Because if it's done individually and it's not part of the PUD, there's a potential that each of these sites could come in SDP or plat later down the road and not be subject to contribution towards Policy 5.8, which is contribution towards improvements to a hurricane evacuation route. Davis Boulevard is the specific example in this instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I know this will be a sore subject because we already mentioned it once and it was, but let's go back to B.1. We're tying the -- on B.1 we're proposing to tie the COs to the completion of Davis Boulevard. And the way that should read is, and for both i and ii, substantial completion. And then of the four-Ianing of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR951. Is that a true statement, John? Is that what we're looking at is a four-Ianing condition for Davis instead of a six-lane? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I haven't seen the current design plans that are being let. Unfortunately I don't have the answer for that one yet. There's portions of it that I know are going to be six near to the intersection. I don't know if the entire segment is going to be four or six though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how do we reference __ substantial completion of what of Davis Boulevard, if we don't know what it's going to be. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We could say the next substantial completion of widening above the two-lane condition. It's currently in a two-lane condition. Page 67 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could fix the shoulders of the road and qualify for that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you wouldn't mind, I could send an e-mail and find out what the final condition of that roadway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's -- I think we need to say what completion is. Because right now the road's complete. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if we were to say at least four-Ianing for the width -- the length of our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but then they get four lanes done and they still got two more to go and the whole place is under construction. I don't want you coming in saying we deserve this now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I would like to suggest is the county, whatever their plans are, give them a minute to go call and tell you what their plans are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll do that before consent, so that needs to be done. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if -- while we're on that topic, Mr. Strain, if I can suggest, I understand you have an issue with the building permits. And what I would like to propose is that we -- we can't get a building permit until whatever they define the project to be is under construction, and we can't get our COs until those improvements are substantially completed. So you don't have the situation -- at least we're taking some risk. We know that the road's under construction, and I think that's a fair . compromIse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a compromise we've used on other projects -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other projects, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's the change that happened after we discovered the problems when we tied COs to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. And Ms. Ashton, if we were to issue a building permit yet and Page 68 September 3, 2009 they got their buildings all done and their final inspections, say within a year, but for some unknown reason, if Davis Boulevard got delayed in its substantial completion for, say, three years, can we force them to sit there with vacant empty buildings fully inspected and safe and say you can't have a building permit until that road's done? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think there's a good chance you'll have litigation at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's again what we're trying to avoid. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, with all due respect, it's a condition of the PUD. What happened was is the board was asked to waive that condition, and they agreed to it. Whatever the situation was. I don't believe they had to, but they did it. It was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, you had something? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, you were mentioning building permit. Are you referring to a CO, final CO then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was referring -- we talked about both. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both building permit -- he's suggesting they issue -- they get building permits issued when the construction starts on whatever condition Davis is expanding to, and a CO only when that's completed. And my question to Ms. Ashton was how do we -- what do we do if we get delayed on the substantial completion date of Davis and they demand their COs because they're sitting there with a fully safe and warranted building. And that is a concern. We'll move on. John, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, we left off, we're going into Exhibit G. Exhibit G. Do you have any changes or questions there? September 3, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any issues on Exhibit G? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit H. Does anybody have anything on Exhibit H? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On number 1, five to six feet, I would like to see just six feet. Get rid of the five and the TW -- or TO. Just six-foot wide sidewalk. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And when this comes back, we'll likely move that into the text of the commitments, rather than on a condition of approval, based on what Mr. Y ovanovich has agreed to today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think -- anybody have a problem with it just being straight six-foot? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Exhibit H? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two. Number eight -- oh, never mind, I got number eight resolved. Number 10. What is this about? It says a coordination meeting between a developer and utilities to discuss a location and size of a well site easement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had objected to that. We're not amenable to giving them a free well site easement. And I think that was the utilities department's attempt to force that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it belongs in here unless it's a -- unless there's a mechanism in our Land Development Code that requires it, and I don't know that. It's another one of those exactions that we've spoken out about every single time. So unless there's an objection from any other member of the panel, I think we Page 70 September 3, 2009 ought to strike that one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My statement to myself is which proves what, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see anyone here from utilities to speak to the issue. There never are, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of all the language changes and questions in this packet. Before we go any further, I'd like to see if there's any members of the public that want to speak on this matter. Ray, do we have any? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker that registered. His name is Glen Faulkner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, glad you mentioned that. In disclosure, I did talk with Glen on the phone, that's why he was here today. But he's -- I told him if he didn't have any issues, he didn't have to speak if he didn't want to, but he ought to register ahead of time in case he did. So he represents Firano development. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the Firano development, I know we keep referring it to the Cook PUD. Did they go through a name change to call themselves Firano, or how did that happen? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The legal -- many PUDs have a legal PUD name, which in this case probably was Cook PUD. But when they come in and go through a marketing or whatever -- it's similar -- I'll give you a -- MR. BELLOWS: Plat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or plat or plan, they'll choose a, as I refer to it, a Gucci name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure the name was okay. MR. SCHMITT: Wentworth Estates is a great example. Page 71 September 3, 2009 Wentworth Estates PUD is actually Treviso Bay. It's marketed as Treviso Bay, but it's legally Wentworth Estates PUD. And there's others in the county like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got -- we've had-- there's no public testimony remaining, we've gone through all the issues. Richard -- or staff. Does staff have any -- and staff, I know J.D. did this, and Kay, you're trying to fill in for J.D. Do you have anything you want to add to our discussion? MS. DESELEM: I think -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a gentleman -- MR. BELLOWS: We have a speaker who didn't register. MR. LEEKS: I'm from Naples Heritage -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to be sworn in and then you can speak, if you'd like, sir. Please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. Sir, if you could raise your right hand. MR. LEEKS: Sure. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could come up and state your name for the record and we'll be glad to hear you. MR. SCHMITT: Either one is fine, either microphone. MR. LEEKS: L-E-E-K-S. Robert E. I'm from Naples Heritage. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. MR. LEEKS: Thank you. I'm from Naples Heritage, and we were here for the last meeting. There were a number of my other colleagues that were here at the last meeting, and unfortunately they're out of town. However, I just wanted to mention that that doesn't eliminate our concern, and wanted to be heard about this whole project. The main concern that we have is the privacy buffer. Also, the length of the privacy buffer from where our property ends. And from what I heard today was 15 foot where there's going to be some Page 72 September 3, 2009 landscaping, which are going to be erected after 15 feet; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, it's a 15-foot landscape buffer. It's going to be enhanced. It's going to have I believe a four-foot chain link fence in it. The buffer will be a little bit stronger than what's normally required by the PUD, from what I'm reading in this PUD. MR. LEEKS: The main concern that my colleagues and I have is the length, the 15-foot length. We'd like to propose a 60-foot back (sic). Because the noise level that Mr. Murray talked about before, I'm right in the middle of this, right in the middle of this lake. And the noise level that we hear as we speak from the Boys Club, which is down at -- as we all know, the start of Davis, we hear this in the evening. And so we talked about 10:00 or 11 :00, I thought. And I just wanted to mention that the noise level when what (sic) we hear from parties, et cetera, et cetera, is considerable. And if I could ask the County Commissioners (sic) for consideration on lowering the time level, it would be appreciated. Again, our major concern is the privacy buffer. And I want to compliment the developer for addressing this concern, okay. And what we saw was a nice buffer which we think in time, once it is planted, will expand. And that's good. The major concern is the length from the 15-foot -- what we'd like to propose if we may, okay, is back it up to 60- foot. And that's basically all I have. And I want to thank you for hearing me out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? I'm here. MR. LEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. You thought about the time. Page 73 September 3, 2009 Do you have any recommendation for time when you'd like the music, amplified music, to be stopped? MR. LEEKS: I thought a reasonable time level would be 9:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. LEEKS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne or Richard, whoever wants to answer the question, I've got a couple follow-ups. The gentleman's issue in regards to your 15-foot buffer -- and you have a 15-foot setback, if I'm not mistaken, by reading your single-family or multi-family rear yard. Was your intention to include the buffer in that 15 feet? And I don't even know from staffs perspective it can be. Or was your intention to have a 15-foot buffer plus a 15-foot setback? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I believe it was the buffer can be part of the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to have-- actually your PUD boundary setback would dominate on this one, so it MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would be 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would be 25 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at a 10-foot on top of the 15. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd be 25 feet back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But 15 feet of that will be buffer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Enhanced buffer. Page 74 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Enhanced buffer with a chain link fence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And remember, we brought the height down to the 35 feet, which is consistent with what our neighbors at Naples Heritage have basically done, or can do, versus what they theoretically could do. We went with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Are you all-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm finished. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- set with your questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I want to talk about the MU tract and the R - 2 tract. In my discussion with you the other day, Mr. Y ovanovich, and when we were talking about various uses that could go on that MU tract, we talked about the fact that you could put a Lowe's on 10 acres of that 1 7 -acre MU tract, and then the other seven acres could be multi-family. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be an option that we would -- yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And the other thing that would separate those two uses would be a 15-foot buffer and a four-foot fence? Is that what I heard -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- somebody say? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- a type -- it was a Type B -- 15-foot wide Type B buffer with a wall. And let's look for sure, but I wanted to say six feet, but I could be wrong on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the landscape enhanced buffer for Type B that we've been talking about, it says a minimum four-foot high chain link fence shall be installed with -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But there's a different commitment in the PUD when we addressed that very situation for the MU tract. Page 75 September 3, 2009 And I just need to find it. Because we had added the -- maybe it's in the commitments. Oh, here we go. It's under Exhibit H. Number four. We would be required to do the LDC required buffer, IS-foot wide -- IS-foot wide Type B buffer, and the LDC requires a fence or wall for what's required between residential and commercial. COMMISSIONER CARON: How does this work? And actually, it's probably more of a question for staff. But we're supposed to have transitional zoning here, and this certainly flies in the face of any kind of transitional zoning, because you're going to put residen -- you have the potential of putting residences right up against -- you know, 15 feet away from a C-4 or 5 use. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are many types ofaltematives to deal with compatibility and buffering impacts of dissimilar uses. Sometimes staff, depending on site conditions, would require a larger setback. If a larger setback -- or restrictions of some of those uses, commercial uses would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Have you done that in this PUD? MR. BELLOWS: Well, in this PUD I believe it's a combination of buffers. And -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's just 15 feet. MR. BELLOWS: Are you talking about the MU tract? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Versus the ago to the south? MR. YOV ANOVICH: NO. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just the MU tract is all we're talking about now. MR. BELLOWS: Buffers between uses in that-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: In that tract, yes. MR. BELLOWS: No, then there's no code requirement for any kind of buffering within that tract, other than the typical landscape buffering around buildings. Page 76 September 3, 2009 But there's no -- a mixed use is just that, you have residential mixed with commercial. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But in mixed use, in what will be the mixed use part of it, if they actually do that, we've limited it to C-l through C-3 uses, all right, so we've limited __ MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's one way of-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what could be there. If they decide to use part of this property for either a C-4 or a C-5 use, we have not done that. They can then put a Lowe's or whatever, some big box store here on part of this and they can also build residences. And the only thing that will separate those are a chain link fence and 15 feet of buffering. And that to me doesn't seem like good planning. MR. BELLOWS: Where a PUD is silent, the LDC would come into play. And the LDC has buffer requirements between a solely commercial parcel versus a residential tract. And that would come into play, and there would be a wall required at that time. Wall landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: What would the buffer requirement be? MR. SCHMITT: Wall between commercial and residential. MR. BELLOWS: There's a wall between commercial and residential, and I don't know offhand. I'll have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it here. The chart says that it would be a Type B between commercial C-3 -- C-l through C-5. And a multi-family RMF-6 or RMF-16, it would be a Type B. COMMISSIONER CARON: A 15-foot Type B-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is what they're saying in number four. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So that's all we require. Page 77 September 3, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: That's all the LDC requires. For the PUD, and that's an error. If it comes up, that could be a recommendation by this board. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- yeah, I would hope that the board would want to increase any buffering between the possibility of those types of uses. My other question is that on this MU tract, the MU tract can become independent living. So it essentially becomes residential. And the R-2 is obviously residential and the R-l is residential. So now we've taken a quadrant of an activity center and made it totally residential. Is that the intent of the Growth Management Plan for activity centers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask anybody who will give me an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're trying to ask staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I wasn't sure who that was going to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Anybody who will give me an answer. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the GMP. Could you state that question one more time? I just couldn't quite understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Uses on this MU tract, if you look at their development standards table -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it can be all residential. It doesn't have to be mixed use, it can be all residential, according to multi-family residential principal uses. And/or it could become independent living. So suddenly this mixed use tract that everybody thinks is going Page 78 September 3, 2009 to have some commercial in it and be an attractor for the region, the neighborhood, because it's in an activity center now is no longer that, it's just a residential -- it becomes a residential PUD. And I'm wondering if that's the intent of the Growth Management Plan for activity centers. MR. BELLOWS: Well, for the record, Ray Bellows. There are PUDs within activity centers that are entirely residential. The original concept of an activity center is to be a mixed use activity center, where there would be commercial and residential projects mixed together. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Historically, though, the PUDs within activity centers have almost been entirely commercial. There's been very few projects that are mixed use. And the county's been trying to tweak the GMP over the years to better encourage residential and mixed use projects. And we have started to see some mixed use projects like Mercato and this one, and I believe Davis Reserve was another one and so on. COMMISSIONER CARON: But why don't -- we should be limiting that MU tract to actually being MU is my whole point. If what we're looking for is a mixed use situation in these activity centers, then we shouldn't allow it to become all residential. And according to this, it can become all residential. MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't prohibit it. That's the problem. Staff cannot say the code says you shall have, it's just that is an -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But we could make a stipulation. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the idea of an MU/PUD means it's a mixed use PUD. It would not be mixed use ifit had no commercial in it, would it not? MR. BELLOWS: The thing is, it's approved for mixed uses. It doesn't say it has to be developed as mixed uses. Page 79 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what I'm trying to get at is if we intended this to be a mixed use PUD and by the M being in front of the letters PUD, I think that's what everybody assumed. Is there a minimum criteria that can be for commercial? Is there a minimum amount of commercial in the acreage that they should use as commercial that would be within this activity center? MR. BELLOWS: This came up on a few other projects in the past. And the answer was there is no minimum other than the minimum floor area for a particular building. So it could be as small as a few thousand square foot structure, and that would qualify as mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you've got 17 acres of mixed use you're asking for. How much of that would you commit to being commercial? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In an activity center, if they came forward they couldn't actually -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying to figure out why this PUD is getting treated differently than other PUDs that have gone through the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as you have told us many times, that we reserve the right to learn from our mistakes. So -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know that it is a mistake to allow -- if the market decides that -- remember, we're only allowed 128 units on that piece of property, okay? So there's that cap there. If the market decides that that multi-family use is a better use on that property than the other retail uses that we could potentially put there, why would that be a mistake? Because the compo plan allows for that. The compo plan doesn't say that an activity center has to be retai I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the question was asked. I'm Page 80 September 3, 2009 asking you to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're saying you're not going to commit to any commercial-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know a number, Mr. Strain. This is the first time it's come up. I can't tell you that I -- I don't know if it's one acre. I don't know. I don't know the answer, so I can't give you a commitment if I don't know. I need some time to think about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? We kind of need to focus on the impacts of this PUD. And I don't know if there's a reason -- a rationale for demanding more commercial in a community that's got more commercial than it needs already. But it certainly warrants the question. And I think if you want to -- if you're concerned about the way this committee votes, you may want to address the issue. But that's why -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I haven't heard what the committee -- I don't know if it's an issue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what one members concern is, and I think you need to address every concern that you hear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I'm trying to figure out, if it is a one-member concern or if it's the entire commission's concern that there has to be a certain minimum of commercial in an activity center. I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm going to try to get -- Ray, I -- Mr. Y ovanovich indicated that there's no requirement in the GMP that there need to be retail. I think, though, there is a requirement, is there not, for it to be commercial -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in an activity center? Isn't the Page 81 September 3, 2009 purpose of the activity center for commercial? MR. BELLOWS: The purpose of the activity center is to allow mixed uses. It's encouraged to have commercial. And commercial cannot be located outside of activity centers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: So by -- because commercial's not located outside of activity centers, what we've been finding historically is all the PUDs that come in within activity centers are entirely commercial. So our staff concern was with this project not was that it would become all commercial but that they would eliminate the residential. So that's why the PUD had a requirement for residential units in the mixed use. MR. SCHMITT: Under -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know -- MR. SCHMITT: On Page 4 of your original staffreport, and it's Growth Management Plan consistency, it clearly states the intent of mixed use activity center. It's in italicized. It basically states that the mixed use activity centers are intended to be mixed use in character. The actual mix of the various land uses, which may include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses, at a density consistent with the Land Development Code shall be determined during the rezoning process, based on consideration of factors listed below. Then it lists all the factors. So there is no minimum, per se. You can establish a minimum. We've done that before. There is a maximum in regards to number of residential units. And there is a maximum, but clearly stated maximum. And in this case there is. But no, there is not a minimum per se that you have to have so many residential units. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Commissioner Caron -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Caron -- I hadn't Page 82 September 3, 2009 finished. Commissioner Caron had brought up a very good point, I thought. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we have -- when we describe the activity center, we also talk about density bands and, you know, we go out from there to a more quiet place. So clearly, whether it's properly stated or not, the intent I've always understood is that a mixed use was intended for commercial with the hope that we could also put some people in there and rent places and so forth, residential. And so let me just say that when we looked at earlier, much earlier, when we looked at all of the items that were included in the SI C codes, there were so many of them. I mean, the program seemed to be really geared up to both residential and heavy potential commercial uses. And I think it's a fair question for us to ask. And if it's not clear in the GMP or the LDC, then we will do that. I'm in favor of what Commissioner Caron has indicated. I think we need to have some kind of a commitment. Otherwise we're going to be a pig in a poke approval here. I know you've given us all the pigs, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wait a minute. Can I say something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you want to read all of the GMP under mixed use activity centers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let's just continue on with this discussion first. Ms. Caron-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. And it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has been trying to say something. Let her slip something in here. It was her question to begin with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Page 83 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: The point is that I would like it to actually be a mixed use activity center. I don't want it to end up being all or the other. But according to the way your PUD is written, it can be all commercial -- no, it can't be all commercial but it can be all residential on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be all commercial on that mixed use track. There's no requirement to put any residential units -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- on that mixed -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- use tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- says here-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't talk at once. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- commercial/mixed use residential. So that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are all options on the mixed use tract. If we wanted to build -- if we don't want to put any residential on that mixed use tract, we are not required to put residential on that mixed use tract, okay? Let's just make sure we understand the document. Whether you want to change that or not, I just want you to understand, there was never an intent that there was a requirement that on that piece there would have to be residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Likewise, there was -- and if I may, let me just finish, if you don't mind. The mixed use activity center language in the comprehensive plan specifically recognizes for residential only development in the activity center you can get a density of up to 16 units per acre. So it specifically recognizes in a mixed use activity center language in the Growth Management Plan that it can be a residential Page 84 September 3, 2009 project. So to say that it's not -- that it was really intended to be mixed use, it may have been, but there's also the option that it could be purely residential in an activity center. And it was discussed. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's directing himself to me, if you wouldn't mind. I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would tell you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- while you're absolutely correct from what you're reading, in the years now, it's almost six years I've been doing this, this is what I've learned, that the intent of the activity center was such and such. But I want to get off of that. If this master plan -- and this is the master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This master plan depicts residential. And if you have no intention of going with residential, I'm concerned about that. It doesn't -- we're being asked to look at what we think we're approving. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say there was no intent. It's an option. I can't tell you today that I'm going to do five units on that piece of property, 128 units on that piece of property, or zero. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't like arguing with you, but I've got to tell you, I can't figure out what to do about it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, thank you for your patience. You had wanted to talk? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This just seems -- I think 10 years ago we did a little development here, it came up, I don't know, called Pebblebrook, and it was four phases of residential, two of which turned into commercial exclusively. Page 85 September 3, 2009 This seems to be the exact opposite argument that we had then. I don't know if anyone here was here then when we did Pebblebrook. What was it called, the Richmond or Richview or whatever -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Richland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richland PUD. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But it was exactly the opposite, if you recall. Everyone was complaining about it being commercial, those two tracts -- two phases going to commercial. And look at what fine mess that got us into. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- if it's the consensus that there has to be a minimum amount of commercial, does the Planning Commission have an idea of what that is, so I can -- we can talk amongst ourselves as to -- can we agree to that, or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I don't know about a consensus. I do know the question now has been raised and re- discussed by at least two members. If either one of them have an idea, maybe three, that you would want to offer to make sure you've got as many people to vote on this as you can possibly could get, to me it doesn't matter. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Market driven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Ms. Caron or Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron, do you have a recommendation for -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to say that if our land use laws don't require either one or the other, I don't see why we should force it. Let the -- you know, what the market demands decide. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There you go. How about that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's very -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. Page 86 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's my concern then in that regard. We have R-l. And those R-l, we have all of our concerns about setbacks and grass and trees and all the rest of it. And if we go to -- if they decided to go all mixed use commercial, what does that do? Well, then the Land Development Code comes in. And would that be an adequate buffer for the people who are residential next door? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the only discussion we're having is on the MU tract. The RU-l and RU-2 are not part of that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think so. I thought it was the entire project that we were talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just table two, which is only for the MU section of the project. That's where Ms. Caron's question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then my apologies for extending it into that part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm personally not worried. That land's too valuable to have 128 units fit on it, so I'm not worried about that. Buffering within the thing, I mean, Donna, theoretically they could put houses on top of the Lowe's, so that would be mixed use, maybe. So I'm not worried about that. I do think we have to keep an eye on it. We have had mixed use projects, we've given them benefits, and then they've come in here and they've had hardly any commercial, and we've kind of given them trouble when they get here. So Ray, that's your department to keep an eye on that. Anyway, that's my feeling. I do have one more thing on table two when we're through with this part of the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not trying to set any Page 87 September 3, 2009 minimums for anybody. What I'm trying to get to is that I think if we're going to be a mixed use situation, that's what we should be. What we have here are a laundry list of possibilities because again, this particular development is not really going to get developed any time soon. This is not an imminent project. So I would just like it not to be able to go all commercial or all residential, that it indeed is a mixed use product. My other issue for the board, not for the petitioners, is that if there are going to be C-4 and C-5 uses, I mean, if they take over and they do 17 acres of a Lowe's, fine by me, and the other seven acres ends up being housing, I think there just should be more of a transitional buffer than 15 feet between such intense use. And so -- you know, but that will be for a motion-making time. As far as the -- you know, this other issue, I just wanted to ask the question. You know, we do these things all the time and nobody ever asks the question. You know, if we all think we're approving a mixed use project, we're not necessarily. It could be an all commercial project, it could be an all residential project or it could be a mixture of both. And I just want to bring that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what you just said is what I thought I would be making a motion on today, is that it is going to be either a mixed use project or either an all residential project or either an all commercial project. And the limitations of each one of those are spelled out in this document that we're looking at. And the reason I thought it was that is because if you don't ask for mixed use, then you've got to do all commercial and you've got to do all residential. So the best way to approach it is come in with a request to do all of them. And if that's the option that the market dictates, then that's what they have the ability to put here. It is an activity center. There's no detriment to any of those in the activity center. So we -- I don't have a problem with that approach to it from my perspective. Page 88 September 3, 2009 So with that, Mr. Schiffer, you had another issue on table two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. And it's the distance between buildings. It's stated as a minimum of20 feet or the required separation compliant with local fire codes. Well, first of all, the fire codes aren't really what establish building separation. But separation in the codes could have zero with a firewall. So I think if we could just make it a minimum of 20 feet. And if the designer's smart, he'd make it 20 feet, one inch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So minimum distance between structures on table two would be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Otherwise there could be another great wall of Orange Blossom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I hope we've covered everything. Is there anything -- Richard, do you want to -- there's been little discussion, but do you want to have anything to rebut that you want to get into before we close? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just interested to see the direction so we can get the language right on the rewrite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a whole pile of notes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of saying something I probably shouldn't, this will not be an all commercial project. Because remember, we have the R tracts. I think what you were focusing on is maybe the MU tract could be all commercial. But people were using the word proj ect, and I want to make sure we were talking the same language. That's all I wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that correction was made. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Page 89 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody understands that now. Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing and have a discussion on a motion. If you want, I can read to you the issues that I think we've resolved, and I can then tell you the couple of issues we probably haven't resolved, if that works for everybody. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit A, we were going to add an inclusion in the second paragraph to limit the FAR of CCR or group facilities to .45. We're going to amend 7941, excepting out stadiums and ballparks. 5211 would not apply to landscaping and nurseries. 7521 would exclude tow-in lots. 5735 would include no adult orientated material. 5999 would be no gravestones, monuments, tombstones or sales barns, whatever those are. There would be no commercial towers on the property. In Exhibit B -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You mean communication towers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, yeah, communication towers. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we had the question, was that standalone communication towers, or was that you couldn't broadcast from that site? I wasn't sure if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it would be a standalone tower. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It was a tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a que -- if you're passing it, so I'm assuming you're happy with 11 :00 at night? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm sorry. That's a good point. I Page 90 September 3, 2009 think your suggestion I think was 10:00 at night is a better suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that matches up with some of the other things that we've done, so -- On table one in Exhibit B, we're going to change asterisk six as we discussed by saying a maximum of two stories not to exceed 35 feet, and we're going to add the asterisk to the actual height designation on the table itself. And the second thing on Exhibit B with table two, we would -- external multi-family setbacks, there was a change there. And the minimum distance between buildings would be 20 feet. The external multi-family setbacks would be the same as those shown for the commercial parcel. The third thing would be the internal setbacks would be 20 feet to the tract lines on the south of the MU tract. We're going to do that with an asterisk or a reference in the footnote. Exhibit C, that's the master plan. I can't read by own writing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shouldn't we have them correct the master plan to reflect the turnaround, the midpoint turnaround? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Murray, why don't you say that for the record so I know what it is you're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. On Exhibit C, should we have them correct the master plan to reflect the midpoint turnaround or wherever that's going to be located? They've indicated it in writing, but it's not on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a design feature that they'd have to do at the time of SDP -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so it's not required on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think so. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to try to help you Page 91 September 3, 2009 out with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I figured it out. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. All right, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My hand scratching here. It says -- we had a notation, number two, we got to add to that, it would be no less than the minimum acres. The second thing, we want to change the buffer language to be consistent with the PUD. The third thing, the alignment points at where the shading starts and stops. A reference to the Cook PUD's western boundary needed to be added. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that need to be on the master plan or in the text that we talked about it, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It needs to be somewhere so we know where that shading stops. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had it in the text. I just wanted to -- that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's in the text -- I can't recall, but if it is there, I think that's sufficient. In Exhibit E, references I.B.9. I'm not even sure what it was, but we had an issue on I.B.9. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, we had to refer to I.B.9 in that request for deviation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Actually, I think that was F.l.B.9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F.l.B.9. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Exhibit F and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right, F.1.B.9. On Exhibit F, I'm going to leave the first comment about the Davis Boulevard and all that for discussion later. Let me get the simple ones first. Page 92 September 3, 2009 Under -- we're going to drop paragraph B.6. The County Attorney's Office is going to work with the applicant to rewrite B.5. And Item C under the landscaping, we're going to add the words Type B buffer in the first sentence. We're going to add Firano as a reference to where the additional buffer will have to go. And we're going to modify the five-foot centers to four-foot centers on the end. Exhibit H -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You passed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the four-Ianing issue. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, he said he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't. I'm going to bring it up here in a minute. There's two outstanding discussions that are going to take longer, and I was getting through the simple stuff first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit H, we're going to drop number 10. Now-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On number one also, five -- the six - foot sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the whole -- yeah, number one's going to be dropped, because it's going to be moved to another section. And then it's going to be a six-foot sidewalk at that point when it is moved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, there are also changes to C.l which Mr. Y ovanovich read. MR. YOVANOVICH: C.l? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C.1. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the enhanced Type B buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are all -- I mentioned those, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did it more generally, because I think we discussed it. And that will come out in the corrections -- Page 93 September 3, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that they're making. So that leaves two items that I did not mention, because I think they will take a little more discussion. The first one -- well, let's just talk about this matter of the MU tract. I don't know what you all want to do to resolve the MU tract, whether we should have a minimum amount of commercial acreage or just leave it up to the marketplace or leave it as it's written. And you need a consensus so we know what to give direction on a consent agenda item, if we can resolve it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not -- I wasn't looking to assign a minimum to these people, I just wanted a commitment that it would indeed be mixed use. That was all. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That was all I was talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is that a commitment? Because-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know how to meet it, because I don't know -- someone may say if I put in a -- I don't want to use Starbucks, but some kind of coffee shop and that's all I put in there, is that a commitment to mixed use? I don't know. I don't want to get into an enforcement issue of what was meant by that and I don't want to just do something to skate by either. I want to do what you expect us to do with that commitment, if there is that required commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of the problem is, is do we care whether -- I mean, I know the presentation of the whole PUD has been on the premise of it being a mixed use as far as discussion goes. But does it really matter in an activity center if we use mixed use or if we use activity -- if we use commercial or if we use residential? That's a market driven issue. But if we have a direction on that, that seems to be what the majority wants, we need to Page 94 September 3, 2009 put it on the table right now. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't really have a dog in the fight, but I will tell you that one of the reasons that they've created the activity center, I'm told, is -- or activity centers -- was to stop strip malls, okay, just to stop that propagation. It would seem that if it's an activity center and you have the Boys and Girls Club next to you, at least some portion of it -- and I don't necessarily want to assign a minimum, but some portion of it should be commercial, that it just makes sense. It's on a frontage of an important road, there's potential for capture and all the rest of it. If the rules say that it can be this or it can be that or it can be that, I'll be fine with it. I would hope you would put some commercial there. I thought Commissioner Caron's question was a very valid one. I've come to be made clear now that it can be the other, so I'll respect the law. But I would hope that you would put some commercial there. That's the best I could do in this conversation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, you're only allowed 124 units on that site. The value of that site I can guarantee you will not be all residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the consensus then is just to leave it as it is? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to the next one, that would probably take a little discussion, and that is how we want to look at the substantial completion of Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to 951. There were two issues here. And that is, what is it we're completing? We don't know what the road entails. Is it four-lane, Page 95 September 3, 2009 six-lane, 20 lanes? And then at the same time do we want to tie it to certificate of occupancy or to building permit? And if it's building permit, the applicant has suggested construction, but the County Attorney's Office has advised us that may be difficult if they complete the construction, get all the required safety inspections, health, safety and welfare to prevent them from getting a CO if that road gets delayed. Do we want to put ourselves in that kind of a position. Those are the two issues. John, I believe you have a response to at least one of them? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm sorry, ask that last part of the question again. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the first part. What is Davis Boulevard going to be? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Davis Boulevard. When I checked with our management team, the response back was it's to be designed as a six-Ianer. It -- I'm sorry, it is designed as a six-lane roadway. But the first quarter mile at the east end is constrained by development, meaning it will be less than six lanes for a portion of it. It should be substantially complete roughly 20 months from issuance of notice to proceed, or roughly 24 to 36 months from today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it goes back to the completion of Davis Boulevard in a six-lane configuration except for the last quarter mile, which will be -- may not be a six-lane configurati on. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a -- I guess that's the only way we describe it. Because we need to have something to indicate what the completion is, what we're waiting to be completed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We could say county acceptance of the completed roadway for Davis Boulevard between Radio -- substantial completion. And that's county acceptance. Page 96 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm used to the terminology substantial completion, that's why. When it's up and running. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Substantial completion of Davis Boulevard in its six-lane configuration as designed by the DOT to a point where it tapers down at the intersection on the east end. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the best way to say it? I'm just -- someone's got to write this up for consent, and that's what (sic) I'm trying to get it as clean as possible. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is there a project number? Maybe it would be easier to just refer to it as the existing project number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if there is or not. I don't know. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, using the project number would be just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you get the project number to the person who's doing all this notation -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before the end of the meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of that. The second-- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, John, in the inspection of a road, is there different milestones in the road inspection system? In other words, in buildings we have different phases. Is there that in road construction? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would be the one that would be about nine months away from the completion of the road? Is there -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't have a good answer for you Page 97 September 3, 2009 on that one. My apologies. I can ask the question and find out what the schedule is specifically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you were headed to where the next part of this question's going be, is how do we tie the project's development? Do we tie it to the building per -- that a building permit cannot be issued until the substantial completion of this Davis Boulevard connection, or do we tie a certificate of occupancy to the substantial completion? And I think we were told by tying a CO to it we run into trouble legally. MR. KLA TZKOW: If you do it by building permit, you're fine. MR. SCHMITT: I'd prefer building permit. MR. KLA TZKOW: If you do it any other way and there's a problem in constructing the road, well, you've got houses ready to go, what are you supposed to do with them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm worried about. MR. KLATZKOW: Building permit's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd have to agree with you, so it would be that the -- no building permit shall be issued until the following milestones have been met. And then we get into the substantial completion of the sections of roadway that we're talking about. Anybody have any concerns or issues with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I do want to ask a question of John. This is going to be funded by FDOT? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The majority of it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is it in our five-year capital? Is it in their five-year capital? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's in FDOT's five-year capital plan, Page 98 September 3, 2009 but I don't believe it's in ours at this point. It may have been incorporated in this -- in the '09. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is it funded in theirs, or just as -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a place-marker? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it is funded in theirs. We have a contractual obligation from FDOT that they are providing funding for this project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How come we get a different concurrency management system than every other project in Collier County? I f a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We reserve the right to get smarter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If a project is under -- if it's funded and in the plan, it meets concurrency. And you can get building permits and you can move forward. But you're saying to us, if the proj -- you're not even going to let us move forward with a building permit, even though the road is under construction, which is even more restrictive than the concurrency management system that's in place today. I don't understand why it is that on this particular project we have to have a different concurrency management system. MR. KLATZKOW: We've had the state pull funding on Davis Boulevard before. Davis Boulevard has been a bone of contention in this county. This is not a project that we're controlling with our -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we were willing to say no building permits until the road was under construction. You've got -- you will have the money at that point for the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Richard, if you get your building permit and nine months or 12 months later you get all your final inspections and your buildings are safe, they meet fire code, they meet Page 99 September 3, 2009 county codes, everything's ready to go and we say no, you can't have a CO because this road's been delayed, we've -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Didn't I accept that risk in this PUD document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Where did you accept that risk? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe revised it the way I suggested-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that we get no building permits until the road construction starts and no COs until it's substantially complete, and I'm done before you're substantially complete, what's my argument under the PUD document that you've got to give it to me early? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have -- if that can stick, that's fine. But I don't know if it can stick, and that's what I'm worried about. I'm worried about you coming in and saying to the commissioners, look how unfair this is. Through no fault of my applicants, this road got delayed three years because of funding or because of hurricanes or because of this or preserves or permitting, and all of a sudden I'm held up when I've got a standing building there and it's 100 percent safe, that's what I'm worried about you saying. And I'm worried about the politics saying, well, you're right, you know what, we need people working, we need those buildings occupied, we need families in those and we need businesses operating, so we're going to give you the COso That's what's going to happening. That's what I'm worried about. And if someone wants to let that happen, it may not need to be this board or us as individuals that lets that happen. That's what I'm worried about, Richard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. Page 100 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When roads are started, do they drop? Because you were saying if the road starts then he can be issued a building permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They can still be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I can say is look at Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, but it never really started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it started. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean on that section you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took twice the amount of years to complete. They ran into all kinds of troubles and we have been suffering under that road for years because it started and so many projects were allowed to go forward along that road on the anticipation it would be completed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember which project talked the commission into giving them a CO early. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember either, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't say it wasn't, I'm just -- I don't remember. I can't give you a name right here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it was Island Walk or something like that. It was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the one that's on Vanderbilt, or whatever. But that was sections of Vanderbilt that went on. This is very specific to that part of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's up to whatever this board wants to do. We just need to make a recommendation. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, once again, do you think Page 101 September 3, 2009 there is some sort of construction milestone that's approximately nine months out that you could tag his building permits to? Something that you know you're past the point of no return. I mean, maybe everything but the friction surface or something or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right, the bid letting should be in just a few months. And we're already past the point of no return once we let the bids. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But is there anything in the process that would essentially -- you know, the concern is we don't want to bring the units on-line while the road isn't done. So is there some point milestone in the road building mechanism that we could tag that to? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The way that we're told to do it now, as defined by the Department of Community Affairs, is as soon as we're under contract to build the capacity is available. That's part of our concurrency management system that we're bound to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you say that again? As soon as-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: As soon as the roadway construction project is let for a contract, you know, as soon as it's contracted with the actual construction agency that's going to build it, we are to count the capacity in our concurrency management system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As though it were done. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: Yes, as though it were done. So that is our point of no return. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about -- now, is that for the complete contracting of the road, every piece of it, or just the sidewalks? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's the contracting for the segment of that portion of the roadway. So for this segment it's Radio to 951. Whether that includes the sidewalks as an addition to that, I don't think CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying then, currency Page 102 September 3, 2009 rules would obligate us to allow a building permit to be issued when the entire segment of this road is contracted. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. When you say the entire segment, I refer to between Radio and 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Well, no, between -- no, Radio. You mean Davis and 951, don't you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't be radio. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, he meant that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Radio is east of that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. From -- Davis Boulevard, from Radio to 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Davis Boulevard from Radio to-- MR. BELLOWS: The intersection with Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens from Santa Barbara to Radio? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Santa Barbara to Radio is currently programmed I think for 2012 construction, and it is not currently failing at this moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's its level of service for that piece? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't have the AUIR with me, but I know it was -- the level of service I think was D or E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got a six-lane configuration coming into Radio and a six-lane configuration -- or is it four lanes right now on Davis coming into Santa Barbara? Both of those two from end to end bottle necking down on a two-lane segment that isn't even going to start till 2012? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it may not -- and that's if it's funded and if it's contracted and if it's designed and then if it's ever built, which is longer than the section that's going to go from Radio to Page 103 September 3, 2009 951. That being shorter is going to take almost two years in itself. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The segment from 951 to Radio-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- is the segment that's currently failing. And that's the priority segment for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But there's -- the segment from Radio to Santa Barbara isn't much better. It's still the same two-lane road that people get on between Radio and 951. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. And that's part of the reason that these folks are part of their Policy 5.8 contribution to that segment of roadway, which covers the expansion of a hurricane evacuation route. That's part of what Policy 5.8 covers. Also, they still have to meet concurrency at the time of SDP or plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But concurrency's letting them -- would they meet the concurrency requirements for that segment that's not even being touched, that two-lane segment that exists today? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If there's capacity available on it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. I understood you saying what the state says. Now you're saying something even more restrictive. In other words, the state may say the moment you let that segment it's considered concurrent. Are you telling us that the county though can supersede the state's and say according to our concurrency it doesn't fit because? That's what I thought you just related. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Our concurrency follows the date that this goes to contract, you know, that it is let for bid and the bids are accepted and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's moot. And we have a Page 104 September 3, 2009 heck of a bottleneck is what we're talking about. Okay. All right. MR. PODCZER WINSKY: That's just it, the contract is set up for 2012. So the bit letting is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- set for 2012. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what you're saying is we basically got to accept the building permit applications at the time of contracting for this road segment that the DOT's planning to put in between Radio Road and 951. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then what is John telling me? MR. KLA TZK 0 W: I don't -- I mean, they're not vested at this point in time. They're coming to you for a rezoning. Now, if you want to say make a condition of this rezoning that they don't get their building permits until the time that road's put in, that's within your prerogative, all right? Now, you don't have to do that, that's also within your prerogative, but you're not forced to say okay, well, there's nothing we can do about it. And, you know, not for nothing, I understand the developer wants this stuff, but you've got people that are going to be living in those homes. And having lived off of Collier Boulevard and suffered through that and suffered through VBR, all right, it's not a bad idea putting these homes in after the road's put in, because it took six years for Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it was a nightmare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do believe that you have to have a rationalization to say why your current concurrency management system should not be applied to this particular project. And I'm just asking for an explanation as to why the county's concurrency management system should not be applied to this particular project. Page 105 September 3, 2009 That's all I've asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've got to get to a point of resolution so we can vote. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to qualify something then. The concurrency that Mr. Y ovanovich is relating to and the question he just posed is based on what may -- to me certainly is new that on the occasion of letting it, letting the contract that concurrency is met, have we not been making our prior decisions based on the concurrency in a different form? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, it's not that concurrency is met with the contract is let for that roadway, it's that capacity is available. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, the build-out capacity is available at that point. That's when they're able to take advantage of the concurrency allowances. Does that help describe it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I -- it's words. It's semantical in my mind. But that's -- we have -- all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, or I guess maybe -- what policy do you believe in our transportation element or even the FLUE dictates to us that we have to provide an approval for proj ects that are within the concurrency system; do you know? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right offhand I don't know the reference. I believe it would be Policy 5.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the reason -- I notice Richard laughed at that, but let me read 5.1 to you. It says, the county Page 106 September 3, 2009 commission will review all rezone requests, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the FLUE affecting the overall county-wide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impacts on the overall system and shall not approve any such request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service within the five-year planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. And it says we shall not approve. It doesn't say we have to approve. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I want to make clear. Because I think a lot of what I've always assumed and maybe others is that if it meets this concurrency five-year table, we have to approve it. It doesn't say that. It tells us when we don't have to approve it. It doesn't say when we do. And I'm just thinking that's a different application here than what we may have thought about in the past. So with that in mind, we need to make this determination on this project what our recommendations are. Is there a motion and -- or do we want to have further discussion? But we need to get past this. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen who are waiting for the other projects, I don't see us getting to those before lunch. When this is done and voted on, whatever time that is, we are going to take lunch and we'll finish up this afternoon. So if all of you are waiting for the other two, I'm just giving you a heads up, we're going to take lunch first. Okay, Mr. Schiffer, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, aIls -- I mean, I think the only milestone that we really know is the completion of the road, or Page 107 September 3, 2009 substantial completion of the road. So unless, John, you could come up with some other guaranteed milestone or a percentage of the cost drawn already or something that would make us comfortable that this road is going to be done in about nine months, let's say that's the length of time to build the first unit out. I think we're going to be stuck going with the CO at the completion of the road. Unless you can give us something. Maybe it's 80 percent of the money is drawn and it's about nine months from there or something that gives us a better handle. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At my level of staff, I'm not authorized to make that kind of decision. At this point I've been told 24 to 36 months for the completion of the contract is the latest terms that we'd be looking at. So that's the most comfort I can offer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-four to 36? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: From today's date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bit of a window. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm told it should take about 20 months to complete the project after it's let for bid, and I'm told that it's supposed to be let within about four months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are milestone points in the contract, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just don't know what those are standing here today. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I'm going to suggest something that you may like or dislike, I don't know, but this is not -- this may not be heading in a positive direction for an outcome that you would like. We're not here to necessarily please you, but we're here to get the best job. If you would like to continue this, to come back after maybe you can peg a milestone in a construction process that is determinable that Page 108 September 3, 2009 we can then fix this issue on if it's a deal breaker for you, you might want the option to continue this meeting until such time you can do that. It's up to you. Otherwise, we'll just continue with the vote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would -- you know, well, I guess the answer is this: You'll have to do what the Planning Commission thinks is the proper condition. What I would hope the condition would be is that the project is fully funded and the contract is let. And we understand that if the road's not done, we don't get CO's. We'll stop on the building permits, no building permits till the project's fully funded and under construction, and we'll take the risk on the CO's. And you know what, Mr. Strain? Ifmy client goes to the Board of County Commissioners and pleads their case and they say you know what, okay, we want to do that, that's their policy right to do that. But my guess is we're going to have to show them a really good reason as to why they should do that when we knew going in and we agreed to the condition up front that no Co's until substantial completion of the road. And we were willing to wait until the road started its construction. So I think that's a fair and reasonable milestone, two milestones: One fully funding and road under construction, and the second -- before we get a building permit; and the second one, no CO's until it's done. And we will make that -- we're going to make that business decision as to when do we reasonably think the road's going to get done before we start construction. We're going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, if there's no further discussion, we need to have a motion on this before we go to lunch. Anybody on this commission? We've read all the stipulations. I think there's been a lot of note-takers in here today making notes on what we're talking about. We've had a final discussion on the last two more intense issues, Page 109 September 3, 2009 and we have the applicant's final position that they'll take. It's really up to us to make a recommendation. Does anybody on this panel wish to make a recommendation? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll move that we vote to pass along with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners PUDZ-2007-AR-I1100 subject to the discussion that we've had so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that discussion didn't resolve the issue of the building permit and the timing of that versus the road on Davis. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My motion would be that we accept what the petitioner has offered with regard to what he would be willing to accept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I read the language then as I understand for that section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go right ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It would say no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until after the following milestones have been met: Full funding and letting of contract of construction for Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to CR951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the way it would read is no building permit would be issued -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- until the construction has been -- the construction contracts have been let for the Davis Boulevard section of Radio Road to CR951. I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's right. Page 110 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that no certificate of occupancy would be issued until substantial completion of that same segment of road. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what everybody understood? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's my motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's Mr. Midney's motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion. Is there a discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think the only thing that I want to add to the discussion is that I think we probably got some good advice from the County Attorney. And secondly, we've been bit before on some of these things, and it makes me nervous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comment is I would support the changes to the project that we've discussed today. I cannot support the transportation recommendation. After reading Policy 5.1, I pretty much believe we're not obligated to approve anything under concurrency . We're just obligated to what we can't do. So with that I would be voting against the motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, to discuss that, essentially we're saying you can't put people on that road. People aren't living in those houses till that road's done. So doesn't that mitigate the concern? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you're saying because of the CO? Page 111 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. In other words-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't believe that process is one that is going to hold up in the long run. After what I've seen happen to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, I don't think -- I think anybody coming with a bleeding heart argument to a political body to get around that would succeed. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You think they will succeed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to get around it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And it won't be the same -- may not even be the same people that are here today when this finally gets done who knows how many years down the road. But it becomes too political. And I don't know if we want to throw it into that realm, and that's my concern. So -- for transportation, I believe it doesn't meet transportation element Policy 5.1 under that condition and that's why I'll be voting no. So with that, any further discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- I understand where you're going, and you're probably correct. But I'm also concerned with the departure from what we have heretofore -- to my understanding, what we heretofore have been doing. And I agree, especially because it's Davis Boulevard and it's FDOT and there's all kinds of questions and next year there'll be less money and so forth. But I think for the consistency purposes, I think there are enough protections. And if the political body -- if the political body wants to go ahead and make a decision, they may be doing it in the best interest of the community as far as I would know. So I'm going to vote for the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll call for the vote. Page 112 September 3, 2009 All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval with the stipulations made by the motion maker and the second, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three -- five in favor. All those opposed, same sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. The motion carries 5-2. This will be back on today's consent agenda, Item 10.A after we hear the other two cases when we come back from lunch. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break for lunch and-- Richard? Item #8A - Continued from earlier in the meeting PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-1409L SIENA LAKES MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Siena Lakes consent agenda item regarding the legal description, is that - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be 10.B. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was stated on consent it was tabled to discuss the ad. I mean, it's on the consent which is already on -- is there any way you could take that before lunch? Because, I mean, it was a quick confirmation was it legally advertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't mind. Does the rest of-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mind. Page 113 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd hate for them to have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is -- them? Who's them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: My clients are out there just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I didn't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- sitting away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- see anybody in the hall. I didn't see anybody in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're in the hall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the audience, sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- just sitting there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what's the synopsis of the legal description that was advertised versus the legal description in the staff report we've just -- in the consent agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, staff e-mailed me the legal ad that was used in the -- for the newspaper and it contained the map showing the property correctly. We never include the entire legal description in a legal newspaper ad anyways, so in my opinion I think we have a duly advertised petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we have a consent item Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-1409l, LCS Westminster, Naples, LLC, known as Siena Lakes, CCRC/CPUD. We've had discussion earlier by Ms. Ashton about corrections needed to the document. Assuming that those are included in the motion-maker's motion, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as amended? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent item as amended. Mr. Murray made the motion. Page 114 September 3, 2009 Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All 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. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent motion carries 7-0. With that in mind, we'll take a break, we'll come back here at 12:40 and resume. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our lunch break. Let us hope that the following two things are not as problematic as the first one. So I think the first thing, is Richard involved in the next two? Maybe not. Okay, we're good to go. I hope he didn't hear that. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2009-AR-14231, PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES~ INC. The next item is Petition CU2009-AR-14231. It's the Peace Page 115 September 3, 2009 Lutheran Church in Naples, Inc. It's on Immokalee 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: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a brief discussion with Mr. Anderson. And anything that he and I discussed will be re-discussed today. So with that in mind, let's move forward. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Firm. I'm here on behalf of the Peace Luthern Church of Naples. I'd like to introduce Mr. Fred Grundeman who is a chairman of the building committee for the church. Also with me is Margaret Perry, the project planner from WilsonMiller. Also from WilsonMiller are Jeff Perry, the transportation planner, Tom Trettis, the senior ecologist, and Raymond Piacente, the engineer for the project. This is agriculturally zoned property in the rural fringe on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's surrounded on three sides by the Calusa Pines Golf Course. And it's across the street from Heritage Bay. The church is requesting conditional use approval for a church, a child care center and a private school. This property will likely be developed in phases. The plans are for a 15,500 square foot sanctuary with seating for 600, and a 31,850 square foot multipurpose structure that would include child care, church administrative offices and the private school. The church currently meets at the Oak Ridge Middle School. Page 116 '._k'.",_~",,,"...",. _ _ _" ".. September 3, 2009 You may be aware in the Land Development Code that there is a provision regarding how height is measured. And it excludes from height measurements things like cupolas and spires on churches. Now, I know you all like to know about actual height as well. We are requesting an actual height of 50 feet to include either a spire or a cupola or whatever we might -- the church might choose to adorn the sanctuary with. Weare in agreement with two of the three staff stipulations for approval. Stipulation number two, which refers to planned intersection improvements, needs some clarification. I'm going to ask Jeff Perry to come up and speak on that. I think he and Mr. Podczerwinsky have discussed that matter. And I or any members of the team will be available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Perry. I'm a transportation planner with WilsonMiller. Weare asking for some clarification on the stipulation number two, which is on Page 9 of 10 of the staff report. The -- it reads, the applicant will be required to contribute proportionate share cost for planned intersection and signalization improvements at County Road 951 and Immokalee Road/County Road 846 at the time of development order application. Our concern is that the wording of it is a little vague in terms of what those planned improvements are and at what stages in the development order process or which development orders we would be talking about. I had opportunity to speak with John this morning, John Podczerwinsky, this morning about some of the language, and I think we can come to some agreement as to what the terms of that are. Our concern of course is that there's an ongoing obligation sort of here that does not limit it to any particular development orders, Page 11 7 September 3, 2009 doesn't really limit it to any particular improvements, it just simply says planned improvements. I understand from speaking with John that there are in fact a specific set of improvements that are either under-designed or have been designed for that intersection, and that given certain amounts of development at our SDP process, when we would do an intersection analysis, there may be some impacts that our projects might have on that intersection that we would be required to pay a proportionate share for. It's generally handled at site development plan process. We have no -- take no issue with that. But just the sort of vague reference to some planned improvements in the future at some development order stage we just need a little bit more clarification on. And I think we can probably get there. It's just a matter of clearly defining what those planned improvements are and what development order stage we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get there now, though, so do you have any recommended language? MR. PERRY: Well, John had put together some -- the start of the some language as we talked this morning concerning the at-grade improvements, at-grade intersection improvements. I think if there's a project number, as was talked about earlier, if there's a specific project that the county has designed, we'd be able to sort of reference that particular project. And the development order is basically his concern, I believe, he'll correct me if I'm wrong. But the issue is either the school or the child care site development plan, because the church would really have no impact on the p.m. peak hour traffic at that intersection. It's really only the school, if the school and/or child care center is developed on the site. That's the site development plan he was talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be at the time of the Page 118 September 3, 2009 site development plan for the proposed school -- MR. PERRY: School. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or the child care center. MR. PERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's one of the changes. And the other change is the reference to the actual intersection improvement job. MR. PERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, could you come up and tell us if you have any objection to that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good afternoon. John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Transportation. No, we do not have an objection to that, to what Jeff has just stated. And I am currently in the process of obtaining the project number for this, for the intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you have that project number by the time that comes back on consent? So if we approve this subject to that, that works out. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I hope to. It's under -- currently it's under conceptual design, so there may not be a project number assigned to it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there will be before consent? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm saying that, if we tie it a -- it better be that way. Otherwise, we have to come back and rehear this to get it changed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I will specifically request that we establish a project number for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then does that finish with your concerns, Jeff? MR. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if there's any Page 119 ---~_.. .~ ,._~---.,,--~,~ September 3, 2009 objection from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay, I guess we'll hear staff next, unless there's any questions of the applicant at this time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Melissa, one thing I heard is they want to change the height that they previously suggested as the actual to be 45 feet and 50 feet. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. Mr. Anderson reflected their request accurately. There isn't anything else in addition to report except for we're going with staffs recommendations on Page 9 of the staff report. The attached resolution has an old conditions of approval which will be revised. And now finding out about the transportation commitment number two, that's going to be revised too. So we're sticking with what staffs recommending, other than what stipulation number two with the language that transportation and the applicant has come up with. And I'll make sure we get the project number for the consent agenda item. If there's any questions I'd like to address for you, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, are there three or four conditions? MS. ZONE: There's three. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Because on our conditions of approval sheet -- MS. ZONE: Correct. And the old number three has been struck through. And that was a last minute change that went through that the Page 120 September 3, 2009 applicants -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. ZONE: -- and transportation were able to work out. So we're making sure that what we're asking for is on Page 9 of the staff report. Other than the revisions to condition number two, which the applicants worked out with transportation to tie it to the school or the day care for, I believe it was at grade improvements for -- in whichever particular project number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Melissa, it's about the height. In the zoning they have the actual height is 35 feet, right? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which means a roof could go beyond that, and cathedral roofs and churches should be able to go beyond that. But why would we set the steeple to be at 50 feet? MS. ZONE: Well, the applicants picked the 50-foot height. And I believe the reason why they did that was because at the moment there is no site design for it so they weren't sure about the height of it. So they're picking the maximum of being 50-foot for the actual height to give them some design flexibility. So it came from the applicants offering this up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it may be coming from New England where steeples are a dominant part of our town. The -- but essentially then that could be the ridge of the roof would normally under 35-foot height could go higher than 50 feet. So in other words, the steeple's going to be lower than the roof, unless they do a low roof designed church. MS. ZONE: You know, that -- during site development plan, I'm not sure if Bruce Anderson and Margaret want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we get some clarification-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Page 121 September 3, 2009 The zoned height in the agricultural district is 35 feet. And that's measured to the hip of the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's measured to the midpoint. MR. BELLOWS: -- ridge of the roof -- or midpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if we're -- MR. BELLOWS: And the actual height is referring to anything that the LDC exempts from the height definition, such as towers or in this case a steeple. And the Board of County Commissioners has requested it -- the actual height of towers and things like this, and that's why we have this actual height category added. So we just want to know how tall that steeple's going to be. They pick the height that they wanted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My concern is just -- I mean, we didn't pressure them to keep it low. Because again, the roof, because you said midpoint, that if a roof had a nice glulam or something, cathedral roof, the midpoint of that, if it was at 35 feet, the roof would go much higher than that, and thus this would place in essence the steeple of the cross. We've had this before with the Congregational Church, we gave them 75 feet on Immokalee. Nobody had a problem with that. MR. BELLOWS: Fifty feet actual height should work for them. I can't imagine it would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in the name of steeples, I'm protesting, but go ahead. MS. ZONE: Staff understands. It was something that the applicants had offered up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I read here that it says the minimum front and rear yard setback was 50 feet? I thought it was 75. MS. ZONE: In the agricultural? Page 122 September 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly from a major arterial. I thought it was 75. MR. BELLOWS: No, that's Estates. MS. ZONE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I knew it was Estates. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the Estates is 75. But the front setack in the ag., I'll look it up, but I don't believe it's -- I know it's not -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I meant -- I thought right there along Immokalee Road or something. But that's all right, nothing encroaches even close, but I picked that up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple. In some prior PUDs, especially that have had multiple uses, we've -- when they've done a TIS we've capped them at the peak hour. And I forgot what the other element is called, but it's whatever those caps are in the TIS. And I mentioned that to the applicant when I talked to him on the phone; they didn't seem to have an objection at that time. And so I'd like to make sure that that same language is inserted into here as recommendation two. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height we took care of. And the last thing is where in this document would we put the height? Because I can't find it, even as it was proposed prior to today's meeting. I see it's in the text of the staff report, but don't we want it listed in the conditional use or on the site plan? MS. ZONE: Right, we can put it as a condition of approval, and should the applicants revise the site plan, conceptual site plan, to put in the legend that -- what the actual height will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the site plan there's a note number two. Page 123 September 3, 2009 MS. ZONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Far right-hand corner. Says, because of the appropriate nature of these numbers -- and they're referring to the building sizes -- the total building square footage may increase up to 10 percent without the need for a conditional use amendment. I understand that, but I'd like to make sure that it's -- there's some reference at the end that says however, will not exceed the parameters of the TIS. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want them to use that to get larger buildings and end up exceeding the TIS impacts. MS. ZONE: We can -- I just heard from Margaret Perry, the agent for the applicant, and she said they will remove number two entirely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that makes it simpler. Okay, good. That's all I had. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll-- public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? There's not a lot to rebut here, Bruce. But, you know, I'm your cohort there. Richard always takes advantage of rebuttal, whether it's needed or not, so I figured I'd let you have the same opportunity. Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve CU-2009-AR-14231, Peace Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc., with the stipulations that we've just discussed, that the height will be 50 feet to the include the spires, or whatever else the -- the actual height will be 50 feet. There's a cap on the trips to what is currently shown on the TIS. And that footnote number two on the master plan is taken out. Page 124 September 3, 2009 And that the height is noted on the master plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say that we're going to -- the language for number two to rework was okay? MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those if 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. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Boy, that was a refreshing short meeting. Item #9C PETITION: PE-PL-09-260~ MARCO SHORES PUD Now, the next item up for today is Petition PE-PL-09-260, the Collier County Airport Authority for the Marco Shores PUD. It's a parking exemption on a one-acre tract. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 125 September 3, 2009 (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spoken to Mr. Arnold, and I've spoken to staff and the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Arnold called me, we had a very brief discussion, and that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I had a -- I know I had a discussion with Wayne, and I think he's the only person I had a discussion with, so -- and whatever that entailed, we'll have the same notes that I got here, which turned out to be none, so we didn't talk about anything. MR. ARNOLD: I'm scratching my head wondering if we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. And Theresa Cook, the executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority, is present as well to help answer any questions that you may have. This is a parking exemption and it is for -- it's necessitated by some improvements that are being prepared for the Marco Island Executive Airport. The county has been trying to obtain approval for a runway expansion and a taxiway expansion so that they don't have to utilize the present runway as a taxiway as well. So it's a safety enhancement project that they're working on. And the county had an opportunity some time ago to acquire from WCI Communities a tract of land that's known as Tract Q in the plat of record. On the aerial that's on your visualizer, you can see the Page 126 September 3, 2009 about one-acre piece of property that we're proposing to obtain the parking exemption for. And that will then relocate the parking that you can see that's on the airport property immediately to the east of this parcel. Your staff report's I think fairly straightforward and has brought out the facts of the case. But this is located -- this is. The parking exemption property is located at the Marco Shores PUD. The property that is the airport property is zoned P, public use, to the east. But the county has acquired not only the one-acre shown there but the entirety now of Tract Q which goes over to what is designated as a park site. So the application proposes to construct a parking lot, and it is for the sole use of the Airport Authority. There are approximately 74 spaces on the existing parking lot at the airport. We're proposing 71 in this configuration. Staff had several conditions that they have requested. Most relate to the operation of this, solely for the airport's function. And that is certainly its intent. It's not intended to be a gated or secured parking lot, but it is going to be for the use of patrons and employees at the airport. I think we're fine with the recommendation and the conditions that staff has placed on their recommendation of approval. No neighborhood information meeting is required of a parking exemption, but we do provide notice to property owners in the surrounding community, as well as the homeowners association. I think we yielded a handful of calls from interested people, but nobody that I would categorize as an objection. And I don't believe staff has any letters of objection. I can talk a little bit more specifically about the need for the parking exemption. I know it is a little bit peculiar that you're seeing a parking exemption on PUD zoned property. But your land development code does make provisions for having these parking Page 127 September 3, 2009 exemptions on property as long as they're not designated commercial, or zoned commercial, which this one is not. So that's the distinction. I know that it's a little bit irregular, but I do think that the county has not determined what it's going to do with the balance of property that's located to the west of this tract. But at that point it may very well necessitate a PUD amendment to the Marco Shores PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. You said that you would not have it fenced; the parking lot would not be fenced. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I meant to say gated. Because I do believe we're proposing a fence on a portion of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was going to say. And-- because that would be one of the issues. You've made it clear you wanted to have it for patrons and for employees but nobody else. And I just wondered how you're going to be able to enforce that if you didn't have some kind of control. Do you have an expectation of a problem or maybe many years in the future? MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't think we anticipate a problem. Right now there's a non-gated access to the airport. You can drive back there freely. I don't think it's our intent to gate this in any way. And this was a staff condition to make sure that it was known that this is really for airport use so that it wouldn't become a place of congregation or something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wondered where it came from. Because I've been them, I'm familiar with it, and I realize that your probability of getting a whole lot of cars on there is not very likely. MR. ARNOLD: Right. It's at the end of the road, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. Page 128 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a simple thing, Wayne. I assume you're showing the shaded area as a sidewalk, is that right, not a covered sidewalk? MR. ARNOLD: It is a sidewalk. And whether or not it's covered or not, I think I've seen two alternative designs. One had cover over a portion of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My question was is will there be taxiway between the Civil Air Patrol and the existing terminal, or will people come around the other way? MR. ARNOLD: I think right now the Civil Air Patrol building, it's oriented to the east. So that aircraft goes directly out toward runway to the east, if you look at that exhibit. I don't believe there's any need for the Civil Air Patrol. It wouldn't be a vehicle or a plane crossing that sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor any other plane? MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm just going to bring up the issue that I brought up with both staff and the County Attorney's Office, and that's the issue of making changes to PUDs and PUD master plans without corresponding PUD amendments, which is what we would normally be doing; we would have a corresponding PUD amendment going along with this. Staff seems to be, or -- and I'll do it from the County Attorney's side. They seem to be of the opinion that because there weren't specific development criteria in the PUD ordinance, that going this route with the parking exemption was okay. And that because master plans, these PUD master plans are conceptual, it was okay to take this route. Page 129 September 3, 2009 My concern -- and again, it's not with the parking. This is fine, I think they've got a great project. I'm concerned about process here. I think we enter a slippery slope if we don't make people follow the rules. We have these rules in place for a reason. I guess the deal is to try to hang your hat on the fact that it's not a commercial piece of property in that PUD and so you can do the parking exemption. One of the other criteria is that it be shared parking, and we're making this exclusive, so we're just going to ignore that one. We'll hang our hat on one and we'll ignore another one and try to get this through because it's easier, quicker, cheaper, whatever the criteria was to have it go this route to begin with. Because it's my understanding, from what everybody has said, the initial reaction when staff got this and the County Attorney's Office got this was that a PUD amendment was required. They didn't like that idea so somebody came up with another scheme here to do this parking exemption. My concern -- and staff and the County Attorney's Office are more than happy to elaborate on this. My concern is that it's a very slippery slope. It has little or nothing to do with this particular one except for precedence that maybe coming down to us down the road. If our PUD master plans are sort of up for grabs, then I'm not sure which commitments are actually valid and which ones are not valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, what was the property zone -- what is the property zoned? I know it's PUD, but what was the use of that Tract Q? MR. ARNOLD: Well, let me show it in two ways. I have a copy of the master plan, which an exerpt of that is on Page 2 of 8 of your staff report that shows the Marco Shores PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's labeled as park and temporary utility site. MR. ARNOLD: It's labeled park and temporary utility site. Page 130 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifit had been used as a park, could they have put a parking lot on there for the park? MR. ARNOLD: I would presume so. I mean, most of our county parks would have parking, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the end the use is not really any different than what could have been there, it's just who's using it. MR. ARNOLD: That may be part of the question. Let me show you one other thing, if I might, and it's part of the plat record. And what I highlighted on there is Tract P. But if Ray can scroll out. Tract Q is the parcel that's owned by the county, and you'll see that it's a 3.6-acre tract of land that was platted as a utility site. So I know that one of the initial comments that was made was potentially are we sure we're not shortchanging the PUD out of park sites. But those true park sites have been dedicated on the plat, as you can see by the one I highlighted. And there are five point something acres of those, which met the minimum PUD criteria. And then this particular site was dedicated as utility and park. And if I might, we did -- when we initially started this project, we had our pre-application meeting and we weren't quite certain how to proceed. Because there are possibly three options. One could have been a temporary use permit during construction to allow us to relocate at least temporarily and for up to two years parking on this parcel, under your Land Development Code. Another could have been an insubstantial change to the PUD, which mayor may not have -- that one was never fully explored. But that process, which is how the current PUD master plan came into play to begin with, was a PUD master plan amendment that reconfigured the residential tracts. It didn't affect the language in the PUD, it was simply reorienting some of the development tracts. And those come to only the Planning Commission. And then of course the other option could have been I guess a full PUD amendment, perhaps. Page 131 September 3, 2009 But as we looked further, we decided that the parking exemption could be applicable. It goes through the public hearing process, and not only does it come to this body, but it then also has to be endorsed by the County Commission. So a little bit higher level of public scrutiny than you would have just under an insubstantial PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any exemptions in the parking exemptions that would exempt you from using this site -- using the PUD as an exemption location? MR. ARNOLD: No, not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just was curious as a follow-up. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a staff report? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. And you have the staff report, it's part of the record. Since we've had a long day, I won't belabor it by going into each and every point. I'll just say that staff is recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and we do have the findings to support a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. Are there any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just want to follow up here. If something is labeled on the master plan whatever it's labeled, as in this case it's labeled a park, and there is acreage applied to that park and to that site, and there are many ways that you could get to make these changes, but what is it -- I mean, where's the next step? What else can you take out of PUD master plans by simply going through -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. cPage 132 September 3, 2009 I think I understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, Wayne just showed us a document that said was labeled a utility site. Ms. Caron says it's a park. Is it a park or a utility site? Can we get -- MS. DESELEM: For the record, he was showing you a plat. On the plat it appears to be recorded as a utility site. On the master plan for the PUD it is shown as a park with temporary use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was the plat approved after the PUD? MS. DESELEM: I don't know the exact day -- MR. BELLOWS: Typically they are approved -- MS. DESELEM: -- but that's customary. MR. BELLOWS: -- after the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: In order for them to use the utility site temporarily, would they have had to get it platted? The answer is yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute. You mean to build the existing plant there now? There is an existing utility plant there. And yes, they would plat it, identify it as a utility site and come in for a site plan for that utility. The utility's been there several years. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. And so that doesn't change what's on the master plan, which labeled it as a park and -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for some reason a temporary utility site. I don't know whether the utilities are just there for -- MR. SCHMITT: A long history -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure what's there. MR. SCHMITT: A long history on that utility. Originally the intent was it was only going to serve that development until eventually it was tied in with the county, but that Page 133 September 3, 2009 never happened. That utility now services that development, as well as portions of Isles of Capris. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not a temporary utility site? MR. SCHMITT: Not now. It's an active utility site, yes. It's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So again, I think, you know, it probably should have been changed to the time too for still to be labeled. I mean, and that's one of those insubstantial changes that you could have easily made. But anyway, that -- MR. BELLOWS: MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to -- yeah, her original question -- MR. BELLOWS: -- to make a clarification as to the purpose and intent of a PUD master plan. It is a conceptual plan of development. And the PUD spells out required uses, things that are required to be done. And it also includes uses that are up to the property owner if they want to build them or not. Since this PUD lists the park but it doesn't require the park and doesn't require the park to be of a certain size, this parking exemption does not remove that PUD shown park site. Just as if this was standard zoning, parking exemption doesn't remove the standard zoning. If some time in the future, say five years from now that parking goes away, the standard zoning district in most cases would be residential. Can be developed as a residential use. In this case it's a tract within a PUD that is for park use. And if that parking ever goes away, it still can be used for park use. The zoning doesn't change with the parking exemption. Therefore no PUD amendment is technically required. But in the long-term, if this is going to be a permanent use, and it appears to be that it is, it still doesn't belie the fact that there is no PUD requirement for the park. There is no time requirement for the park to be built. It Page 134 September 3, 2009 may never be built. MR. SCHMITT: And the parking is an acceptable use. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that was the reason staff did not force this as a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Gotcha. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public speakers, Ray? Ray, public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry, I was talking to my boss. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forget the boss. MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just kind of let us know if there's any public speakers. Okay, no public speakers. And there's no rebuttal needed by Mr. Arnold, I hope? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you want to rebut what? MR. ARNOLD: What was the question? MR. BELLOWS: He was talking to Kay. MR. ARNOLD: No, no rebuttal necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no rebuttal? MR. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. I always want to provide the opportunity. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would like to make the Page 135 September 3, 2009 motion that PE-PL-2009-260, Marco Island Executive Airport, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, based on staff recommendations as found on Page 7 of 8. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, 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. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. ***Okay, we need to move it back and see where we're at with this Highland Properties, Taormina Reserve, lItem 9.A.A. And this would be for the consent consideration of this item. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. We have been working through those revisions and we have a strike-through and underlined document that we can present to you. I know that Heidi Ashton from the County Attorney's Office has that document. I don't know if she's making final edits to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need it in final form and we Page 136 September 3, 2009 need copies. MR. YOV ANOVICH: She's proofing it right this second, if you can give her a couple minutes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get on record, Richard, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to answer me, you've got to get on record, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just assumed you could hear me. She's proofing it right now, which I think she's probably about done. And then we can make you the copies once she blesses it. So if you can just give us a couple minutes we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- can get the copies handed out to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll give you better than that. Why don't we come back here at 1 :30. That will give you about 14 minutes. Do you think you can work with that? Because you're going to need to make at least 10 or 12, 13 copies for the people in the room. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 1:30 we'll resume. Take a break until then. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, looks like Mr. Yovanovich, who's apparently got control of the schedules today, has raised his fingers, said two more minutes. So there's not much more we can do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the two-minute warning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, here she comes. Are you the two minutes? No. MS. DESELEM: We don't have copies yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we're still waiting for copies, so let's just go back onto recess for another few minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHIPFER: Or Mr. Chair, could we do l5.A Page 137 September 3, 2009 while we're waiting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, l5.A, technically I believe we've got to adjourn this meeting before we can open another one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was going to wait do that at the end of this meeting, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thanks, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I can tell you -- are we on or off, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: On. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On, okay. The AUIR, I got a correction from Mr. Schmitt, he did say it does start at 8:30. So when we meet on the 21st of September, it will be at 8:30. And with that, let's shut down till we get our copies. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, after that short two-minute break that Mr. Y ovanovich requested that started almost 45 minutes ago, let's walk through the changes. We don't have copies in front of us so we're going to try to move forward by using a copy on the overhead that I believe the cameras and everybody can see on the main screens. Let's start with Exhibit A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, the first change relates to the floor area ratio for group housing, should we do group housing. And we put in there that it not exceed a floor area ratio of .45. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll track along and I'll let the planning commissioners know if it matches up the notes I made, and then if they have any to add to it, just say something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The next change was to SIC Code 7941 where we excluded stadiums and/or athletics fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then further down on that page, for Page 138 September 3, 2009 7521, automobile parking, we excluded any towing lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under building materials and hardware, 5211, we clarified that the prohibition does not apply to landscape and nursery uses related to home improvement stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under communications, we clarified that there'll be no standalone communication towers, and any satellite dishes must be shielded from view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under the hours of operations for eating and drinking places for televisions and amplified music, we changed the hours from 11:00 to 10:00 p.m. in both 5812 and 5813. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under the home furnishing uses, the recorded and prerecorded tape stores, we added no adult oriented sales or rentals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As Kay passes these out, we'll just continue on like we have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're on now Page 8 of23. Under the category 5999, miscellaneous retail stores, we excluded gravestones, monuments, tombstones and sales barns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit B. Table one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit B, table one. Under maximum actual height, we put the reference to footnote number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then on footnote number six we made the change to reference -- put the maximum zoned and actual height shall be two stories not to exceed 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Table number two in B, there were a few Page 139 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you move on, was the-- were we going to add the FAR on the table as well? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can. We thought we took care of it by the reference in the -- at the beginning of Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I was just getting a nod from -- and I know we did say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where do you want it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I know. We also said we would add it to the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I didn't hear that either. Where do you want it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does it need to be on the table or is it covered in the language? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It is covered in the language, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where would you put it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Where would you put it? MR. BELLOWS: I would put an FAR section under development standards, and then under group housing put .45. But if you're happy with it in the language, it works. It's just an added -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the language works. Because if it doesn't, the LDC is there anyway. So one way or another, if someone doesn't see it here, they're going to fall back on the LDC if they missed the language. Both are the same. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's leave that rather than confuse it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 140 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we should be on Page 12. Table two, under the multi-family category, under the minimum yards external, we added the 25 feet for each of those roads. We struck the references to the -- we just basically made it 20 feet under the minimum distance of structures. And we added the asterisks for building setbacks along the southern boundaries shall be treated as a front yard with 20- foot limitations for principal uses. I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But where it says southern boundary, do you mean southern boundary of the MU tract? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. This tract applies only to -- this table only applies to the MU tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's -- I had the same issue, and then I realized what the table was applying to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Exhibit C? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Master plan. I have the handwritten . verSIon. We have made the changes. If you'll look at the l5-foot wide enhanced buffer. Those were -- we previously made those. We didn't have the ability to get into the master plan here, so we did the handwritten change that you requested that we'll do, which was under note two. However, they may be no less than any minimum required in this PUD was is the note I think you wanted added, Mr. Strain, to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- note two. But we'd already -- and we also made the change, no longer is there a reference to a 10-foot or a l5-foot wide buffer. It's just a 15-foot wide enhanced buffer with a reference to the exhibit you're supposed to see for what's supposed to be in there. Page 141 September 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the exhibit adds to the clarification. Good, okay. The alignment of the shaded area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had taken -- it's still there. You can't see it on this copy, but there is a shaded area that references -- you want me to put where we previously showed you where it was? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You did show me, that's right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as long as it's in there, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's also covered later on in a note. We'll show you where we made that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit E? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit E. We added the reference to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need the mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. We added the reference to see also Exhibit F.l.B.9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit F? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's 9. It's B.9. Because something that changed here in Exhibit F. What we did under the transportation conditions, we added a new number one that says, no building permits shall be issued until the Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073 are under construction. And then number -- the former number one became number two, no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, question, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just say -- and I may be naive here, but let's say a hurricane came through, really damaged the Page 142 September 3, 2009 state, they cut the Davis Boulevard project, and then years down the road it came back again. Would it have the same project number? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. Should we add or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or any other -- yeah, that's the current project number. And I think we wanted to make sure we tied it to what John was discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or as superseded. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Project number 66073 (or as superseded.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And then number two was the previous number one, that basically says no COs will be issued until substantial completion of Davis Boulevard improvements set forth in Project 60073. And I guess we'll put the same, or as superseded, from Radio Road to County Road 951. And then substantial completion of Santa Barbara extension to the project entrance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then there's renumbering that results from number one -- let me see. Number six was the more substantial rewrite. And you may want to take a second to read that one. That is the rewrite that deals with the connection to Sunset. I can read it if you want me to or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we all have a copy. Leave it on the screen and let us read it, Richard, save a lot of breath. Number B (sic), developer's going to construct a (sic) 630 feet of public access if the county obtains the necessary access rights? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, it is supposed to say within six years of the PUD approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six or five? Page 143 September 3, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the five is -- it goes away. It goes away in five years if the county doesn't get the easement rights. But the commitment to construct -- it will give him one year after the county gets all the easement rights to construct. So that's why it was within six years of PUD approval. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't think there was a time frame. And that's why we wrote it the way we did, was that when we go to develop the R-2 tract, that's when we'll build that connection. I don't think the Planning Commission during the deliberations put a time frame in there. I mean, if they want one, we would. But our thought was why would we build the road if we don't have development there? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the language that I gave him said six years, so it does need to have -- it needs to be tied to something, whether it's the development ofR-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And right now it's tied to the development of the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little bit confused. Let's go to the top paragraph where it says, the roadway shall be designed as a two-lane roadway with two 10 to l2-foot wide travel lanes with a six - foot sidewalk on one side of the roadway. This requirement for construction of the additional 630 feet to Sunset shall be valid for five years. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It is okay. He changed the language I gave him, and I didn't see that it was later discussed and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just reordered her sentences, so that's what I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're all on the same page then. Good. Under B, though, Richard, the 630 feet under B occurs if the county obtains the necessary access rights south of developer's property . Page 144 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, within five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then the second sentence it says it occurs -- should be concurrent with the R-2 tract. Which is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I thought about adding if -- I didn't want to write if the first sentence is met this sentence applies, but we could put if the county acquires the access rights in a time -- timely acquires the access rights, then we'll build it concurrent with the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? So you're not going to build it with the R-2 tract unless the county acquires the access rights, but on this you're going to do it with the R-2 tract, even if the county does not MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, it's -- the precondition is that they have to acquire the right-of-way within five years. If you need that qualifier at the beginning of that second sentence, we can add that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This doesn't say that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can add that then. If the county requires the access within the five-year period, then we'll build it concurrent with the R-2 tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you could hold off building the R-2 tract for 20 years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the county never gets that connection then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But what would they connect to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the county has acquired the access rights south of the property and they build their road, their road connects to nothing until you decide to build the R-2 tract. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why would the county go to all that trouble to build the rest of it south of it? You're controlling the timing of that road. Page 145 September 3, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're already claiming it's already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not building it yet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're claiming that the improvements are there. I don't think they plan on building a road south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Until you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm missing something on this, Richard. I'm sorry, I can't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're going to end up with a gap here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because you're going to build the 200, but then if the county gets the road to the south and develops that CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You'll put the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're saying after the five years are up, you don't even have to connect to what they've done into your CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Ms. Caron get her-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but I mean, I don't think the county's going to build a road to nowhere. They may have the rights. And then whenever they build -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what they're trying to resolve. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand, but I don't see what the issue is. I don't get it. The county's not going to build anything there. I mean, help me to understand it, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying to do. Ms. Caron asked the question of Richard in regard -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: My understanding is if the -- within five years of the PUD getting approved the county gets whatever access rights it needs to get to Cope Lane. We have an obligation to build the 830 feet to our property. We already have to do 200, but the additional Page 146 September 3, 2009 630. We are not going to build that until we're ready to develop the Tract R-2. So they'll have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what you're saying now. Because you may not be developing R-2 yet, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why would you continue the road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would I build a road if it's not serving me or anybody else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that kind of holds up the county's process. If the county wants to go forward with Sunset -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But they're only building Sunset to -- they're saying Sunset needs to be built to get people who live on Sunset into my project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, you got something to help, I hope. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. If you look back at A, since that will be a public access easement, if the county decides to move forward with Sunset prior to their construction of Tract R-2, then we would be working within a public access easement that they've dedicated to us. We'd be taking on the responsibility ahead of them. If we for some reason put that in our capital plan to move ahead before their R-2 tract does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, they wouldn't put the SDP in for R-2 until they're ready to build it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's still held up by Item B. Which if your R-2 tract isn't built but your commercial is, the people south of that road theoretically, if the county had all the right-of-way they may want to get to the commercial, which was the intent. They're certainly not going to R-2, they're going to the commercial. So I think we ought to be tying this to the commercial Page 147 September 3, 2009 construction in regards to the completion of that accessway to the county's connection point, not to R-2. Because the commercial construction's the purpose for the road, not R-2. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. If you want to switch it to the MU, the first -- we'll build it -- if they have the right-of-way within the first five years, we'll build it in connection with the MU tract. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or whichever is first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm not building it if they don't get the access. Remember? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The -- that other old ugly head comes up about if you don't build MU you don't build commercial. Everything was -- the predicate was commercial, right? So if you choose not to build commercial, then what? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Moot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think I'd still have an obligation to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's a suggestion. Where it says, the remaining 630 feet of the public access to Sunset Boulevard shall be constructed by the developer concurrent with the development of the MU or R-2 tract. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That covers it, no matter which one you build. Because the intent is to get to the MU tract. But if the R-2 tract's developed, the road should be in anyway just for access to it. So either one then would trigger the completion of the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there a problem, though, you wouldn't have the 200 feet at the other end built? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Wayne just brought that up. We probably Page 148 September 3, 2009 need to -- we probably need to reference that 200 feet as part of the MU tract as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree, that's a good point. So the 200 feet up on top where it says in the sentence that's not been marked up, second line down, limited access roadway of which 200 feet shall be built concurrent with the development of the M-2 or R - 2 tract -- I mean MU or R - 2 tract. And that covers those -- that makes those whole. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Much better. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: On the assumption, just devil's advocate, that this development doesn't go forward for a number of years and transportation's okay if you're acquiring the right-of-way and they're not going to build anything? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seems not okay to me, but they said yes, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent of this is to link to development. If the development's not there, the link's useless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the development may be there some day. But if it's not there within the first five years, it gets a free ride. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. No, no. If they get the right-of-way within the first five years, I'm still obligated to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but what if they don't get the right-of-way? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then I don't have to build it, they have to build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm just saying. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I thought you were saying that I get a free ride if I wait past five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do. If they wait -- if the county Page 149 September 3, 2009 waits past five years. You wait out five years, they wait out five years, then you start up at five years and one month, they somehow acquire it later on, you don't have to build a thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. But if they acquire it now and I wait six years, I still got to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that puts the decision on the county then. Anything else on that one then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We deleted paragraph six, as we were supposed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then you go to the next page, which is under landscaping, and we added the enhanced Type B buffer in the first sentence. And then we also added that the buffer would be adjacent to the CCook PUD boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think we have-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Four-foot center. Sorry, got it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, did I miss -- I missed the -- yeah, you're right, I missed the four-foot centers. We made that change as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you struck number 10 on Exhibit H? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We struck both number one because we moved it into the description of the road we were building, and we deleted number 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we caught it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too, based on my notes. Does anybody else have any problems? Are we there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a couple minor changes we recommended during this discussion. So that means the consent Page 150 September 3, 2009 discussion is complete. The consent agenda, this is what we're talking about, not the main agenda. So the vote now is just to acknowledge that the corrections were consistent with the majority vote of the Planning Commission. So is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Moved to the last page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, we said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I just want to verify something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hold on for a second for Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I saw it in here, and I'm pretty sure I did, but that issue of the time was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was changed till 10:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I know that. We don't have to put that in the conditions of approval, Exhibit H, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was the uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, so that's fine. Because under Exhibit H it's no outdoor music or amplified sound shall be heard within 500 feet. Now, I was thinking distance and time, but that's okay because it's already in the other. I was trying to make it bulletproof. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions or comments before we ask for the vote on consent agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion regarding this consent item? It's Item PUDZ-2008-AR-1409l under consent. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there was already a Page 151 September 3, 2009 motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you already-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, voted? THE COURT REPORTER: He made the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is the motion for consent. It's a different -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you made a motion for consent. I'm sorry, I didn't even hear you. Mr. Midney made the motion, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Mr. Wolfley, is that still correct? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All 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. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, Richard. The motion is 7-0. Thank you, Mr. Murray. That was our old business. The new business we already discussed concerning the AUIR start time and CDES. Page 152 September 3, 2009 Looking for a motion to adjourn so we can open our next meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:15 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 153