Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/17/2009 R September 17, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 17, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Koltlat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. W oltley 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 17, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND 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 APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14231. Peace Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc., represented by Brooke Gabrielsen of Wi1sonMiller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, request a conditional use for a church, child care center, and private school in the Agriculture Zoning District pursuant to subsection 2.03.01.A.1.c. of the LDC. The subject property is located at 9824 Immokalee Road, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13786, Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Estates (E) zoning district pursuant to Collier County and Development Code Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c.1. The proposed Conditional Use will supplement the existing Resolution Numbers 91-135 and 92-49 by adding a 13,100- square foot multi-purpose building to be used for a gymnasium, classrooms, youth fellowship and a kitchen. The subject 5.23 acre property is located at 1620 39th Street S.W., in Section 14 and 23, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications tower and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-C) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30-foot eastern and western side yard setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7.4-foot setbacks, respectively, for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-B) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) D. Petition: PUDA-PL-09-110. DiVosta Homes, LP, represented by Chris Hasty of Pulte Homes, Inc. and Margaret Perry, AICP of WilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Winding Cypress PUD, adopted in Ordinance No. 02-35 and amended in Ordinance 02-48, to alter the side yard setback between structures on Tract A as depicted on the PUD Master Plan but maintain a minimum of 10 feet between structures. The subject 1,928::J: acres is located in Sections 26, 34, 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East and Sections 2 and 3, 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 8/6/09 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr 2 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call, please, by our secretary. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 September 17, 2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to today's agenda. We have two items on the agenda that are not going to be heard today. They're being continued I believe until the first meeting in October; is that correct, Ray, the FLO TV? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, and petition --a companion item V A-PL2009-37. Those have been for advertising, I think, reasons or something like that. They're being continued until the first meeting in October, which I believe is what, the 1 st, something like that. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. We have our first meeting in October. Does anybody know that they're not going to be here or be here for that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody is assumed to be here. Then we have -- I'm going to try to look at our calendar right now. Next week we have the AUIR. We should have all received our packages. That meeting is going to be held -- the first one is on the 21st at 8:30 in the morning at CDES, the conference room over off Horseshoe Road. And the second meeting, the continuation of that, will be on the Wednesday of next week, September 23rd at 8:30 again at the CDES offices. Page 3 September 17, 2009 In October, something that's coming up, and I want to ask staff when we'll be getting our packets on it, we have some GMP amendments coming up, one on the 19th and 20th of October. From what I understand, there's at least 10, and half a dozen or more of them are going to be rather controversial. So how soon do you believe we're going to be getting our packages from compo planning so we can start working on those? Those are a little more intense than standard Planning Commission meetings. MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioner Strain. For the record, Joe Schmitt. We're looking at getting those packets to you on or about the 1 st of October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It will be at least two weeks prior. Your meeting is on the 19th and 20th. I believe we have a holdover date. I'm looking at my calendar, the 29th. And I have this room available for all three days. The 19th and 20th is on your calendar. And I believe you may even show the 29th as a holdover, I don't know. But that -- and you're correct, there's 10 petitions, nine of which are private petitions. One is our petition, it's just nothing more than synchronizing dates in the GMP. Six of those nine involve petitions in the Golden Gate Estates. Some may be controversial, some may not. But we intend to get those packets to you. Just to let you know, some of the problems with the packets have been the evolving or shall I say changing petitions. Petitions that were once so many acres and now they want to add and take away. So there's been applicants who have been changing their petitions as it's been going on through the various reviews. We finally just put a stop to that and said finalize them and get them done. And so you're going to get your pack -- we'll do our thing, put them into the Page 4 September 17, 2009 staff reports, and we're looking at giving you the books. And as you well know, those are usually a couple of binders or so thick of compo plan amendments with all the backup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so when applicants change their plans and it causes your department to have to take a second look at it in another angle because the plans change, I guess it's your department's fault then it takes so long; is that right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. MR. SCHMITT: And it's also our fault that we don't get the adequate data and analysis or the commercial studies or other supporting documentation. So I accept full responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As usual. Thank you, Mr. Schmitt, appreciate it. Approval of minutes. There are none today. BCC recaps. Ray? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 15~ 2009 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the Italian-American Club. That was approved on the summary agenda. And then the PUD rezone for the Siena Lakes ACLF and its companion, PUD rezones for Orange Blossom Gardens and Oak Grove, the petitioner asked for a continuance at that meeting so the board did not hear it and it's going to be rescheduled. Item #7 Page 5 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The Chairman's Report. I have a nice thing to congratulate everyone today. Ms. Homiak, Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Midney, congratulations on your reappointment. It's very nice. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am very pleased the board saw to keep us all together. I think that the longer we are together, the better we're able to have a history in which to move forward with on a lot of these changes and plans that come forward. That's unique in Collier County, so I'm glad you're all here. It works out real well. Consent agenda items. One thing that was mentioned earlier is there -- we only have one on today's consent. The airport consent agenda item is not before us today. Ray, do you know if that's just been delayed or coming up next time? MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard the airport last week as well for consent -- or last meeting. Remember the Marco Shores Airport? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not on consent today. It was pointed out to TIle that that was missing. Is that (sic) a reason? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. There were no changes made so there was no reason to bring it back. You approved it as it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were no stips? Okay, that's-- MS. DESELEM: Nothing changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that explains it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Page 6 September 17, 2009 Item #8A PETITION: CU-2009-AR-14231, PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES~ INC. With that we'll move into the consent agenda item that is on our agenda today. It's Petition CU-2009-AR-14231. Does anybody have any concerns, changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Oh, Mr. John Podczerwinsky has got a change? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, one minor change that we needed to clear up from the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky from Transportation Department for the record. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We had a clarification on stipulation number two. That was the one that regarded the county's work program. We had to add in a project number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Project number is 60095. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker and the second accept that change? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Vigliotti nods his head yes. Page 7 September 17, 2009 Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Item #9 A PETITION: CIJ-2008-AR-13786, UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH~ INC. The first item up today is Petition CU-2008-AR-13786 under our regular advertised public hearings. This is the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., at 1620 39th Street Southwest in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) Page 8 September 17, 2009 CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, if the applicant wants to proceed with their presentation. MS. GREEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Gina Green. I'm a professional licensed engineer in the State of Florida, representing our client, Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church. Weare here today -- I'm going to put an aerial up on the overhead. Weare here today to request a conditional use for an expansion to an existing church that was constructed back in the early Nineties. It's been operating all those years. And they have found a need to provide an accessory use building to facilitate their youth programs, to give the children a place to have their Sunday School classes, recreational facilities. This new building will include a gymnasium to play basketball and have youth fellowship in, along with classrooms and new offices for the church. Presently all these things are being done in the existing building, it's just that they've found that they're busting at the seams now as far as trying to perform Sunday School duties, along with the church functions as far as the worship times on Sunday mornings and on Wednesdays. They originally wanted to propose the building in the non-vegetated areas of the site, but with the -- after meeting with our pre-application meetings with county, the future Green Boulevard extension will be impacting this project along the north line and so it was determined that the only other place that they could do this would be behind the existing church in an existing conservation easement. We met with county staff, along with South Florida Water Management District, and they deemed that this wetland, being where it's at and how it's impacted on all sides by development, that the function of that wetland is no longer functioning. And everyone was in agreement that there wasn't a problem with impacting this as long as we met all other criteria for South Florida and Collier County to Page 9 September 17, 2009 develop. So we decided to proceed forward with our conditional use and, you know, place the building behind, which is directly due east of the existing church. There will be some additional parking to facilitate this new use. It is -- like I said, it is an accessory use. They will not be providing for a school there as far as a regular everyday function. It will just be accessory to their Sunday and Wednesday worship times. The site presently is on well and septic. They will continue to use their well and septic until such time as if the central facilities do come available, they will explore that option to be able to connect onto a central system. And we do have (sic) presently already been reviewed by South Florida Water Management District, we do have a permit in hand. They have granted us that approval to impact the small amount of wetlands that is left on the site with minimal mitigation. Really there's nothing more. You know, it's -- the site also will only provide, like I said, for the accessory uses and any other special functions, you know, such as what other churches in our community have. Special functions, maybe each year they have a festival of some sort. But there's none of those things actually planned at this time. But at some time in the future they may explore those options of providing a festival or other special occasions at the church. We also have here for any of your questions, we have Mike Ramsey, who's the environmentalist on the project, and Pastor Williams, who is the pastor of the church available to answer any questions. I thank you for your time and I'll be happy to answer any questions for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? Page 10 September 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is really about the use of the building. So you're going to use the offices, they'll be used throughout the week, correct? There'll be offices in here? MS. GREEN: Right. And the offices will actually just be a relocation of the existing offices that are in -- you know, and give them a little more space in the church as far as for their office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the rest of it will be essentially classrooms that will be used twice a week? MS. GREEN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The gymnasium will be used. MS. GREEN: During those times. You know, right now -- right now I will tell you as far as what they do with their youth. They have a basketball hoop out in their asphalt parking lot. They have, you know, a volleyball area. You know, right now the children have to go outside for -- they have a small recreational facility in the back of the existing church, but right now if they want to do any other kind of activities they have to go outside. You know, during the summertime it's very hot, it's rainy. This will actually give them a safe, secure place for their children to be able to have fellowship, be inside a building rather than out in the heat during the summertime, and be able to provide them activities all year long. Along with security and safety. They'll now be housed within a building rather than out in the open. You know, today with all the security issues, those are issues that we need to address. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, anyone? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There were a couple of concerns from some neighbors, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Wayne. Were those satisfied to their -- MS. GREEN: Yes. The church, from what I've been told, and maybe Pastor Williams can better explain it, but from what I've been Page 11 September 17, 2009 told, they did meet with them. And their concerns are: Right now they have screening that is actually exotic vegetation, that once we move forward with the construction on this site -- by Collier County code we are required to remove all exotics off of the site. But their house is actually over 200 feet away from the rear of our building, and the rear of this building has been designed, because it's a large gymnasium type structure, there are no windows on that rear building side, so they have no problems with somebody being able to view to the back. And the church has already told them that, you know, once exotic vegetation has been removed, we are required by code to plant a Type B landscape buffer back there, and we will to the full extent of the code replace any sections that are minimized by the exotic removal to the county code. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Green, you didn't handle the original petition in 1991. Nino Spagna did. And it was handled in-house by Ron Nino. And at the time the Golden Gate Master Plan wasn't in place, it was being basically I guess processed at the same time you guys were being processed. In the minutes from the 1991 meeting, let me read the following paragraph. And I would like to know how your applicant handled this from that time. Commissioner Haas questioned: If this petition is approved, what will happen upon implementation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? Ron Nino responded that even with approval of the PU this date, proposed language of the master plan stipulates a development order cannot be issued for inconsistent properties. He said, the petitioner is aware of that condition and will attempt to address the problem with Page 12 September 17, 2009 the board at a later date. Do you know what they were going to address and what they did address at a later date, or even if anything was addressed? MS. GREEN: No, I do not know. CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: Okay. I was wondering if the Pastor might know what was -- if there -- what was the issue at that time. PASTOR WILLIAMS: At that time I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself. PASTOR WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Leon Williams, Pastor of Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, for the record. At that time I wasn't the pastor. I became the pastor in May of '93. And the previous pastor is now deceased. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's kind of like the county, all the history's lost in the county in a lot of ways, too. So I appreciate that. Because the record's not clear on what the issue was, and I'm not sure what the issue was, so I thought we'd try to find out. Thank you, sir. PASTOR WILLIAMS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John Padawonski (sic), Padowinski (sic) . John Pod. I just have to keep trying until I get him right. Watch three people walk up. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Podczerwinsky. You sure you got that right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm pretty sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Easy for him to say. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, on the master plan, and the reason why the wetland area is being invaded with this new building is because they can't put it on the north side of the site because of a road reservation. I'm not sure what legally that is, but it's for the extension of Green Boulevard, from what you told me yesterday; is that correct? Page 13 September 17, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's only half of it. It's going to be 82 feet on one side and 80 feet on the other for a total of 162 feet wide. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be taking out their parking lot that's there in that area, you prohibited them from putting a building in, but yet you don't own the property. And I think you told me yesterday that the extension of Green Boulevard is approved; is that true? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The extension of Green Boulevard is approved in our 2030 LRTP, the long-range transportation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what does that mean by approved in that plan? Does that mean the Board of County Commissioners has approved it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it does. It means that they've approved it. There will be a road on roughly that alignment at some time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you put that first number one exhibit -- no, that's number two, number one. I can see it from here. I've got them written on the back, I'm sorry. If you focus down on that on the left side in the little aerial, first of all you'll see the extension. And by the way, sometimes your department's direction is off. This is upside -- your arrow -- no, no, not for Ray's purposes. Your arrow, directional arrow that's up in the upper right-hand corner of this is backwards. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if you look at this plan, the extension of Green where it comes across, that is now supposedly something that's going to happen, takes out their parking lot. This plan puts the parking lot to the south, which takes the buffer that's been in the vegetated area that's being provided today to offset the vegetated Page 14 September 17, 2009 area that was there with the conservation easement and cuts it in half. And I'm just wondering, what's -- has the applicant thought of this or -- this is -- how did this plan come about? MS. GREEN: I can answer that. The plan that you're looking at in the site map that's underneath that, that was the original proposed plan prior to the meeting that I had provided transportation, and they over-Iayed the Green Boulevard proposed extension over top, which then led us to our new site plan that realigned the building to a different location because of the impact to the building. We were trying to keep our development within the improved areas and not have to impact the conservation area at that time, but once we found out with Green Boulevard extension going through and that that corridor was wanting to be reserved, we then went a different direction, and that's when we met with county staff regarding the environmental functionality of that wetland, met with South Florida to see what our alternatives were on the site. And what you see today in the package that we're getting the conditional use on was a combination of those meetings and to meet something that could facilitate Green Boulevard extension and provide the church the place to put the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But on this plan here, the one we're looking at that's on the overhead right now, is that what you intend to do in the future? MS. GREEN: No. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Okay. So we can be assured and the residents to the south can be assured that that vegetated buffer that remains in that preserve area that everybody's saying you're going to replace the current one with will not be impacted, even though you're going to lose all those parking spaces in the future. MS. GREEN: Yes. We have discussed that situation, and we-- the loss of the spaces that are to the north with Green Boulevard, we still fall in with the criteria to apply for an administrative parkingi Page 15 September 17, 2009 reduction at the time that this road ever does go through. It could be 15, 20 years. So they have -- we have already done the numbers to see if in the future it qualifies for any kind of reductions due to hardship to be able to come back at a later date. You know, at this time the land has not been formally reserved. It's only as a reservation. It has not been purchased. And we have been told by transportation that they will not pursue purchasing it till at such time they are actually ready to build the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which according to John is 15 years from now? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sometime by 2030. It's not within the five-year CIE, but it is within the 2030 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you leave, would you put the other -- more I'm focusing on where the arrow is on that, Ray. So that's the alignment that you're looking at. Which means Green Boulevard is going to be widened to 162 feet all the way from where Green is on I-75, which is this side of the canal in Golden Gate Estates. So it's down the western side of Green. Then when it crosses 951 you're going to go past this property out into the Estates somewhere. Is that a fair statement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Roughly that's correct, yes. The only conceptual design that we have done at this time would be roughly around the intersection of Green and 951 and 39. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you with the county when Nick came through \vith this transportation corridor plan where he said that all these future corridors would come through on master plans and the public would have plenty of time to comment and we'd have all this input, and they actually came before this board twice to have that plan of his so that he could have the ability to layout the whole county and then come forward with public meetings? Because this is the example that I was using at the time. I said, Page 16 September 17,2009 how can you go through, restrict people's property rights, like you have this church's, on road corridors that you're not buying land for? Basically you could put a corridor anywhere on the map in Collier County and restrict someone's land rights now whether you've got a plan now or 100 years in the future by the way it was being presented. And then Nick sold us this package that we were going to have this thoroughfare corridor study done and that would lay everything out so everybody would know, and somehow he felt that was legal and I guess everybody approved it and it got through. Where was that package in relationship to this Green Boulevard extension? I don't get it. Because I don't remember us seeing this. And he told us we w'ould hear these kind of things. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: To my understanding, the original ordinance that had been proposed I think was declined -- it was rejected by the BCC. And as I understand, it's currently in revision. So CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the meantime we are restricting people's property rights, forcing these people to move their building into a green area, an open space area because you want to use their property sometime in the future maybe, but now you're telling me it's approved so it looks like it's going to happen. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not correct. We are simply reserving by placing a line on the map, reserving the future right-of-way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then these people can build there? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- and that is reserved before purchase. They can build there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we not building there? Why are we taking out wetlands? MS. GREEN: Okay, the reason that we are not building there is, is because if we choose to go ahead and put our building there, at the time that they do purchase they will not give compensating monies, Page 1 7 September 17, 2009 they will only purchase the land. They will not provide any additional monies for the fact that it goes through the building and that we would have to tear down the building. So therefore it leaves us in a position to where we have to seek alternate means because we would then not get monies back for a building that they spent money to build and so therefore we would rather go a different direction and not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we are restricting property rights. MS. GREEN: Well, they gave us the choice and we chose to do an alternate; an alternate in order to facilitate us being able to put in a building and move forward. And because of the green area that's there, it is cut off from anything, it's very isolated, it's not functioning anymore, it's just getting more and more deteriorated every year because it does not get the water it should because of all the development around it, you know, that is why we went the option of going this route. One, to keep them from losing their parking and having to relocate it and, you know, take away vegetation from another place that actually serves a better function than what the green space that's there now. Because the buffer to the south provides buffering to that residence to the south, and in order to put the building on the north side where it would be in a future -- possible future right-of-way along -- we would have to put that loop to the south that you saw to recapture the parking. And that would diminish the buffer on the south down to the minimum 15-foot minimum that is what the county reqUIres. So we thought it was more important to keep that buffer to the people to the south that's a building -- you know, that's already there than worry about the FP&L easement and it has another 30-foot buffer behind it to the residents behind. They already have a 30- foot natural area that's not -- it's kind of a no man's land on the piece of property because the FP&L right-of-way bisected it from the rest of the Page 18 September 17, 2009 property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You spoke of an administrative relief later on fi)r a reduction in parking. How much of a reduction is anticipated based upon this plan and your accepting an alternative? MS. GREEN: Hold on. I don't have that number off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, can you give me an estimate? About, 20 cars, 30 cars? MS. GREEN: Put it this way: It's not as much of a reduction as what the code allows a church to have for reduction. So it's in between what is the -- what they would like to see and what the bare minimum is. It's not the bare minimum, but it's less than what is the code as far as straight parking calculations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess the root of my question is, is can the church function effectively if it ends up where it can accommodate parking? I'm just wondering whether that's-- MS. GREEN: Well, presently, I happen to live just not very far from this. I've lived here in this county for 30 years. I've basically grown up here. I live up off of Weber, and I go past this church many times on Sunday and go have breakfast down at Nana Vetta's or places like that, and I look. I'm the type, because I've been doing this for so long, I look at parking lots, I look at where people are congregating, and I -- and because this is my client, I look at their parking lot on Sundays when I go past. They presently now are not utilizing all of their spaces on a Sunday morning. They do have empty spaces. And I think, you know, largely their congregation I think -- I think some of them probably car pool, you know" and all. Because most of the vehicles that I usually do see are SUV s, nlinivans, things like that. So I think this is the type of congregation that has a tendency to car pool and minimize the number of cars. But I have never seen that Page 19 September 17, 2009 parking lot every space totally filled presently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that thought, Mr. Murray, if you don't mind me interjecting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John mentioned something to me yesterday that contradicts a little bit from what I think I'm hearing now. He said in fact your parking lot is so utilized that you're parking along the right-of-ways along 39th and that's becoming a problem for his department because he doesn't know how to stop you from doing that. MS. GREEN: I presently have never seen that on a Sunday morning when I've gone past. So I've never witnessed that sort of action going on in front of this church. You know, I've seen -- you know, and I look up and down that right-of-way every time because there's always trucks for sale and things, people park out there, they -- you know, people that live in that area park along that roadway and put things up for sale. So I'm always, you know, scanning down through there just observing, and I have never witnessed that. I'm not going to say that John hasn't, but I have never personally witnessed them parking out there across the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just for the record, John, you did tell me that yesterday, did you not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, yes, I have personally witnessed it. I cannot verify whether or not that was a special event or regular Sunday parking, no, so -- CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm sorry to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's right. Actually, I came In on yours. MS. GREEN: Maybe I ought to let Pastor Williams maybe address it and see what he can -- you know, since he's there on Sundays and knows his congregation, you know, maybe this would be Page 20 September 17, 2009 a good question for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. PASTOR WILLIAMS: Do I need to identify for the record? CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: No, we're okay now. PASTOR WILLIAMS: All right, thank you. We normally do not have parking along the 39th Street. Only I think a couple of occasions -- I don't know if you all remember this, a professional football player by the name of Edgerrin James, his fiance died. She was a member of our church. We funeralized (sic) her, not at the church but at First Baptist, Orange Blossom. Afterwards we had what we would call a re-pass where we served food for the people. On that occasion it was crowded. And it was only because I guess of the popularity of him and all that surrounded that. That was one occasion. There may have been another funeral that we've had on a Saturday that perhaps crowded to some degree 39th Street. But never if any on a Sunday or a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. PASTOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other question, sir. Because I'm going to be suggesting another change to transportation in a minute. The congregation that uses your church, you have a capacity maximum I think of300 or 275, something like that. PASTOR WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN : You're not planning to expand that congregation with the creation of this new building, are you? PASTOR WILLIAMS: No, we're not. A matter of fact, we have two worship services, meaning this: That if, you know, the 11:00 a.m. worship service is 275 max, we have an 8:00 a.m. worship service, which means we can accommodate more people but at different times. CHAIRMA.N STRAIN: Okay, thank you. PASTOR WILLIAMS: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. Page 21 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not of the Pastor but of John. Just a quick one, it's a seemingly small matter. But I noted in the peak trips and so forth you speak about a single trip representing 0.04 percent. Is that four percent or is it really -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: 0.04 percent. That would be the impact on County Road 951. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So decimally it would be .0004. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just as long as we have that right. Thank you. That's absolutely nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, your number three recommendation, it says the church shall not expand Sunday worship services into the multipurpose building. And then it goes on from there. I had mentioned to you I would like to suggest that we change it. And then through Heidi's help, she mentioned as well some addition. Should read, if everybody's in agreement, the church shall not expand worship services' trip generation into the multipurpose building. So we would drop the word Sunday and insert the words trip generation after the word services. That coincides with what the Pastor just said he was intending to do anyway. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a problem for your department? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not at all. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Anybody here? (No response.) CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Ray, we're going to go to staff. I just -- are there any public speakers on this one? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRM"AN STRAIN: Okay. Because I had some questions about the conservation easement. But if the public in the area has been Page 22 September 17, 2009 settled with that matter, then there's no need to get into that. If there's no other questions of the applicant, we'll ask staff for staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Zoning and Land Development Review Department. And this church petition is consistent with our Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of this petition. And I do have one revision to the conditions for approval that I'd like to share with you this morning, and that is an additional condition number five. And it will state that the conservation easement referenced in Exhibit B of Resolution No. 91-135 is no longer required. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What kind of a minimal environmental mitigation was required by South Florida Water Management? MS. GUNDLACH: I have environmental staff here to assist us with that. Would you like to hear from staff or from Gina? MS. GREEN: Actually, I did the -- it's in the staffreport from South Florida. I did actually -- I brought a copy of the South Florida, and I did check that this rnorning, because I figured that was going to be a question. They are being required to buy 0.08 credits from the Big Cypress mitigation bank. So that's what South Florida is requiring them to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff? (No response.) Page 23 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we have no public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: And since there's no public speakers, I'm assuming there's no rebuttal requested by the applicant. If not, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I move with a recommendation of approval CU-2008-AR-13786, with the staff recommendations number three as revised and the additional number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion and seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. And I'm assuming that the -- and maybe you said this, Brad, all the rest of the recommendations were consistent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: I have one comment to make. And I'm going to support the motion because I don't believe the church has done anything wrong. I am strongly against, though, what the church was made to do. I don't believe transportation acted fairly. I do not believe that Green Boulevard was properly vetted in the public process, especially in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm extremely disappointed that this is still going forward without more public involvement. Green Boulevard, to my knowledge and the knowledge of others in the Estates who I spoke to, was not an issue that was going to happen without further public scrutiny and study. It was supposed to be basically a dead issue. I'm very disappointed to hear that it's going Page 24 September 17, 2009 forward to a point where we're restricting people's property rights on a possibility of a road through a reservation that I'm not even sure is a legal document or a legal requirement to begin with. So enough said on that. I know this isn't the forum for that. It's just very disheartening to learn this today. With that in mind, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 9-0. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't get a conditional use form in mine. Is there -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Neither did 1. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe we mentioned at one of the previous planning commission meetings that we were going to eliminate the conditional use, findings of fact -- CHAIRM~t\N STRAIN: That's a good idea. MR. BELLOWS: -- that you sign up at the front desk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It will be a consent? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Page 25 September 17, 2009 We're now reflecting those in staff report themselves. So if you COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only problem is you have a conditional use form in one of the others. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, yeah, the one might have been in the pipeline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a good point. So we're not going to use those forms anymore, which I'm kind of glad we're not, because they didn't allow a lot of room for explanation or changes, but we are going to go over the issues during the consent discussion. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And also the staff report outlines all of those findings anyway. So if you -- during the hearing today, if you still have an issue you want to add to the findings that are in the staff report or seek a further clarification, we can do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, yeah, the only problem would be is if we went against the staff report. But we'll deal with it when we try it. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. It's similar to the way we do the rezone and PUD findings in the staff reports that you receive. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-PL-09-110~ WINDING CYPRESS PUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to the second item today. It's Petition PUDA-PL-09-110, DiVosta Homes, LP for the Winding Cypress PUD on 951 near the U.S. 41 East intersection. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 26 September 17, 2009 (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRM"AN STRAIN: I met with Margaret Perry and Chris Hasty (phonetic) on this issue. We went over some of the particulars on the setbacks.. Any of those discussions will be re-discussed today anyway. So with that in mind, Ms. Perry, it's all yours. MS. PERRY: Thank you very much. Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller, planner for this project, representing DiVosta Homes. With me today is Felipe Gonzalez from Pulte Homes. Chris Hasty unfortunately is out of town today. DiV osta f[omes is requesting a minor amendment to the Winding Cypress PUD. This amendment does not increase density or change any of the development parameters for the project. Winding Cypress was originally approved in 1999 and was subsequently amended in 2002. It contains -- Winding Cypress in its entirety contains 1,928 acres and is approved for 2,300 dwelling units. Tract A of Winding Cypress, which is Verona Walk, contains 760 dwelling units. The 2002 amendment was approved for specific side yard setbacks for zero lot line and patio homes which were zero feet and 10 feet on one side or three-foot, one inch and six-foot 11 inches on the other side. This was because there was a definitive product type plan for the entire proj ect. As we all know, market conditions have changed and DiVosta Homes has had to relook some of their product types and layouts. They desire a more flexible side yard setback for this product type while still maintaining the 10-foot separation between structures. Page 27 September 17, 2009 Our original request was to provide these revised setbacks for the entirety of Tract A. At the neighborhood information meeting, residents of Verona Walk attended and expressed some concerns about these applying to existing homes. Since that time we've revisited and provided an exhibit to the county which reflected that these revised setbacks would only apply to undeveloped lots. That exhibit is attached to the resolution -- I'nl sorry, the draft ordinance that's included in your agenda packet. We would appreciate the support of the Planning Commission in this PUD amendment, this minor PUD amendment, and Felipe and I are here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One issue that I had was moving the air conditioning from the front to the side. Granted, there's still going to be the 10 feet, whether it's, you know, evenly split five feet and five feet or three and seven. But putting that air conditioning on the side, and there was some -- apparently in the NIM there were some people that had issues with that. I would too. What can you tell me about that? MS. PERH.. Y : Yes, I can tell you that the movement of the air conditioning units from the front yard, which is existing now in the units, to the side, anyone who buys a unit within Verona Walk for these new units are well aware of that. And we feel that the distance between structures of 10 feet, that isn't changing, be it the air conditioner in the front or the side. So we don't think that -- we think that we've addressed the concerns of the residents that attended the NIM. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now, on this, the diagrams up there shows lot ..A. and lot B. Did this whole shifting happen because of an existing situation where the pad was put in wrong? Page 28 September 17, 2009 MS. PERRY: No, this is kind of like a result of it. They knew that they -- they, DiV osta Homes, knew that they were going to be introducing different models from what's existing. So no, it isn't a result of the situation. Although there were units constructed on DeMille Street wherein when the units were moved to the side there was a problem with the setbacks. And they did obtain six administrative variances for slabs that were poured where the air conditioning unit was located on the side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The reason I bring this up is not in this neighborhood but somewhere else I visited, I happened to been driving through a private community and noticed where roofs overlapped. One roof was draining onto the neighbor's roof and then down. And that's what concerned me here, A, about the air conditioner, I still don't agree with. That's going to cause some issues. But moving the setbacks like this is what brought to mind the overlapping roof from neighbors. Thank you. MS. PERRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Ms. Perry, on your table-- standards table, if the separation of the structures is going to be 10 feet, why is it not stated under distance between principal structures for patio and zero lot lines? It says N/ A. Why wouldn't you put 10 feet in there? MS. PERRY: I believe, ma'am, it says for zero and patio lot lines for side yard setbacks, principal, it refers to footnote number five. And footnote number five -- COMMISSIONER CARON: For side yards, I understand that. But if the goal is to make sure that the structures are 10 feet apart, why wouldn't it be stated under distance between principal structures as 10 feet? MS. PERRY: We could add that. We have no problem with adding that. Page 29 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the air conditioning units on the side, it's not the end of the world I guess but sometimes they can be annoying if the bearings start to go and so forth. But there can be something more annoying, more frustrating, potentially. What about generators, fuel driven generators, would they be put on the side as well? MS. PERRY: I would assume -- since our PUD does not address generators anywhere, I would say we'd have to do whatever the LDC says. And I'm not totally familiar with generators. I believe the generators per the LDC have to be located in the rear of the property. But again, I'll defer to Ray what the LDC currently says about generators. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's an interesting question. Maybe Ray does have an answer, I don't know. I might put you on the spot there, not intending to. MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to do some research on that. I don't recall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And while it may not ever come to pass, I think the people in Verona Walk, or Winding Cypress as it's known there, they may at some future time choose to do that. Now, we had some people come in and talk about generators here and the noise and so forth, and I know the city had an issue. And generally they were in the front and then they wanted them on the side. And propane refills are much more easily facilitated from the front, et cetera. Now, all I'm trying to establish is that there's a noise factor. So let me go back to the air conditioner. The air conditioner unit which has to be I guess elevated in order to breathe, so it can't really be protected for noise in any way by putting a well around it of any sort. MS. PERRY: Well, the air conditioners are -- do have a buffer around them, of course, a vegetative buffer, which is pretty common. Page 30 September 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Yeah, you can't answer, really. Okay, that I guess is problematic and I can't really get an answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. While we're looking at your table, we've since learned that the 15- foot front setback, especially to a garage door is a problem. Would you be able to add the 20-foot -- 23-foot requirement that we now have in the code? And essentially you'd be under your front yard. I guess you could add it to footnote one and four. The concern is that you could have a garage door 15 feet from the sidewalk. MS. PERRY: And there's not room to park a car before a sidewalk or sonlething you're thinking? That's what-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there isn't, correct. MS. PERRY: Right. I'm going to refer to Felipe on that, because that's more of a developer -- I want him to commit. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Felipe Gonzalez with Pulte Homes, for the record. MS. PERRY: He's asking for the front yard, if we can do 23 feet instead of 15 feet. MR. GONZALEZ: We are currently building the homes more than 15 feet frorn the road. And we keep the minimum distance of 20 feet is preferred. And that's how we get these homes built. Yes, we can probably go ahead and do that. MS. PERRY: 23? MR. GON"ZALEZ: Twenty. I would agree with 20. CHAIRM.A.N STRAIN: Before you go there, I'd like to ask the County Attorney a question to that point. In the staff report, because this issue was considered a minor -- I Page 3 1 September 17, 2009 think a minor amendment to the PUD, it says, it should be noted that for a minor amendment to a PUD ordinance, staff only reviews the proposed change and not the entire PUD document for consistency and compatibility with the GMP in the Land Development Code. Are we able then to go into other areas that were not, say, advertised or discussed at the NIM such as this when this is specifically pointed out as a singular item as a minor amendment? If we can, fine, I just need to make sure we're on good ground. MR. KLATZKOW: No, the focus really here is on the application before you, which is a very limited application. We're not here to reopen up the PUD. And as you know, my biggest concern here is the advertising issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I wanted to clarify. Brad, that's -- MR. GONZALEZ: To give you some relief, we -- I mean, I don't want to change any --like they said, we're not addressing the PUD setbacks. But we do set our homes farther than 15 feet. And I don't think there's any instances out there that I'm aware of that we've done less than, or that we have done 15 feet. So it's also in our best interest to make those driveways at least 20 feet, and that's what we've been doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, nothing I can do anyway, nothing I can do. But I do think that's a good idea. I don't think it would look good if your cars were sticking on the sidewalk when people drove by. Just one slnall question. Up at the top you added the word as, which does make the sentence read better. But the intent of that is not to introduce other architectural elements, is it? MS. PERRY: No. No, it isn't. It was just for clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRM..~N STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Midney? Page 32 September 17, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. You spoke about changing market conditions made you want to introduce a different type of product. Could you explain that in a more layman's type of terms? MS. PERRY: Absolutely. Again, I'm going to refer to Felipe, because he's more aware of what the models are being offered at Verona Walk. MR. GONZALEZ: This models have been in this community since it opened probably over five years ago. So through market research, focus groups with people in different parts of the state, we are constantly coming up with ways to improve these models and make it more likeable for, you know, the new homeowners. At this point we are thinking of introducing different models that are better liked for the homeowners today for the market today. So that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to introduce new models or come up with the products that are going to be selling better and are going to let us turn this community over to homeowners faster. So pretty lTIuch that's what it is, we're coming up with different products that are more suitable to the market today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you be more specific? MR. GON.ZALEZ: We -- yes, sir. We are bringing in four new models to V erona Walk. There's two single-family villas and two single- family product in the forecast. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how are they different? MR. GONZALEZ: They vary. It's different floor plan. There may be a little wider than current product or may be a little -- not as deep. But it's different footprints. MS. PERR..Y: Square footage. MR. GONZALEZ: Square footage? Yes, pretty much the same square footage. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pretty much the same square footage, just different dimensions? Page 33 September 17, 2009 MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any question? (No response.) CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: Okay, I just have a comment. Most of the time we don't even know where air conditioners are going to go when they do PUDs. That kind of scrutiny is left usually to site plans. Had you come in today and not asked -- just asked for the change without saying what you were probably doing it for, I'm not sure we'd have that many questions about the specificity of an air conditioner. But it's interesting that you're coming in for that reason. And it's just something that's beyond what we normally locate on sites. Anyway ,with that said, we'll ask for staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the staff report; it's been submitted to you for review and approval. In the staff report are findings, both PUD findings and rezone findings that support staffs recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and that we are recommending approval of it. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: I got about 100, Kay. Just kidding. Anybody have any questions of Kay? (No response.) CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. And I do have some additional information on Mr. Murray's question about generators, if you want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 34 September 17, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: -- me to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. BELLOWS: Section 4.02.01.D.13 of the LDC provides that permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard of any property supporting a permitted single-family residence, subject to a 10-foot rear yard setback and within the side yard, subject to a maximum encroachment into the setback of 36 inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a total encroachment? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, 36 inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be a block on one side. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll close -- did you have -- oh, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRM_AN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Caron. Were there any stipulations? Yes, Ms. Caron -_ COMMISSIONER CARON: Just, yeah. CHAIRM.A.N STRAIN: -- had one change, to make sure the 10 feet that they're saying they're going to maintain is added to the table between principal structures. Kay? MS. DESELEM: If I may, we haven't advertised any other changes. Page 35 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, this is what they said they were going to do. They're going to maintain 10 feet between the structures, but they didn't put it on the table, so she's suggesting it be added to the table instead ofN/ A. MS. DESELEM: Another issue that comes up is this is for all of Winding Cypress, a good portion of which is already developed. We don't -- CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: No, this is Tract A. MS. DESELEM: -- want to create any non-conformities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to the ordinance-- MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I know what you're talking about, I just want to make sure, because we have not advertised that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a change, though is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a change. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, just to relieve you, the distance between buildings would be buildings on the same lot. That's different than a setback issue. So I'm not sure that's necessary. In other words, in a detached single home you wouldn't be building two detached single homes on the same lot so therefore you'd never-- the N/A kind of makes sense that -- again, the distance between buildings would be buildings on the same lot. Setbacks are buildings on different lots, which is the issue here. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think we should change it. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if it's clear enough and everybody's comfortable that they're going to maintain 10 feet, which I'm sure that's wTitten down somewhere. Kay, do you have any other reference that was going to lock them into the minimum of -- oh, asterisk number five does. So it's right there on number five. So that Page 36 September 17, 2009 will cover it. Is that okay with you, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Both motion makers and the motion is as stated. No stipulations. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS With that, we have come to the end of to day's meeting -- or actually the old business. I don't think there is any. Ray, you have some? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have a clarification. I received an e-mail from Mr. John-I)avid Moss concerning FLO TV and the hearing date. CHAIRMi\N STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: He's saying that we're going to re-advertise that and not continue it to October the 1st, but it's going to be re- advertised for October 15th. Page 37 September 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So if anybody was paying attention earlier, 9.B and C involving the FLO TV, Petitions CU-2008-AR-14085 and V APL-2009-37 are not being continued today. They will be re-advertised and heard we expect around the middle of October. MR. BELLOWS: October 15th. CHAIRM'AN STRAIN: October 15th at this point. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Oh, Ray, October 15th, though, was the date we had nothing planned, and we're trying to leave that clear because we had two meetings of the GMP the following week. So now you're telling me we're going to come in just for FLO TV? MR. BELLOWS: That's the only way we could advertise it and get it on -- meeting all the advertising requirements. So it has to be the minimum of the 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that's just an expense -- MR. BELLOWS: And they're companion items. There's a vanance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do we have to accept that as a date? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let me ask a question first. Have we already advertised it, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check. My understanding from J.D. is that we couldn't make the advertising. MR. KLATZKOW: I know what the issue was. It came out of my office. My question is -- because the Chairman makes a good point here, all right -- can we do this a different day? And my answer may depend upon whether or not we've already advertised it. MR. BELLOWS: Let me see if I can-- CHAIRM.A.N STRAIN: Yeah, I'll go on with the -- I'll do some Page 38 September 17, 2009 fluff here for you. One of the things I'm trying to accomplish is we need to save money at the county and these meetings are expensive. MR. KLATZKOW: There's no point you guys coming all the way in here for one item. CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to get across, is if we can -- if we have a legal way to defer this to another meeting, we need to do so. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me be just real clear about this. I mean, we control the agenda, not the developers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just making sure. MR. KLA.TZKOW: Mr. Chairman, yes, it's within your prerogative to control the agenda, you know, of your board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is -- then why don't we just leave it this way. If that's the only thing scheduled for October 15th, we're not going to hear that on October 15th. Is that cornfortable with everybody? So you guys can figure out the advertising later. MR. BELLOWS: It appears that we'll have a third item on the agenda. That's -- which item was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third item? We're only talking about one now. Oh, these are companion items, okay. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. The board directed on Tuesday that one petition that was going to be heard by them also be heard by the Planning Commission. It's the Bluebill restroom facility. And that has -- CHAIRM_AN STRAIN: The Bluebill restroom facility. MS. DESELEM: Yes, Bluebill restroom facility. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're going to need half a day for that, Mr. Chaimlan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So okay, well, there goes the idea of saving money. Oh, well, I was trying to get the clerk some Page 39 September 17, 2009 extra funds to do things with. With that in mind, we can't do anything about that so we'll leave it as is, the 15th of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't do the fluffy then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- October. No, there goes fluffy. New business. I don't believe we have any. Does anybody? (No response.) CHAIRM:AN STRAIN: If not, public comment. They're all gone. So with that, we'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded by Mr. Kolflat. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRM.AN STRAIN: Aye. We were hereby adjourned, 9-0. Thank you. ****** Page 40 September 17, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:28 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on or as corrected as presented Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 41