Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/03/2009 R December 3, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 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 Ko I flat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNlNG COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUll.-DING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDNIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDNlDUALS 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 WISIDNG TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPlllC 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 HEARlNG. 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, WInCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WInCH 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 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - 200712008 Combined Cycle; including one 2009 Petition Transmittal of GMP Amendments A. Petition: CP-2008-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C-5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :MO.62 acres. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) 1 B. Petition: CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to expand and modify the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional 390,950 square feet of commercial uses of the C- 4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from 8th Street Northeast west to the canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of:t:56.5 acres. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) C. Petition: CP-2007-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to create the Wilson Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-3 zoning districts, for property located on the southeast comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :t:5.I7 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) D. Petition: CP-2007-2. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to create the 1mm0kaIee Road/Oil Well Road Commercial Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 70,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-3 zoning districts, for property located at the southwest comer oflmmokalee Road (CR 846) and 33rd Avenue Northeast, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :t:10.28 acres. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner) [PETITION WITHDRAWN BY AGENT: D. WAYNE ARNOLD 11/12/2009] E. Petition: CP-2007-3. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Mat> Series. to create the Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, including schools, adult care and child care and 2,500 square feet of health services, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for property located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), 1/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of :t:21. 72 acres. (Coordinator: Beth Yang, AICP, Principal Planner) F. Petition: CP-2008-4. Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to re-designate from Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides of Washburn Avenue, east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :t:28.76 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) G. Petition: CPSP-2008-7. StatIPetition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP. (Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) H. CP-2009-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUEIFLUM). to create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami-Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, consisting of I,608:t: acres. (Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) I. CP-2007-S. Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to create the LoganlImmokalee Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 260,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-4 zoning districts, maximum of 60 dwelling units, and agricultural uses, including nursery operations for property located at the southeast comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of:t: 41 acres. (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) 2 J. Petition: V A-PL2009-1162. Elke Remmlinger-Behnke, as Trustee of the Bernd Schoenherr 1998 Irrevocable Trust, represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc. of Naples, is requesting two after-the-fact variances for an existing screened pool enclosure that is an accessory structure to a single family dwelling. The ftrst request is for a variance of 2.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 15 feet as provided for in Section 8.16 of the Kings Lake Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 82-52) to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 12.5 feet from the rear property line. The second request is for a variance of 2.41 feet from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet as provided for in Section 8.16 of the Kings Lake Planned Unit Development (Ordinance Number: 82-52) to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 5.09 feet from the side property line. The subject .26:t: acre property is located at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard, in the King's Lake Unit 3, in Plat Book 13, Pages 33 and 34 of the Public Records of Collier County, in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) K. Petition: CU-PL2009-170. First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc., represented by Frederick E. Hood, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Agricultural (A) zoning district pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c.7. The proposed Conditional Use will permit expansion of a church by adding 1,550 square feet to an existing church building and by adding a new 19,281 square foot general purpose building. The 4.59 acre site is located at 14600 Tamiami Trail East in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier Coooty, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-PL2009-1165, Henderson Properties, Inc., represented by Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, is requesting a variance from Subsection 5.06.04.F.4. of the LDC which allows one wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each unit in a multi-occupancy parcel to allow two (2) wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs per unit in a multi-occupancy parcel with one sign facing the abutting road and one sign facing the internal parking area. The subject property is located at 13555 Tamiami Trail North and 895 Wiggins Pass Road at the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail North (US 41 North) and Wiggins Pass Road, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier Coooty, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) B. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 553.67:t: acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, appromnately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier Oounty, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11398. Shoesop Properties, LLC, represented by Timothy Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc. is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a 25,000 square-foot commercial retail and office development to be known as Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. The 5.46-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of the Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) and Everglades Boulevard intersection in Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier Coooty, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS 3 "' 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Revisions to the GMP amendment hearing schedule for the Adoption of the 2007-2008 combined cycle petitions, and the Transmittal of the Immokalee Area Master Plan petition. 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 11/19/09 cCPC AgendalRay Bellowslld 4 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That customary pause before we start the Pledge of Allegiance is so we're not pledging the back of Brad Schiffer's head. Gives him time to get off to the side, he's in the line of fire. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? Page 2 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. We have our consent item agendas, which are extensive, and I want to ask the County Attorney if we can go through and discuss them all at once and make one motion to approve them all or if they all have to be read individually and approved individually. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's whatever your preference is. I'm okay with either -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do them all at once then, as long as no one objects once we get into discussion. Then we have three regularly advertised hearings. And I don't believe there are any exceptions to those. And we have a new business item, which is a GMP amendment scheduling. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll talk about Planning Commission absences. We have a couple nice things going on. We are going to be going to Immokalee for a workshop on the Immokalee Area Master Plan on December 16th. Now, that's the night before our December 17th meeting, so we're going to be kind of jammed up with meetings. Page 3 December 3,2009 But the -- it seemed to be the only time it could be fit in with the locations in Immokalee. This is a workshop. It will not be broadcast. There will not be a court reporter there. Minutes will be taken. And we're there I would assume to hear the eRA's position and the Immokalee residents' position on their master plan. I don't expect that that meeting, for the benefit of the Planning Commission, to go through line-by-line, word-for-word, page-by-page, anything at all. I think it's more of a general informational meeting and informal back and forth so we can get a gut feel on what everybody is expecting out of their master plan and help us review it when we go back in I think it's January or February. But that is on the 16th. And I believe it's at 4:00 in the afternoon. Is that right, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. It is at 4: 00. And if you don't mind me jumping on in, we've made the assumption that, as happened with a petition a year or two ago, that the Planning Commission might be interested in vanpooling over. So we have a reservation on the van for those that would be interested in traveling over as one group. We could meet at our offices at 2:30 on the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By "your offices", that's a big building. Which one? MR. WEEKS: The west end of the building. Right where -- right across from the credit union. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And where is it going to be? MR. WEEKS: We'll have the van parked right there at that end of the building. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, the meeting. MR. WEEKS: Oh, the career and services center. Same place as the hearing a couple years ago that you held on Silver Strand. Page 4 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Paul won't have to drive out there. Save you some gas for the first time in many -- a couple years. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm just now bringing it up. I won't ask for a poll of hands now, but I would ask that each Planning Commissioner that has an interest in attending, please send an e-mail or a phone call to myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to know how many-- we're not going to vote on the meeting, we can't take action at the meeting because it's a workshop. But just for the benefit, how many people believe they cannot attend that meeting? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may be out of the state, so we'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So looks like there'll be seven or eight of us, at least. Well, that's good. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I mean, David, do you need to know how many of us are going to go in the van? I'm not sure anybody wants to drive, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: I do, if you're comfortable deciding right at this moment. I didn't know if people would need to think about it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got -- I'm not sure how I'm going to get out there yet but I'll let you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, did you say 2:30? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might be out that way anyway, so there's no sense driving all the way back in to here just to get a ride in a van. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, guys, you all know the tendency of certain groups to criticize when they see more of us sitting together than just one, so when you're in the van, we can't talk about Page 5 December 3, 2009 anything to do with the Planning Commission at all. So I guess we'll talk about Tiger Woods or something. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sing Christmas carols. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, we'll move on to the -- next meeting is the 17th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 17th? That's our regular meeting in this room at 8:30. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Once again, I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- still be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then one other item I'd like to mention concerning agenda Planning Commission meetings, the transmittal meeting for the Immokalee Area Master Plan is -- David, is that I believe in January or first part of February? Do you recall? MR. WEEKS: I do, because that's on your agenda today to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's get it on the table and discuss it so we -- is that the item that you added for new business? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we finish that right now then and try to let you go. MR. WEEKS: Sure. Well, turns out I will be here for another matter. The memo was -- should have been provided to you in advance. There's two items to discuss. And we're already on Immokalee Master Plan. We're asking for your transmittal hearing to be on February the 16th. That would be in this room at 8:30. And carryover dates to be regular Planning Commission meeting dates on February 18th and March 4th, if those are needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The adoption hearing has not changed your schedule. Page 6 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I wanted to note to you, unless there's a majority objection from this board, I would like to hold the transmittal hearing in Immokalee. Because this board has the option of holding meetings here or there. Now, that is more of a costly meeting because it has to have the media and has to be broadcast. I think regardless we should do it. I have spoke with Penny Phillippi with the CRA. She's very concerned that we not -- if we didn't have it there, and I agree with her. So under any circumstance -- and she said that the CRA, ifneed be, would find a way to help pay for the -- offset the costs. So regardless, we need to schedule that meeting in Immokalee. So whatever staff has to do. And I have a feeling, based on my reading of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, we could be there a long time. So it may be wise, and I don't know what -- if you could coordinate with Penny on the time frame to start that meeting. I would prefer we try to start during the day. Because I don't know if we'll get through it if we start late in the afternoon or evening without being there to unreasonable hours and everybody falling asleep, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's scheduled for 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. Yeah, so we would have to have it -- but if we go out there, is 8:30 doing anything? I mean, if we go out there and schedule the meeting for 8:30 in Immokalee so the people can participate, since that is more of a working community in some ways than our coastal area, will enough people be able to attend to have it effective? And I think we need to kind of -- if you could coordinate with the CRA to talk about the time, that would be a good thing. Now, this is pending any objection by the Board of County Commissioners. If they feel this is a restrictive budget issue, then obviously we can't do it. But I don't see that being that much of a problem, especially with the eRA's cooperation in the cost. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would the Planning Commission Page 7 December 3,2009 want to give any type of direction as to preference for time to begin? Or at least a range: After lunch, in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, since you're a key element in this whole process, this is a Tuesday and it's the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And I know you have a conflict on different parts of the week with your job. Is there some way that this can be arranged to coordinate better for you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it has to be a Tuesday; it has to be this day, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- no, it could be different days. Especially if it's in Immokalee. We have a lot more freedom to move the days because we have open rooms out there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, my best day schedule-wise would be Thursdays. All my Thursdays are available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would need a Thursday in between our regular meetings. Could we try to look at that, David, see if we can find a better time? Because Paul's involvement's going to be critical. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to come regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but I hate to see you -- it's good if everybody can keep ajob right now. The more you can keep at your job I think the better, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The diabetics will appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the 11th or the 25th. MR. WEEKS: Please don't move it forward. Don't bring it closer. We're under such a tight time frame as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the 25th is another Thursday that would be open. And if a Thursday is -- does that work for most of the people on this board and the general -- Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: We have a meeting on the 26th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, could we do it on a Saturday, open it really up for the community? Page 8 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that takes a lot of changes in staff time and overtime. That would completely -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let them take a Wednesday off and -- I don't know, just if you really wanted the community, that's probably -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the intent is to have the community involved. The workshop's going to hopefully accomplish a lot of community input. David? MR. WEEKS: I should mention to the Commission that there's one and possibly two other comprehensive plan amendments that may be added to your Immokalee Master Plan schedule. You recall at your last meeting we discussed the Petition CP-2008-3 Patrick White was here to discuss. That's the one located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. He will appear on the December 15th County Commission agenda under public petition to ask that they approve its addition to the Immokalee Master Plan schedule. If the board approves that, of course that means in addition to the Immokalee Master Plan, you will have that petition as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what that means, David, is that we have to hear that petition within the time frame that the lAMP is being processed, not necessarily the same day; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And in fact we anticipate, I cannot say for certain, but anticipate that the petitioner would not be ready for your advertised date at the time we -- assuming it was going to be the 16th, but within your five-week continuance window. So that it might be either advertised separately two or three or four weeks later than the 16th or whatever date we agree upon or advertise on that date but continue within the five-week window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that when you schedule the Immokalee Area Master Plan in Immokalee we don't bring Page 9 December 3,2009 anything in there with it. Because then it would be unfair to the coastal area to have to drive to Immokalee to attend something that they rarely would know about. So we'll just re -- we can always slip that one element in a regular meeting, either in the afternoon or morning of a regular meeting scheduled Thursday. Because our meetings aren't that booked anymore. The economy has cut that down quite a bit as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been thinking about the issues here, that we -- and I fully agree, we should go for a workshop out there because of the -- and we're going in the evening because we anticipate that as many people who would like to go would be able to go. But to go out there and go for the day, are we really going to benefit those people? Will they come? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- I mean, I'll go. I'm not reluctant to go if I think that there's some true advantage to them. But having done the workshop and having them in attendance, would they not feel secure and then have their leaders come? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My comment to David was to check with the eRA, who is sponsoring this workshop, to see if they feel that a daytime meeting on the actual transmittal would be effective. And I think based on David's response back to us on that we could probably respond better, Bob, on whether that would be workable or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm fully in support of the idea of as many people can benefit from it, so that's not my issue. It would be a shame, especially if we have a carryover day, given the expense associated with going out there for the county, that if it didn't fulfill its purpose, that would be a sad thing. That's all. That's what was going through my mind. Page 10 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then -- Donna, you had something you wanted to -- and Paul and Bob. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, if we are talking about moving the meeting on the 16th to a later time frame, late afternoon, into the evening, then that shouldn't be a problem for Paul, who can arrange his schedule for the daytime. So I don't think we need to move the 16th, I think we just need to determine a start time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine, too. My point was that if we start late in the evening, the amount of work we have to do in the Immokalee Area Master Plan may take us numbers of evenings. And that begins to be a real problem on a transmittal and a cost to reset up every single time out there. So I was trying to figure out how we could do a transmittal hearing and be done in one day. So we need to start early enough to get that point done. That's what my goal was. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For me, my preference would be the first meeting the 11 th and the second on the 25th. I don't know if that's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what David will have to check. The 25th, David, is a little bit of a problem because the 26th we have an all day meeting, our first one, on the LDC amendments. And I already know they're going to be very contentious in some regards. So I have a feeling that we're going to be studying quite a bit for the 26th. So the 25th may be the most problematic. And for you guys the 11th is problematic. MR. WEEKS: It is. It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we look at a Friday or Saturday or something like that. Anything later -- later in the week I guess is better for you, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, Fridays I have another Page 11 December 3,2009 support group meeting. But don't worry about me, I'll be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's let David figure it out with eRA. But I think we need to have that in Immokalee, so do the best we can to make sure it's effective, if we do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. And Mr. Vigliotti had-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Enough confusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, is it reasonable to even have an expecta -- not an expectation, a possibility of doing it Friday? You folks are off. You're on a four-day week, are you? MR. WEEKS: Our department was not affected by that, but the entire building's back on a five-day workweek, so that would not be an . Issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe Friday makes more sense in some respects. Because we could -- because if you work into the night and the following day you've got to deal with the regular meeting, you have that issue for older people who might be a little tired. But the next day, Friday -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You saying I'm old? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think he was talking about himself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I wouldn't talk about me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, why don't you just work with the CRA, come back with whatever options you can, and at our next meeting we'll try to -- and maybe we can discuss it on the 16th. That way the public that is there can-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would be good too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. -- can understand what we're trying to do. Item #5 Page 12 December 3, 2009 APPROV AL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now that we've beat that to death, let's move on to the approval of the minutes. There are none, but there is an announcement. I guess this is as good a time as any. The legal ads for today's hearings have been given to the court reporter from the County Attorney's Office. And I guess that will be the process we'll have at every meeting. And I'll try to remember to acknowledge it at each meeting. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bee report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on December 1st, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the Naples Continuing Care Retirement Community, CFPUD. Board of County Commissioners approved that 5-0, subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. And the companion items, the amendments to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the Oak Grove PUD, was also approved 5-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I understand the project was substantially modified from what we saw. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, it wasn't substantially modified. There was a clarification dealing with sidewalks. And Mr. Moss is here to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's something to do with heights and a few other things I heard in the -- MR. MOSS: It was. It wasn't substantially modified at the hearing. Prior to the hearing the applicants met with some of the Page 13 December 3, 2009 commissioners and heard their concerns. They lowered the building heights adjacent to Orange Blossom significantly, and so that's no longer -- no longer became an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And had they done that at this meeting, they may have had a different result of their outcome, so -- thank you. Item #8A through #81 (Consent Agenda Items) PETITIONS: CP-2008-1, CP-2008-2, CP-2007-1, CP-2007-2, CP- 2007-3, CP-2008-4, CPSP-2008-7, CP-2009-1 AND CP-2007-5 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I don't have anything that we haven't already talked about. And the consent agenda. There are items A through K. And I would like to just ask the Planning Commission -- I'll run down the letters one at a time, and any comments from -- and I will just get into them. I do know that when we get to Item E, staff is looking for some direction there. So does anybody have any comments on petition CP-2008-1? That's Item A. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item B is 2008-2. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item Cis CP-2007-1. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item D has been withdrawn by the applicant, CP-2007 -2. For reference, that's the Immokalee Road and 33rd Avenue Northeast. That's the one opposite Oil Well Road. Item E is Petition CP-2007-3. That's the one staffhas a question about in regards to the Mission subdistrict that was off of Oil Well Road. If you recall, there was a church coming in with a series of uses, many of which would fit under a conditional use application. Page 14 December 3,2009 We had a lot of discussion on that. It was approved 8-0. Staffs question is concerning whether or not soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this subdistrict. I went through my notes that I took very carefully of each item. And on that item, 2007-3 I made a note, okay, 8-0. There were four issues: One was no soup kitchens or homeless shelters. So I believe that's probably the way the motion went. And whenever the tape is available and minutes, if you wanted to verify it. But I have no reason -- it's not crossed out as others are that were changed during discussion, so I would think that stays. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. My recollection is the same. That question was actually asked, I think by Brad. But in any event, I know it was asked. And they said no, they didn't want soup kitchens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the applicant had indicated it was one of the things that they didn't want, which did help them then not -- maybe they needed a GMP amendment in lieu of a conditional use or whatever option the staff was going to discuss with them. Anybody have any other comments on that one? (N 0 response.) MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, there's a second -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a second question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whether the property adjacent to this sub -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- subdistrict is allowed transitional conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, it said that -- my item -- the Page 15 December 3, 2009 second part of our motion, according to my notes, was add language to retain no additional conditional uses alongside. Meaning there could be no -- that would not happen. They could not have conditional uses alongside it. So that's what the notes say. I don't know of any reason why we would want to change them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my recollection as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. These are adjoining properties not owned by the applicant? Cannot have conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way Golden Gate is set up is if you have a use that's considered nonresidential basically or a commercial use, next to it you have a right to what's called a transitional conditional use. And we're making an exception here because it's not in an activity center, so there's no need to put in a transitional conditional use. And that's what we -- I believe we voted on. Is that -- MR. WEEKS: Right. The staff perspective is that as we discussed, you might recall a lot of discussion about is this really a commercial subdistrict or is it something that falls under the umbrella of church. Ultimately staff decided that we should keep it as a separate subdistrict. But because there is some I'll say quasi commercial or arguably commercial component to this, to play it safe we would agree that it's appropriate to have this condition. To make it clear to everybody, every reader of the plan that no, the site is not viewed as commercial, at least from the perspective of is an adjacent property eligible for a CU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other comments, I'll move on. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have Item F, Petition CP-2008-4. Any comments on that? Page 16 December 3, 2009 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's Item G, Petition CPSP-2008-7. Any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item H, CP-2009-1, any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item I, CP-2007-5, any items on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item J, it's -- well, that's the end of the Growth Management Plan amendments on the consent agenda. We have two other items on the consent agenda, but let's handle those GMP amendments first. Is there a motion -- with the discussion that we had involving Petition CP-2007-3, for clarification, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda for the GMP amendments as clarified? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- Mr. Schiffer made the second, Ms. Caron made the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I abstain. I wasn't voting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries. Page 1 7 December 3, 2009 Tor, were you -- I'm assuming you were in favor. Okay, so that would be 8-0, with Mr. Midney abstaining. Item #8J (Consent Agenda Item) PETITION: V A-PL2009-1162~ ELKE REMMLINGER-BEHNKE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is the -- for consent is V A-PL2009-1162. This is the variance at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard. Anybody have any comments or concerns about the variance language? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 18 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #8K (Consent Agenda Item) PETITION: CU-PL2009-170, FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST MISSION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is Petition CU-PL2009-170, the First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc. on Tamiami Trail East. It's on the consent agenda. Is there any comment, questions. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Wolfley. 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. Okay, anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 19 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of all our consent items. Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I believe we have one more item to discuss. Mr. Weeks wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On consent? MR. WEEKS: No, back to the schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry, I thought we finished it all up. Go right ahead. MR. WEEKS: We discussed Immokalee, but there's also a change to the '07-'08 cycle of amendments for adoption. We're asking for Tuesday, June 1st to be your scheduled date. And alternative dates -- or if you accept June 1st as the date, then these others could be carryover dates. That would be Tuesday, June 15 and Monday, June 21. Again, if and as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, David, seven months in advance with this economy and this world, I think that you are very optimistic. But that's fine. I don't schedule that far anymore. I used to before things went to -- but anyway, that's -- anybody have any problems with those dates? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David Wolfley's global warming issues, who knows where it will be by June. We might be under water. Okay, I think we're fine, David, thank you. Item #9A PETITION: SV-PL2009-1165. HENDERSON PROPERTIES. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings us to our regular agenda Page 20 December 3, 2009 items, the advertised public hearings. The first one is Petition SV-PL2009-1165. It's Benderson Properties, Inc., for a variance for signage at Wiggins Pass Road and U. S. 41. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a -- not a meeting but just a brief discussion with Mr. Anderson. And we'll probably be talking about the same points here today. Okay, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. And with me today is Derek Watts from Benderson Development, one of their design directors. And this is for a sign variance, very simple and straightforward. My clients have two buildings at the intersection of Wiggins Pass Road and U. S. 41. Where the store fronts are oriented toward the interior of the project rather than the typical orientation facing the abutting streets. Benderson's intent in doing this was to try to implement the concepts of new urbanism by placing buildings closer to the road and avoiding a sea of asphalt parking spaces adjacent to the roadways. The variance request is for buildings four and five. There's a decorative fountain in the middle of the two buildings. That fountain Page 21 December 3,2009 is not yet operable because of contractor problems. Building five has -- which fronts on U.S. 41, has two tenants, one at each end. Panera Bread is on the north side of the building, and AT &T are on the south side. Because they are located at the corner of that building, each is clearly entitled under the code to have two wall signs. In building -- there are no other tenants in building five. And in building four, which fronts on Wiggins Pass Road, there are no tenants at all. In the past few months my client has been contacted by several prospective tenants who do see the light at the end of the economic tunnel, and they want to open a new business at this location. That's a good thing. It means employment, it means sales tax revenue, it means increased property values and therefore increased property tax revenues. These tenants rightfully believe that their businesses need identification that is visible from the abutting roadways and which clearly identifies their names and depicts their specific location in the complex. These tenants have not yet signed a lease unless they are able to have the sign that is visible from the abutting roadway as well as from the interior parking lot. I might add that Benderson thought they had the right, under the sign code as it's written today, to have those two signs. But rather than get an interpretation and get into an adversarial appeal, they chose to go the route of a variance and try to cooperate with the county like they always do. In conclusion, I would say that my client and its perspective tenants ought not be penalized for designing a project that is arguably more attractive than a traditional strip mall. And I think the comprehensive plan also encourages projects to use these new urbanism concepts. Page 22 December 3, 2009 I'll be happy to try to answer any question, Mr. Watts or I, and I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, I mean, the new urbanism is nice to say, but the problem here is you put the rear of the building on the main intersection, and now you want a sign on the back of the building which is facing the intersection, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to pull your mic a little closer. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you hear the question? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did. The backs of the buildings have been, for lack of a better word, dressed up to more closely resemble store fronts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's no entrance from the back of the building into the stores. MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The dumpsters are on the corner of 41 and U.S. 1. So essentially the design you've done is you put the back of the building up at the prime corner. I mean, I've been watching this thing being built, and it was kind of interesting to watch. So now you're coming back saying you need an additional sign. I mean, what's the reason you would put a sign on the back of a building? I guess if it faces a major intersection. MR. ANDERSON: I mean, that's why. I mean, people driving by don't know what's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon the design of the building. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. Page 23 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the hardship that you're claiming and the staffs actually supporting, but I'll wait for them, is that the design of the building is causing the hardship. MR. ANDERSON: But again it's not a self-imposed hardship, really, because they thought, and I believe they're correct, have the right under the existing code to do that (sic). So when they built these buildings and oriented them the way they were, they thought they could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- and tell me how through the code you think that's true then. Because I do know that section of the code and -- MR. ANDERSON: I've highlighted the portion that I believe would allow them to do this under the existing code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to back out of that a little bit, Ray. Thank you. I can't read everything. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We are dealing with a multiple occupancy parce I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: And it says I think clearly there shall be allowed two signs. So clearly the code contemplates that. They just don't want them to be on the same side of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I would kind of agree with that if you had a tenant and a store front there. But the sad thing about this, and again, watching it be built, is this really was the back of the building. You have doors that are normally put on the back side of a building, you have the utilities, you have the fire department controls, you have everything on the back -- on this building which is facing this major intersection. So for you to assume that it's the front of the building is confusing. And could this not cause confusing (sic) to people who are going there to shop, they'll park their car and they can't get in? Well, there's no windows or doors anyway into this space, so that probably won't confuse them. Page 24 December 3, 2009 But anyway, I just think this design, it always startled me what you're doing. I think putting the dumpsters out there on the corner just never made any sense. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Question as to the dumpsters. It was my understanding, based on a meeting with Mr. Benderson that I attended, that those dumpsters would not be on any corner and that they are not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put that site plan back up? I'm equally surprised. I know this isn't what you're asking about. But you've got six dumpsters along 41. That's an interesting phenomena. MR. WATTS: If I could, my name's Derek Watts, I'm with Benderson Development and I'm the director of design. The plan that's being shown was the original plan. But we did relocate the dumpsters. Those are not there. We -- you know, hindsight's 20/20. We -- once we decided that we were going to do a great job with the fountain at the corner, it really didn't make sense, if you trying to make that a focal point, to have a dumpster right next to it. So those were moved. Those were relocated interior to the property . COMMISSIONER CARON: And I can tell you that that's happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but here we have exhibits that -- I mean, what happens down the road when they pull these exhibits out that don't -- I mean, why would you not present us a drawing that shows where you are locating the dumpsters? I mean, if you're locating them, you must have a drawing by now. MR. WATTS: We do. And, you know, that's our bad, I guess, if that's where you're heading. To your question earlier about the orientation of the buildings, it Page 25 December 3, 2009 goes back to the point made earlier that we were trying to do the right thing in terms of the new urbanism principle, which basically means you're trying to push the buildings -- if I could finish -- trying to push the buildings out to the end, you know, closer to the edge of the property . What that does is it minimizes the amount of parking that you have between the building and the road. As a retailer, what they are concerned about is having enough parking close to their entrance to their building. So that's where we came up with the idea of putting the actual entrances on that other side where there's more parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The new urb -- I mean, it kind of makes me a little bit angry you're using that as your reason. There's nothing in new urbanism that will put the rear of the building closer to the road. I mean, yes, that's a principle, but it's the front of the building that the people should be seeing, not the rear. MR. WATTS: Correct. The-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The blank walls. MR. WATTS: No, you're absolutely right. The other thing that we were trying to do, though, is have the buildings relate to the main center. And we thought the best way that those faces of those buildings would relate to the rest of the center is if they're facing each other. We're trying to promote cross-shopping. If you're in Bed, Bath and Beyond you get out of your car and you look, oh, there's Panera Bread, you can see there's store front. That was part of the rationale as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with that and I think that's fine. And the signs on the side of the building into the parking lot where the entrance of the buildings are will do that. This sign is just an additional sign for advertising. It's not a wall sign to show people the entrance of -- Page 26 December 3, 2009 MR. WATTS: Yeah. And if I could, I know we all know this. But right now is not the best time to be trying to lease space. We don't want to be at a disadvantage to be able to attract good quality tenants to fill these buildings. That's our job, we're trying to fill the building. If you are a perspective tenant and you're looking at this building, right now if you are between the end caps, if you're not an end cap space, you can only have one sign. Basically that means you have to make a decision. Do you want to put a sign where people can see it and know that you're there on a heavily trafficked road, or do you want to put it where it naturally normally would be on your store front? And that's a difficult decision and not one that tenants want to have to make. You will not see both signs at the same time, obviously. So we don't think it has a negative impact from an aesthetics standpoint. The second sign would be per your code. But I think it's very important to try to fill these buildings. If we have this going against us, I think it's going to be an even tougher road to hoe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you designed it this way. In other words, the back of these buildings, and the disappointment I've always had looking at them, is they could have store fronts in the back. The reason they don't is I'm sure you have a storeroom in the back. But I mean, these buildings could have been designed with a storeroom in the center. This could have been a beautiful glass facade looking into stores, people could have parked there walked in and you would have had the advertising and everything you need in those show windows. But instead you put a blank wall with one steel frame door probably coming out the back to take the trash out to the dumpsters. MR. WATTS: Well, basically there's a few points I'd like to make. Again, the buildings were pushed out as close to the road, which means we have -- you see there one row of parking against the Page 27 December 3, 2009 building. Retailers need to have the parking in close proximity to the entrance of the space. The entrances are in towards the plaza. So therefore it wouldn't make sense to have the store fronts facing out, okay? As far as the layout of the spaces, in an ideal world these tenants could be through and through. In other words, you could have two entrances. The reality from a retailer standpoint is most of them don't operate that way. It's a security issue -- there's a number of reasons and rationale why they don't have two entrances. But it's very rare to have a front and a back. It just doesn't work. It's not the real world in terms of retail. So in my opinion I think we did a great job of making it four-sided architecture. We went beyond just having a metal door, as you referred to it. There's actually glass there, there's awnings. You know, we did a number of upgrades. We tried to make these buildings look like four-sided architecture. So I think we tried to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, I think you had started this, so we'll let you continue. COMMISSIONER CARON: The centers of those buildings where essentially it's the meter rooms and the fire and whatever are the largest mass along the sides of both of those buildings. There are no awnings there. There are awnings to the units off to either side. MR. WATTS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why is it not possible to put awnings in the center, thus softening the entire effect? MR. WATTS: No, it certainly is possible. We actually did it as a conscious decision to break up the facade. We like to have awnings in some areas and then break it up a little bit with a different architectural look. But to your point, we could certainly add awnings. That's not out of the question, certainly. Page 28 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I certainly think it would go a long way to softening the look. Because at the present time where you do -- you did not design a front facade as you were required to do by code on those buildings. We then had to go back and include something. So you put up this fake glass and all of that is fine, except now in the center of those buildings we have this mass of whatever -- it obviously is just fake glass with meter room and fire room and whatever written on the doors. MR. WATTS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not a good view from 41 or Wiggins Pass. MR. WATTS: We could-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I would think that awnings would at least help in that respect. As to the signs themselves, I guess my question will be to staff why the corner units are allowed two signs and the center units are not. I'm not quite sure I understand the premise. I will tell you that living up in this neighborhood, if you put signs on the outside on the facades facing Wiggins Pass or U.S. 41, you will see them only from Wiggins Pass or 41. If you put the sign internal, you see them internally. You never see the two signs at once, no matter where you go. So I think it's less of a visual -- it has less visual impact than some other areas where obviously we're trying to stop sign proliferation in this county. But in this case I'm not sure that that actually happens. But I am concerned about the overall look that these buildings still have. MR. WATTS: We could certainly commit to adding awnings to those center sections. Like I said, it was a chosen design, in our opinion. But obviously we could add those awnings, it's not a problem. Page 29 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, could you do me a favor and put on an aerial or something that shows? This plan I don't think shows what's built. It doesn't show the cornering the way it is on the building. MR. ANDERSON: We're going to bring you up a photograph. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Donna, one thing in your discussion, it sounds like they've been adding architectural elements to this facade. In other words, what's drawn there, is that what the original permit showed? I mean, and the reason I'm asking is from the architectural standards, that building always -- I mean, you know, it was kind of annoying, because it totally missed it. And then pieces keep adding on. So you're trying to obtain the architectural standards on that facade that would be for a, you know, public right-of-way? MR. WATTS: Yes, we did have extensive conversations with staff and with other members of the commission, as a matter of fact, about upgrading or enhancing the rear treatment of the facades of the building. And we did do that. We did meet, spent a lot of time on it, determined which certain types of embellishments meet the criteria, meet the letter of the intent in terms of adding additional glazing. We added, you know, the additional awnings. There was some other decorative items, embellishments that were made to bring this standard up even higher. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, by additional, do you mean in addition to the -- because this is a primary facade. For a while there it didn't look like one. But now it's growing towards it. Have (sic) you actually think you've surpassed the architectural Page 30 December 3,2009 standards for primary facade? MR. WATTS: No, we definitely do believe. And like I said, we had numerous conversations, and the result of those conversations, you know, are what you see out there today . We do believe we meet the intent. We believe we exceed the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, thanks. That's -- staff and I will discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before we go to staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be absolutely certain I understand clearly, kindly show me the various entrances to the buildings where persons can park and then go into the buildings, whether they be in the front or the back. Can you point to them on that photograph? MR. ANDERSON: In here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they are only in the back, there's no access from the front. MR. ANDERSON: Well-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the microphone, Bruce, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The front is the back, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that of course is the hinge on all of this. So the back, which is the front, is accessible to all the persons who want to go in there, and you would not have any signage unless you had this variance. Whereas the front, which is the back, that which is on 41 and Wiggins Pass, has no means that a person can get into the property. Page 31 December 3,2009 That's not available. So they can just see a sign as they're passing by. No stores there. Or would that be for one store, these buildings, or for multiple stores? MR. ANDERSON: Multiple. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what kind of a sign are we really looking for, Joe's multiple stores? What are we actually looking for? MR. ANDERSON: It would be like the AT&T sign. I mean, it's going to be what you have on the front you would also have on the back, or vice versa. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand now, as clearly as I want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions -- don't sit down. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few. The -- there's two barren out-parcels on this property that I can see by this aerial. Are you expecting to do the same thing with those in -- regarding signage that you're trying to do in which this variance is now limited to just those two buildings? MR. WATTS: Plans unfortunately for the out-parcels are pretty much stagnant right now. We did have originally some discussions with a few banks, but unfortunately due to the times that we're in right now, we're not in active negotiations on those pads. But I think ultimately they would be of a bank nature, and we'll do our best to orientate the building, similar to what we did with the existing bank on-site where the drive-throughs are to the rear and shouldn't have those same types of issues with signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but if you decide because you have multiple uses on this commercial property not to put a bank, and Page 32 December 3, 2009 you've already got one bank on-site, I can't -- I don't expect you to have two more banks. I think that would be -- I think they may not all want to lease in the same shopping center. So now let's assume that one of those two out-parcels won't be a bank, that it will be another building similar to the ones that are here. Are you going to design that building so that it doesn't need two signs, or are you going to design it like you have these so that you want two signs? MR. WATTS: That's a tough question to answer. Because like I said, we've only contemplated out-parcels, we haven't really thought about a multi tenant building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifit was a single tenant? MR. WATTS: It wouldn't -- I don't believe it would be an issue, because it wouldn't be an in-line space. I think the problem we're having here is these spaces between the end caps. That's where we're getting into the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you move -- can you move to the north on this sign, or this aerial? MR. WATTS: I've got a -- there's actually a larger overall, if you'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine, just slide it down so we can see more to the north, that might be all we need. I need, at least. To the -- there you go. Well, the entrance way up on the top is what I was trying to get to. I had asked Bruce if there was permission or use of, say, whatever business is in these two buildings you're asking for a variance on. Do they have a marquee sign at the entrance in which they also have additional space for more signage? MR. WATTS: Basically our intent with these pylon signs that you're referring to, is that they're primarily there for the benefit of the main retail center. Our thinking going into this was that the out-parcels should have Page 33 December 3, 2009 pretty good visibility by the nature of their placement next to 41. But that all hinges on what we decide here today. But certainly we -- space is limited. Retailers are craving for exposure on 41. We're trying to basically hold the pylons for the main retail center because of the disadvantage that they have in terms of visibility from 41. Not to say that there might be an occasional deal made. If it's a great national retailer that the only way they'll go here is if we can give them a half of a panel, we may do that at some point for those out-parcels. But that's not the intent. The intent is to use that for the main plaza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll hear the staffreport. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance petition before you today, with a condition of approval. And the condition of approval is that these additional wall signs are limited to buildings four and five and to the unit facades that face towards Wiggins Pass Road and Tamiami Trail North. And with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, you're saying limited to four and five. By that you're suggesting, to me, at least, that's what I'm hearing, that they should never come back in for any other variances; am I correct in that? MS. GUNDLACH: They have a right to come back for other Page 34 December 3, 2009 variances, but this variance we are only considering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For building four and five. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I kind of -- okay, Ray's pointing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now I have it better in my mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was going along the same line. Why -- I mean, those are two separate -- or two additional parcels. I don't know why we just don't allow -- I mean, something's got to show who's there, unless it's a bank, you can tell it's a bank. I don't know why we just don't allow instead of having them come back in, other than collecting fees, to just say it's acceptable for those two as well, because they're in the same situation. MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know what they are, because I don't have the design of the out-parcel buildings. It could be a building just for one business, as opposed to a multi tenant building that we're looking at for buildings four and five. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. MS. GUNDLACH: And the request before us and presented to us by the applicant was for only buildings four and five. So that's what we have considered in this staff report. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I just think we ought to add those other two in, it wouldn't take but a couple of words. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one thing that still perplexes me is we're using the design of the building as the hardship. So as a designer I can design myself into this corner and seek relief. I mean, how come that doesn't make sense to me? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, perhaps, I should maybe try to change our paradigm a little bit. But these signs are in keeping with the intent Page 35 December 3, 2009 of the sign code. And the intent of the sign code is that these signs are compatible with their surroundings. They are designed and constructed -- well, will be constructed and installed in such a way that they're not going to be a distraction to motorists and consumers who are passing by these I want to call them store fronts. And just keep in mind that our urban design standards do require that those facades facing towards the right-of-way are treated as front facades. So they have the look of a front facade. They are appropriate to the design -- to the activity that will be within the tenant units. And they are going to be, you know, large enough signs to convey what's happening in the units, but small enough that they satisfy our standards for regulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but let's take a shopping center someplace else. Does that mean people can go into the back alley and put signs in the back of their building? Are they allowed to do that? MS. GUNDLACH: Our code prohibits that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And isn't that the same condition here? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I'm not sure that that's an alley. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I reviewed this application too. And I think the difference is we're dealing with a major arterial on U.S. 41 and also a major east-west road in Wiggins Pass. And the visual impact of buildings, what would be perceived as the rear of a building facing those roads, I don't think anyone wants to have -- our architectural review for those buildings require them to look like fronts on those buildings, even though they're technically the rear. But to help make them look like a front, the signage comes into play. And as long as they meet the intent of the square footage limitations, then I think that adds to the design of the -- to make those Page 36 December 3, 2009 rears look like fronts of buildings. So that was one of the criteria that we looked at in the variance criteria of the buildings. It really is, I would think, more in lines of making the building facades look like front facades. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that if you're designing the rear of the building on the main right-of-way, which to me is the, you know, primal sin, but -- and then what you're saying is let's keep it going. Let's start to dress it up to make it look like a front facade. Because over time they did. And then you're saying to really fake it out, let's put signs on it to make it really look like a front facade. But, you know, our sign code doesn't encourage multiple signs. People are then going to park, walk up to a door they can't go in. I mean, you're going to give the illusion of a front facade so good if you keep it up that people are actually going to be tricked to thinking it is a front facade. I mean -- anyway, that's -- the question was is that yes, I guess you can design yourself into this corner and seek relief through the variance process, because we are here, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think that's a good precedent, but -- okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, I essentially agree with Mr. Schiffer, I don't think you should be allowed to design yourself into a variance. That's not what it's about. We have what we have here on this corner. I t has been a source of major contention in the neighborhood for a long time. We've done the best we can to try to make the front facades facing Wiggins Pass and U.S. 41 look like the front facades they're supposed to. Do they? Not hardly. But after the fact, once again, when staff approves something, after the fact trying to correct it is a very difficult Page 37 December 3, 2009 process. When you drive into this plaza, either from Wiggins Pass or from U.S. 41, you will hardly aim toward the 41 or Wiggins Pass Road to park unless there's no place else to park, because the majority of the parking for these units is to the internal side. So I don't think people are going to mistake it and come in and try to weave their way around to the front to enter the buildings. Nancy, why does our code allow two signs for those on the corners and only one for those in the center? MS. GUNDLACH: I can attempt an educated guess. Probably because there are two different walls facing two different directions. COMMISSIONER CARON: In this case do we have two different walls? MS. GUNDLACH: We have two different walls facing two different directions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Which you do on your corners, two -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- different walls facing two different directions. MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can let Mr. Murray go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mine's real quick anyway. With regard to the sign code and it speaks about distraction, I think I could make a case that there would be a greater distraction with the absence of a sign on the back of the buildings which front the main roads as opposed to the opposite. Page 38 December 3, 2009 And this is all very interesting. I had done a little thing too, and I'm certainly not in Mr. Brad Schiffer's category of knowledge architectural, but it would have been nice, and we cannot redesign the building, but it would have been perhaps simpler had that building been right on lot line instead of having that road around there. But I know that people looking for something in the absence of a sign, they're going to be far more distracted. So I think that's probably fait accompli here. It's there and to deal with it. I suppose that's why you agreed to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I'll pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, and I guess Ray. Ray, you said something that puzzled me, and I would like you to put the language that Bruce had highlighted up on the screen, please, so we can talk from that. Ray, you seem to justify the request by saying that in order to make the front facade on the rear appear as a true front facade, then the signs would be logical basically to be added to that. And then I remember Bruce putting this up there, and this is a multi occupancy parcel, and it says, shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. Now I'm wondering why do we have -- if you believe what you said, Ray, why do we have an interpretation of that yellowed highlighted area, which I'm assuming is the focus of what got us here today, contrary to what you seem now to believe? MR. BELLOWS: If I understand the question correctly, you're asking why are they in for a variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you indicated this would -- putting this -- I mean, yeah, I'm asking that question based on Page 39 December 3, 2009 what you said in addition to the question that was raised about the interpretation of this yellowed area. I'd like to know who on staff interpreted it, how strong or what the basis was for their interpretation. Because that is really an understanding of why we're here today and I'm trying to find that out. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the petitioner has three options. They can apply for -- if there's a disagreement with staffs interpretation of a code, they can apply for a zoning verification letter, asking if signs could be placed as they're proposed. Or if the language is vague enough, the zoning director can make an official interpretation of that language. There's processes for that. Now, the buildings, there are two buildings, separate buildings. Each have a corner. Each of those buildings have corner signs pursuant to the code, in staffs opinion. Doesn't mean the building in the middle of those end units qualify as corner parcel. And that was the interpretation of my understanding, but I don't know all the background. And maybe Nancy can fill in some of the other parts. But they could have applied for an interpretation. Instead of applying for a variance, they could have applied for a zoning verification. My understanding is they applied for the variance because they agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know some of my other commissioners would like questions. Let me finish what I started, though, here for a minute. MR. BELLOWS: One other question -- or response to the question was if we looked at the -- the reason I was supporting it is there are going to be additional buildings along the roads that face the front that will have signs there. This would keep signage consistent with that down the line of those other out-parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I want to go back to your statement that because they're required to have a front facade on thel Page 40 December 3, 2009 rear because of the road that they're facing, that the signage of the nature they're asking for helps produce that front facade look that staff apparently believes is a requirement. MR. BELLOWS: It's not a requirement, it's a justification to help support the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is, the front facade look or the-- MR. BELLOWS: The front facade look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they didn't have to put a front facade on the back of this building. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's what I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is a requirement then. Youjust said it wasn't a requirement. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the facade architecturally, not from a signage standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wow, maybe I'm missing the entire boat here. But I'm getting more confused. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- about that? Ray, put that clause back up. Because I think the problem with that clause is it says parcels with double frontage on public right-of-ways. This has a single frontage on the public right-of-way. In other words, that is written for something that where streets were on the front and back side of a building, that would be available. That's not the condition here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a private parking lot in a single public right-of-way. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I believe you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: May I speak to that? This is more of a legal . Issue. If you'll look the way the sentence is structured, the double Page 41 December 3,2009 frontage requirement is only applicable to a single occupancy parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So take out the words after or to the word right-of-way and then read the sentence without that. And then we're saying, end units within shopping centers and multi occupancy parcels shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be placed on one wall. And that would read -- now, is that -- starting the sentence with the word end unit. So would that then apply to only the end units of these buildings? And I think-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where staffs interpretation-- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was versus Bruce's that it's not just the end units of those shopping centers, because it's a multi occupancy parcel, it's all the units. But then that would negate the purpose of saying end units in the beginning of the sentence. Okay, I see where -- MR. ANDERSON: I never claimed that the code made sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but you're interpretation does, right? We know better. MR. BELLOWS: And that's where my point was, if they disagreed with staffs interpretation, they could have filed for a zoning verification letter or an official interpretation of the language. However, they chose to submit the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you know, Ray, I was understanding all that until you had said that as part of the front facade, the fake front -- the pseudo front facade in the back, the signs would make that more of a real front looking facade. And if staff really thought that, I wonder why we're even here today. That's kind of where I was trying to go in my original -- MR. BELLOWS: That's because of the code interpretation was Page 42 December 3, 2009 that those middle units interior to the building would not qualify for signs facing the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you could have used the interpretation you just said, that because they are supposed to have a front facade -- MR. BELLOWS: But like I said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they need the signs. MR. BELLOWS: -- they didn't choose to file for an interpretation of the language. My hands are constrained. They were not qualified for signage under the interpretation -- or staffs interpretation of the code. They could have gone to the zoning director, filed an official interpretation and had her clarify the language. I think it would have come out the same way, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you couldn't walk into Susan's office and say Susan, what do you think? I mean, why couldn't you have done that? And we could have saved everybody the trip here today. MR. ANDERSON: We did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what did Susan say? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why we're here. MR. ANDERSON: You can't-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then an 0.1. wouldn't have worked is what you're telling me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I wasn't aware that they-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to get to the bottom of this one way or another. Does anybody else want to follow up? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I've been pretty familiar with this number four for a while. I -- there used to be a Billy Bob's Page 43 December 3, 2009 small engine repair in Golden Gate, and it was behind everything, you couldn't see it. I don't know if some of you may have been here when they were still here. They're gone now. But they were not allowed a double sign, they were allowed a sign on the front, which the front was a driveway between just a bunch of, I don't want to call it a ghetto, but it just didn't look good. So he wanted a sign that faced 951, similar to a 41, which was the back of his building, so people would actually know he was there. And he was not allowed. It was a single building, single occupancy building, and he was not allowed. I want to know who's interpreting these things. Because this says right here he can have it. Now why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Dave, wasn't Billy Bob's -- if I remember, it was that tire place and it was behind Bobby Mass -- near Bobby Mass strip mall there. And wasn't he on an alleyway that he was looking for the sign? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: By the restaurant. What do you call it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Nana Vetta's I think it is now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, not -- no, it was down further. It's Saw Grass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway, wasn't the sign facing a private alleyway or something like that, or access way? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right, it's not public. So the point is I don't understand why this is any different. I mean, I don't understand why he was denied -- I want to know who's interpreting these things, that's all. And I just don't -- I don't agree with the interpretation of this here today and I didn't agree with the Billy Bob thing either, but -- according to what this says. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, Ray, and again it's the concept of let's put a sign out to make it look more like a street Page 44 December 3, 2009 facade. I mean, we're not building a H.O. train set here. So the thing is, what this is saying, that we can -- they're allowed to have a sign stretching over 80 percent of the width of those units. So, I mean, isn't the potential here that they could essentially put 80 percent of the back of that facade, other than the corners ones which have two already. I mean, they're going to just be able to put strip signs all the way across the back of that thing. So why does that make it -- you know, increase the aesthetic appeal of that corner? MR. BELLOWS: The -- let me put the illustration back up. There are going to be other out-buildings facing the road with signage facing the road. They would be restricted in size pursuant to the Land Development Code. What the applicant is asking is for the same ability to have signage facing the road, just like these buildings. That is where I was trying to make my point. There's -- the criteria contained in the staff report also is what staff used to support our recommendation of approval of the proposed variance. My contention was if the buildings are designed to look like fronts, the back of these buildings are designed to look like fronts, signage is part of that look. Unfortunately my hands are tied. I cannot just grant them that signage without having them go through the variance. And it appears they've already gone to the zoning director and she concurs with staff s findings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know who's kind of missing in this conversation is Diane, Diane Campanello. Because she's the sign -- MR. BELLOWS: She's been involved -- every request for a sign goes through her. And if there's issues, they go through zoning to get it resolved. And if it's determined through the zoning director or whoever that a variance is required, then the applicant can choose to go that route. Page 45 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, isn't the signage on an out-parcel different than this, or is this the same governing code? Don't out-parcels have their own little -- MR. BELLOWS: Out-parcel is different. They have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have their own little category . So these additional pads would definitely be considered out-parcels. MR. BELLOWS: These are not out-parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the additional, the empty ones would be out-parcels, would they not? MR. BELLOWS: Depends if they're platted. I don't know the history of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't they have to be sold? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, platted and sold. That's what I think -- that's why -- yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing, Ray, is since the documents in here don't reflect what's built, is that a problem? Could somebody ever take advantage of that? In other words, I know they want to do signs, but they're showing a straight flat facade in the drawings, and they're showing a rather large area. I'm not sure what it means. It looks like it would be better off landscaping, but they're calling that sign area. Is that a problem, the documents, or-- MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. Because they're not getting a variance from the size requirements. For units, individual units they're -- it would be treated like any other multi-tenant building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then again, I guess, how come we're looking at building elevations? If you look at the way the document they're giving us, which is obviously outdated because it Page 46 December 3, 2009 still has dumpsters in the front, but they're claiming they're not -- I don't know where the dumpsters are now. But if you look at the document provided, our Exhibit A, it essentially shows the landscape area and calls that as signage for shaded areas shown. Wouldn't it be better if we're looking at elevations to see what it is they're actually, you know, dotting in saying I'd like to put a sign here, here and here rather than on the ground in a landscape area? I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: Attachment Band C of the staff report shows some elevations of some photographs of the site. But yeah, I think bigger and clearer ones would have been helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think attachment A is not showing anything that is applied to this application, other -- I mean, it should show where the wall's going to be that the signs are beyond, not the ground area. And-- MR. BELLOWS: You make a good point and we'll make sure that when similar variances come in, we provide the elevations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Because that's where we left off. COMMISSIONER CARON: Should we be correcting that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- yeah, any corrections we need to get on the record before we finish with this today, that's for sure. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Schiffer? This is in the agenda packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it's a small little thing. I mean, it's got trees in the area where the signs should be. I'm concerned about the other document. This one kind of shows some area. So essentially if we totally go by this, you're only requesting two Page 47 December 3, 2009 signs on each building, so -- MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it says proposed wall signs points to two locations on one building, two locations on the other building. So is that the document you want in there? MR. ANDERSON: We're identifying the buildings where the sign's variance are applicable to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at the thing you just showed me. It shows me four signs you want. MR. ANDERSON: That's if we have four tenants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you'll have more than two on the left side, you'll have more than two on the right. MR. ANDERSON: We're limited to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, that document is not clear where the sign should go. I think you should have an elevation of what you've built out there, not the old thing. It's showing us what areas you want approval for signs. But enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the concept is you want-- if you have a tenant, interior tenant and he has a sign on the parking lot side, you want a sign on the back side. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, I'm not sure you can show that until you know how many tenants you've got in between your corner units. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd just also like to point out the applicant, when they applied for their signs on what they deemed to be the front side, they could have come in and put the signs on this side in the first place, so it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Six one, half dozen the other. Page 48 December 3, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, is that your rebuttal? Ray, do we have any public speakers? First. MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that is your rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: Well, my -- I hate to characterize it as a rebuttal. That sounds adversarial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your grand finale? MR. ANDERSON: But response is -- oh, I want to comment on some of Mr. Schiffer's questions. One of the things you talked about, sir, was the possibility of having two entrances: One on the front and one on the back. But I would point out that even if we had that, we'd still have to be here under staffs interpretation of the code. Secondly, with regard to designing ourself into the need for a variance, again, they thought, and I frankly still agree with them, that under the code they could have two signs anyway. So they weren't trying to design themselves into the need for a variance, they thought they could do that anyway. And lastly, the hardship is only one of the factors. And you're entitled to weigh them all, put what weight you want on anyone, but that in and of itself is not determinative. And I think this is just a very reasonable request that's of commercial necessity, really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, when Mr. Schiffer's done -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I'm ready to make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, if you do go through the total list, the A through H, you don't come out very well. I Page 49 December 3,2009 mean, this isn't -- you are granted a special privilege, you -- this isn't -- you know, if you go to a strict interpretation of the code, this isn't denying you reasonable access use of your property. So in other words, if we really do run the score on all of the analyses, not just the hardship one, it's not coming out that good either. MR. ANDERSON : Well, you're entitled to place weight of whatever you choose on any or all of those factors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else that had any other questions of the applicant or anybody before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and we either can entertain a motion or have discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: For Petition SV-PL2009-1165, Lametka (phonetic) Plaza Variance, I would forward to the BCC approval with a recommendation that -- staffs recommendation, with the additional recommendation that awnings be placed on the center section. And you can see it clearly here, where the largest part of that facade is just -- you know, if you actually drove by, it's fake glass. So awning that will soften that area and make it look more like the front of the facade it was supposed to be to begin with. I am voting for this variance because I do think that it actually serves the public benefit. When you drive down 41, you will know what is there for you in those buildings. When you drive down Wiggins Pass, the same thing. As you drive in from either end and come toward those buildings, you again will know where and what you're going to shop for. Page 50 December 3, 2009 The -- you can never see, driving either way, more than one sign at a time. I've done the drive-through. So if you put a sign out here, you can only see it from 41. If you put a sign on the Wiggins Pass side, you see it from Wiggins Pass. If you're coming west to east on Wiggins Pass, you will see the signs on Wiggins Pass and the internal signs to this second building. If you come down 41, you'll see the signs on 41 and potentially, because there's no building here, the signs on the other building internal to it. So I think from a directional situation it helps the shopping public. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. That was a really long motion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's boil it down. The motion part of it was to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Was to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommend approval with staff stipulations and the conditions that the awnings be added to the center high sections of the building facade on the back side, both buildings. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was that generally the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then Mr. Wolfley seconded the motion. Now let's have discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be sure I understand. And this facade here, which is the rear, on all of that glass you want multiple awnings or one awning, or -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, multi -- they've done a series of multiple awnings over each door. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see the little awnings, I think. Page 51 December 3,2009 But you're talking about the area where the glass is? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't get that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't know how they would do that, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There are separate doors there, Bob -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and they can do it easily. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's difficult to see that. Oh, those blue things are doors? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I can understand it and appreciate it. And I agree. I would just make one comment. This board recently approved signage variance for a hotel that was -- or is located not far from 1-75 and needed additional signage so it would draw patrons, make it clear for the patrons where they were heading. So I don't see this as dissimilar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to say, I -- now I forgot what I was going to say. But I'm not too -- the awnings didn't make much of a difference to me, but I certainly think that we ought to let this thing go, on my second. And again, I totally forgot, paying attention to Bob here, what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you have something you wanted to add. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm going to be voting for the petition. I have a hard time even understanding why this got so far. It should have been just approved from the get-go by -- and given a permit. But let's not go there and I will vote for the petition. Page 52 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something you said enlightened Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, it was. When this sign ordinance comes around again to us again, could we please clean this language up so we don't have -- we keep coming back to this sign thing. And if we could just clean this up, please, on the next round, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, they put the buildings up backwards, which I think is interesting. And it's different. I like it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's anything different, you like. Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I really want to vote against this but, you know, this is Donna's corner, she lives down the street, she goes by it every day. If she feels that it's an asset, the -- the concerns I have over being able to design yourself into a variance I'll bow to Donna's wishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My -- first of all, I disagree with the applicant's position that this is a hardship. It was self created. It is not a hardship from my perspective when you self create it. I also disagree, that this does not prohibit the reasonable use of the property, as one of the recommendations. You can have plenty of reasonable use of the property without the signs on that back side. However, outweighing that is the interest of public safety. And as one of the commissioners pointed out easily from the intersection and from that roadway, it's much better to have signage that's clear to the public. And the improvements that the developer has offered in regards Page 53 December 3,2009 to the awnings will actually make this better, not worse. So with that, I'll support the motion as well. And with that in mind, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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 all very much. And we will take a break until 10 after 10:00 and we'll come back and resume. (Recess. ) Item #9B PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody wouldn't mind taking their seats, we'll move forward with the second item on today's agenda. That item is Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951. It's the Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. It's basically a clarification of a previous meeting that we had. With that in mind, will all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 54 December 3, 2009 (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I spoke with John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I had a conversation with John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: We got an e-mail from Mr. Passidomo. I was away so I didn't get a chance to speak to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had meetings and discussions and e-mails with Mr. Passidomo, as well as Ms. Perry at a time or two, and we'll probably be discussing all that here today. So with that in mind, whoever wants to make the presentation on the part of the applicant -- oh, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I also had discussion with Mr. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, John. MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. P ASSIDOMO: My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, in the City of Naples. Our firm represents o Ide Florida Golf Club, Inc. in agenda Item 9.B before you for consideration this morning. Page 55 December 3,2009 Our consultants are Wilson-Miller. Margaret Perry from the firm will make a brief presentation at the close of my introductory remarks. Our petition requests rehearing of a matter considered by the Planning Commission on April 2nd, 2009, seeking a rezone of the subject property from golf course to rural fringe mixed use overlay neutral lands. We request that the record of the April 2nd, 2009 proceedings be incorporated by reference and included in the record of these proceedings. Our original petition was approved by the Planning Commission by a vote of 8-0, subject to four stipulations. As I indicated in a letter we circulated to the Planning Commission earlier this week, we realized upon receipt of the proposed ordinance that the language for two of those four proposed stipulations just didn't work under the LDC to achieve what we assumed to be the intended objective of the Planning Commission in adopting them. We expressed those concerns to planning staff, the department director and the division administrator. They agreed without conclusion, and ultimately Mr. Schmitt recommended that I speak with Chairman Strain to see if we could find a better way to do what we thought the Planning Commission wanted to do in adopting the stipulations. A map of future development envelope was thereafter prepared to located uses on the land and describe the development standards in the rural fringe mixed use overlay district for neutral lands, which would ultimately regulate development on the property. The map is included within the materials. And Mrs. Perry will take you through them at the conclusion of my remarks. The map is not a site plan, and we acknowledge on the notes, on the face of the map and reiterate here that the design location and configuration of land improvements shall be defined at site plan or subdivision plat approval in strict compliance with the LDC Page 56 December 3,2009 requirements, as with any other property in the rural fringe mixed use overlay district for neutral lands. The petition before you today simply requests that the map be substituted for stipulations two and three contained in the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on April 2nd. We agree with staff recommendations and agree to abide by the two remaining stipulations contained in the staff report. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to ask Mrs. Perry to take the Planning Commission through the proposed map of future development envelope and then she and I will be happy to respond to any questions the commissioners may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you. MS. PERRY: Good morning, Commissioners. Margaret Perry from Wilson-Miller. As John indicated after the April Planning Commission meeting, and in coordinating with county staff, Mr. Strain and others, we prepared what we refer to as the conceptual rezone master plan for the 553-acre site. This plan depicts the existing Olde Florida Golf Club, including maintenance facility and the driving range. This is generally located on the eastern portion of the property and as is noted is indicated to . remaIn. The future development envelope is generally located on the western side of the site. This future development envelope area is conceptual in nature, and the exact boundaries of the development will have to take into account native vegetation, potential conservation easements, et cetera. The development standards outlined on Page 3 of 3 of the plan, which is included in your agenda packet, come directly from the LDC relative to the rural fringe mixed use district neutral areas. No deviation from these requirements is being requested. Page 57 December 3,2009 You'll notice that as recommended by the Planning Commission the western boundary of the site calls for 100- foot setback to allow for potential county acquirement of easements for a potential roadway. But again, this roadway is not in any long-range plan. The plan also depicts approximately 200-foot golf course buffer between the existing golf course and the potential development area. It also culls out the required buffers and the existing county well sites. This plan was not created to be used as a PUD-like master plan, but to hopefully address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission so that the Planning Commission could visualize the existing conditions and the potential development area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I'd like to start by making a comment. When I was approached by the applicant and by county staff on this issue, it was as a result of our last meeting on this in which we stipulated a couple of very stringent items, based on the fact we weren't told much. We weren't told where the future development area could possibly be. We weren't told what the limitations were. We -- they just simply said they wanted to revert to rural fringe. And with that lack of information, it was hard to understand what impacts they may have on the surrounding area. And my suggestion to them was that if they wanted to have those removed, the best approach would be to show us what they intended to do. And that's how we got here today. And I had reviewed this earlier before the meeting was scheduled. This does show their intended future development areas, subject to any environmental conditions, EIS review and all that. And it's my understanding that that future development area can never get larger or greater in area to where the surrounding property lines are, but it could actually get less, based on any environmental review that comes along and subsequent SDP's or plats. So this is what I would consider then the worst case scenario, Page 58 December 3, 2009 which tells us the extent that they intend to development. And they actually attach the LDC section, so all the standards are very clear. With some notes on one of the pages. Some of those need to be cleaned up a little bit. And I know there's recommendations from the County Attorney's Office in regards to those. But that's the introduction I wanted to make to the Planning Commission is how and why we got here today with this. Obviously at the last meeting when they left, they didn't leave with very much. And it didn't surprise me that they realized that afterwards and decided that the best thing to do, maybe to try to show us what they're really planning to do out there instead of the lack of information we received at the time. So with that in mind, are there -- let's entertain questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to pose a question. One of the things that was said the last time was that the golf course, they had no plans to take the golf course away. If we remove the recommendation stipulations that we had previously, which are perceived to be not enforceable or illogical or whatever, just returning to the rural fringe in neutral, if they ever were to take the golf course away, they could in fact extend that envelope, am I correct, the envelope for development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a question of staff or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a question of the petitioner. Shall I repeat the question? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, I understand the question, thank you, Commissioner. The fact is, all the property would be rezoned to rural fringe mixed use overlay for neutral lands. That land would have those permitted uses on it. It would be inconsistent with this development Page 59 December 3,2009 envelope that you're seeing here and would raise a question as to whether or not our proposal for residential development in that area was consistent with this map. And I think that would be a legitimate question to be raised at that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be absolutely clear that what we're agreeing to by approving, or recommending approval, was that the golf course could at one point in time go away because of it's not -- it's going to also have the same zoning as the envelope area, the future development envelope area, correct? MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's true. But the golf course next door could go away too. At Golf Course of the Everglades, it's zoned exactly the way this zone (sic) is proposed to be zoned. There's a golf course on it. It could go away. But in order to develop the property, you have to go through the site planning or subdivision plat process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not in -- my purpose was not to do anything more than put on the record the fact that what we are knowingly going to agree to would be that potentially all of the property could be developed. It isn't likely, it isn't probable, I understand, but that's something I think needs to be understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, before you say anything, I strongly disagree. Because if your intention is to change the future development envelope, then what you show on this plan and potentially develop all of the existing golf course, we've got a problem. Because that's not what I've been led to believe in all the discussions we've had. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you could possibly glean that as my intention. I was just simply responding to the Commissioner's question. It clearly is not our intention. It was a hypothetical question. It was really -- my response was in the context is there an absolute commitment to keep that golf course where it is, as it is in perpetuity. Page 60 December 3,2009 No, of course there's not. But if we came in to develop that property inconsistent with this map, then we have an issue to deal with, because this map would be approved as part of this rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. That's the whole premise under which we approached this. That's the whole premise under which you had to come back, because we didn't have this to begin with. I just want to make sure that we're not opening any other doors than what are opened by what you're showing here. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are there -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for the layout of the future development area, even though there's a IS-foot buffer shown on the northern property line, that couldn't be interpreted that you could raise that development area up to it, could it? Or -- I mean, this is obviously showing us that you're going to be quite a distance away from that. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Well, I think the way the chairman characterized this map is the appropriate characterization. This is the worst case scenario. We cannot exceed this. The reason we didn't show you anything before is because we don't know what a site plan or subdivision plat might ultimately show. But this is a worst case scenario. We cannot develop under this map in the area outside of the future development envelope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though that development is approximately, looks like 500 feet away from that boundary, the IS-foot buffer, I'm not sure what that would do. The -- and also in one of these exhibits you quote the section of the LDC as it is today. Would it be a problem just to quote it as it would be in effect at the time you're doing the development? I mean, there may be requirements in here that we may change in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of the conditions this county Page 61 December 3,2009 attorney is going to introduce when we get to her. She's got a series of -- that stuff you e-mailed me, I'm assuming you got that in print somewhere here we can put it on screen so everybody understands, or we can verbalize it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The answer is going to be yes ultimately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's it, thank you. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to Mr. Schiffer. I think there's an elaboration that could be helpful to the Commission. The reason that we reiterated those standards is we wanted to eliminate any question as to the development standards that would control ultimate development on the land. And to the extent there was an impression created that this would be a standard ago zoning and there was a misperception that the rural fringe mixed use overlay wouldn't control, we wanted that to be absolutely evident, right on the face of the map that we submitted to you, that there are precise standards, they were adopted through an extensive public planning process, they were intended to provide balance, there was active public participation. And whether or not -- I've talked to the County Attorney's Office, we're very comfortable ultimately to basically say what the code is at the time that we make application is the code that will control development on the land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Passidomo, on Page 2 of 3 of your -- under notes. Number one says single-family residential dwelling units and other uses in the particular LDC section. What are those other uses? Page 62 December 3,2009 MR. PASSIDOMO: There's a long list. You may want to refer to staff. But they are -- there are permitted uses, there are ancillary uses and there are conditional uses. And obviously the conditional uses have to go through a conditional use process prescribed under the LDC. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you're saying here that you want all of them permitted as of right. MR. PASSIDOMO: I think if you go on from that, Ms. Caron, you'll see as of right pursuant to standards prescribed in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is the same question I had posed to you, John. Because the way it's written, it does appear that way. And I'd offer, the county attorney I think has language to clear that up too. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to address that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just make sure Ms. Caron's finished. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to ask for right now. And certainly if we have clarifications on everything, I'd like to hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go -- Heidi, then let's go forward with it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I had checked the sites that Mr. Passidomo has in the note one that you find on Page 2 of 3 of their conceptual plan, and it does refer to the conditional use procedure. It makes a reference to Section 10.08.00. But I agree with the issues that have been raised today, and I'd prefer to delete that section and put in its place something like, you know, development will be in accordance with the LDC at the time of development. And then on your third page, just remove that 2.03.08.A that he has there. As the ordinance is drafted, we don't have this conceptual plan attached to it. I do understand that it may be your desire to attach that Page 63 December 3,2009 to the ordinance. If you do that, my recommendation is to label the plan a map of future development envelope. And the reason for this is that it seems that what you really want to restrict is the area of development. That seems to be your main concern. And environmental has raised some issues relating to submittal of an EIS. So I think if we label it map of development envelope, we take care of that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You also probably don't need to reference item two either, because those are the setbacks that are in the LDC. So my recommendation would be to delete one and two and in its place, place the language that I've mentioned, that all development shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code at the time of development. Attach those to the ordinance and remove just that section of the LDC reference on the third page of the conceptual plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've made notes to all that effect. Ms. Caron, does that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, it both helps and doesn't. I guess I will wait for staff. But I'm a little concerned about the other uses that we are granting within this envelope, and whether those are actually things you want or not. Is the intent single-family homes? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is no intent. The contemplation is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So it could be oil and gas exploration. MR. P ASSIDOMO: That is one of the -- that is one of the conditional uses which would have to come back through a process, would have to have an EIS submitted in conjunction with it. There's no anticipation now or at any time in the future that that's Page 64 December 3, 2009 a reasonable possibility, let alone likelihood. But that is listed in the overlay district. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was trying to remember the list. But it is a long and very detailed list. MR. PASSIDOMO: It is. COMMISSIONER CARON: And some of the uses are extremely impactful. And I think we probably should cover those here today and make sure that that's really what we want to be . approvIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you pull up the uses that would apply from Muni. Code so we can discuss those. COMMISSIONER CARON: It may be fine, but -- MR. BELLOWS: The agricultural uses or the rural fringe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The uses this applicant is asking for, which is 2.03.08.A.3.A.l. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have my Land Development Code. MR. PASSIDOMO: We've got some notes on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put them on the screen so we can review them. If there's something objectionable there, we can make a note of it. MR. BELLOWS: I can't put it on this screen. Mine's not hooked up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were just handed hard copies. Wasn't that what Ms. Perry handed you? MR. P ASSIDOMO: We've got notes all over that one. MS. DESELEM: Is this what you need? Here's neutral, here's ago COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that what they're asking for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're asking to go to what Ray is putting on the screen right now; is that correct, Mr. Passidomo? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted that clarified, Page 65 December 3, 2009 thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's doing that, Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the last approval, we didn't eliminate any uses from the agricultural before, correct? I mean, we just focused on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we didn't give them any uses either. We just said that -- we agreed that they could rezone but no density or uses would be allowed until they came back to us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did we actually say uses, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll read it. I got it somewhere in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It should say no density shall be awarded by virtue of approval of the rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And look at number three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And any changes have to be brought back. So this essentially leaves them wide open to conventional A zoning, and they would not have to come back here for any use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- permitted. So we're turning this into a PUD hearing, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, he's still asking for a conventional rezone. Although I think what Ms. Caron is saying, we ought to review the uses under the conventional rezone, and if there are some there that are not good for the area and possibly the applicant doesn't need them to have them there, we might solve -- kill two birds with one stone, more or less. So with that in mind, Ray, if you'd take us through the allowable uses that would be on here, or if Mr. Passidomo wants. I guess the first one is I-A, agricultural activities. Page 66 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What page is it? MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make a point of clarification. What's on the visualizer now is from the rural fringe mixed use overlay, which when this property was rezoned agriculture, most of those uses in the overlay is designed to apply to agricultural zoning. We also have the separate uses listed in the agricultural zoning district. So do you want me to read from the agricultural zoning district or from the rural fringe? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- look at both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, which one would be subject to today's approval? MR. BELLOWS: The agricultural-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The agricultural. MR. BELLOWS: -- uses. But in retrospect both, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we need to go through them, if that -- and Mr. Passidomo, if you can shorten this by simply telling us the uses that you're looking for and we write those in, that might just save a lot of work. But if you don't know that and you want a blanket series of uses, we need to walk through them to understand what they are. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I might be able to focus that discussion a little bit. Weare not looking for anything of a commercial or intensive or industrial nature on the property. And even though we're talking about property that could be developed five, IO or 20 years from now, we can clearly exclude those. And there are some in the conditional use category that could fit within that characterization. I don't think that there are any within the permitted use category Page 67 December 3,2009 or in the excessive use category. Those are really of a residential nature, more of an agricultural nature. And of course we've got to go through the EIS, we've got to come back through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way it looks, John, we're halfway to where the problem was last time. We now have your development envelope area, which was what we didn't get last time. We have your development standards, but now we need to get the uses resolved. And I think if you could define that, we don't have to walk through them all. But if you just say that the permitted uses in the district, we need to see the permitted uses then in the ago and in the rural fringe to see then what it is you're asking for. MR. PASSIDOMO: I agree, Mr. Chairman. So it is the permitted uses, it is the accessory uses. And if I could go through the conditional uses in the overlay district that we think are appropriate and that are not in any way a commercial in nature. The zoo, aquarium, botanical garden or other similar uses, that would be fine to remove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just tell us the ones you want to keep. MR. PASSIDOMO: Okay. The community facilities. The multi-family residential structures. Essential services, under both E and I. Those four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. P ASSIDOMO: And there's a clear line of demarcation, we believe, with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So community facilities, multi-family, residential structures and essential services of the conditional uses. You'd still go through the conditional use process, but those are the ones that would only be allowable to you without a Page 68 December 3, 2009 rezone. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, now that he says basically they're looking for all the permitted and accessory uses, so now let's see what those are. And this is the rural fringe? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we still have to look at the ago as well, because it's the base, or not? I saw you talking to David, so I'm wondering what -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Mr. Weeks has indicated that the overlay's designed to -- and please correct me if I'm making a mistake here, that the overlay supersedes the base zoning. So the uses in the overlay would apply, not the base ago zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the rural fringe uses that we're look at here are the ones we have to focus on because they don't have the opportunity to go to the agricultural, which is one of the other options you had originally brought up. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the purpose and intent of the overlay is to supersede the uses in the ago district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The purpose and intent. But does it? Everything has a purpose and intent. I want to make sure it does. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, in Comprehensive Planning. Commissioners, this is a -- I don't know if muddy is the right word. But the plain reading of the zoning overlay would suggest that it doesn't matter what the underlying zoning is, the overlay is what is applicable. And I would suggest to you that that can result in a ludicrous outcome. Because we do have properties within the rural fringe mixed use district neutral lands, such as the subject site, that are not zoned agriculture today. It is zoned golf course. Page 69 December 3,2009 And it was never the intent when the Future Land Use Element was amended to establish the rural fringe mixed use district and then Land Development Code amended to implement that, that it would apply and supersede the non-agricultural zoning of property. I mentioned a ludicrous outcome. There are properties within the neutral designation and neutral zoning overlay today that are zoned commercial. And some are zoned mobile home and some are zoned village residential. And of course the subject site here is zoned golf course. F or the overlay to supersede that underlying zoning results in a ludicrous and I suspect arguably illegal outcome. If someone were to come to the county and say here's my piece of property with the neutral overlay but it's zoned commercial, I want my site plan approved for this commercial use and the county staff says no because the overlay supersedes, I think we'd be going down a path to leading up in court if that ultimately was the position of the county that remained. And I think we have to take the position that that overlay, whether it supersedes or doesn't on non-agricultural zoning has to be a decision made across the board. We can't say that overlay supersedes the golf course zoning but it does not supersede the commercial zoning or the village residential or some other non-agricultural zoning. So it was -- to try to summarize, it was definitely the intent that the neutral overlay, as well as the receiving and the sending, is applicable to underlying agricultural zoning. And if you don't have agricultural zoning underlying that overlay, that underlying zoning is what is applicable. So saying -- because if the overlay were to supersede, there'd be no reason for them to be here in front of you asking for the agricultural rezoning. It could simply come in and implement the overlay through the necessary administrative process, SDP or file their plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, if the applicant here today Page 70 December 3,2009 acknowledges that they're looking for the uses that are in the rural fringe neutral category that are in front of us and they accept that and that's what we conditionally approve, does that fix it then? Does that make it not subject to any further debate, it's basically those uses? MR. WEEKS: If I understood the question correctly, if this property is rezoned to agriculture as they're requesting, it will then be eligible for all of the uses listed in the neutral overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, but only those uses as agreed to here today with the applicant and this board. Subject of course to the BCC. MR. WEEKS: It's my understanding that you have the legal authority to do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I want to-- MR. WEEKS: So if there's 50 uses under neutral and you limit them to IO, then that's the IO -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we have the opportunity to clean it up and avoid the absurd interpretation or conclusion that could result as you had previously described. MR. WEEKS : Well, I don't think the outcome is ludicrous. If-- rephrase that. If the property is rezoned agriculture, then the overlay makes sense. That's what it was intended to apply, how it was intended to apply. Now we have underlined zoning of agricultural. Here's the neutral land uses that would apply to -- and standards that would apply to that piece of property. But because this property is not today zoned agriculture, I do believe you have the legal authority to make a recommendation and for the board to endorse a limitation on what uses would be eligible or allowed on the property, just as you would with any other rezoning of property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I see a way to get there, Page 71 December 3, 2009 depending on how the responses come back from the applicant. MR. WEEKS: Maybe just say it one more time a little bit different way. When someone walks in the door today and there's a property zoned agriculture and they want to rezone to C- 3, the county has the authority to say no, we will not approve all C-3 uses, only certain ones. As long as there's good sound reason for doing so. I think the same case here. Their rezoning to agriculture results in the neutral overlay being applicable to the property and if for good reason the county says no, some of those uses are not appropriate, we won't allow them, I believe you have the right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, would you just then recommend we stipulate that only the allowable neutral uses, and that way we just lock into what's allowed on that and they can't read any further into the code? MR. WEEKS: I don't think that's -- I think it's only necessary to place limiting information in the ordinance if you wish to limit their uses to less than what is allowed in the neutral overlay. If that list of however many uses are in the LDC for the neutral overlay, if you are comfortable with those, if you have no reason to not want to see them there, you don't need to say you're limited to neutral lands, because I'm saying that as a matter of application, that is what will be allowed. But if you determine, for example, that the oil or gas drilling or some of these other uses permitted by right are not appropriate on the property, you know, have some sound basis for prohibiting that use, you have the right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I'm okay with that procedure, if you're both in agreement as to the -- you know, the overlay for neutral lands that would apply. Page 72 December 3,2009 It might be more simple to just eliminate, you know, prohibited uses, have them all be allowed, unless you specifically prohibit them in your ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I mean, I've already started some notations and I think we can get through this pretty easily. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, actually, my question, and I think it's simple, Heidi, what -- are we going to -- the result of this process will be an amended resolution -- not resolution, ordinance? Will we be amending the ordinance or initiating a new one? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I see what you're saying. Well, you had approved an ordinance, but it never went through on the consent agenda, so it never went to the board. So we probably have to maybe let the Board of County Commissioners know that there were two hearings but that you, you know, are essentially withdrawing the first recommendation and going with whatever you decide today and subsequent consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's still a proposed ordinance. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, nothing's been formally adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because earlier you said something about adding the land and other information, and I wasn't sure what that represented. You've clarified it for me, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, or I guess it's John's show. I'm sorry to bother you. John, let's just walk through the uses that are in front of us right now. And in the permitted uses as of right, that's this first page, we have agriculture, single-family residential, dormitories, duplex and other types of staff housing in support of conservation uses. And if we move down, Ray, on that, it's group housing uses, subject to the following -- he walked away. Ray, you're a media guy today. Could you slide up that -- family care facilities on the unit one to five per acre group care facilities with Page 73 December 3, 2009 an FAR of .45. Staff housing and farm labor housing limited to IO acres in any single location. Let's go on down further. Single- family duplex, mobile home. Well, that one's going to be a problem. Multi-family dormitory, 22 dwelling units bed per acre. I'm not sure why you need that, John. Sporting and recreational camps, essential services, and then golf courses with a series of reservations. Let's just run through the whole list real quick and go back and see the ones that are problematic. Ray, can you run down -- those are all the golf course restrictions. Go on, let's go down to the next set of uses. Stormwater management ponds, site preservation. Okay, let's go down to the next one. Public -- yeah, schools, oil and gas exploration, and park open space and private schools. I'll start off. John, there's three things there I think the -- first of all, the -- I don't know why you would want private schools or that you need those. Because they do create a traffic concern and intensity. I'm not sure we even want to get into that, since you're in areas where there's other housing not too far along. And when you went up on the first part, we had dormitories. And Ray, if you can go to that, I think the top of the second page. Number i and ii there, do you need either of those? MR. PASSIDOMO: The camps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I want to reserve a response on all these and have an opportunity briefly to confer with Mr. Barton on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So i and ii are the sub-notes to what, Ray? Not the camps, the one above it, John, is what I'm talking about. MR. PASSIDOMO: All right, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Looks to be farm-- Page 74 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Farm labor housing. So I don't think that you're going to need farm labor housing in that area since you don't have a farm. So it may not hurt to strike that one. And then as we move down, the other one -- MR. P ASSIDOMO: The land is zoned ago CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to put farm labor housing there, John, that's a little different use than what's in that neighborhood. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we've really got us in a Catch-22. We're trying to plan in perpetuity, and it's being characterized as what we're going to be putting in there. All of our responses are really -- should be couched in the most cautious context of -- we're trying to just basically say we want to eliminate the noxious uses, the commercial uses, the industrial uses, but we don't want to be able to tie our hands unnecessarily if the county really doesn't care what happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Farm labor housing is a deal breaker to you? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, it's not. I just wanted to frame the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I'm a little surprised you're pushing so hard, only because when you came to us last time, it was always you wanted single-family residential, you wanted residential. And when we got into this deeper and deeper, we seem to be not heading in the direction you originally told us. And I'm kind of glad we didn't follow along that pattern originally, we're back to where we are today, because it's fleshing out more issues that I think needed to be fleshed out we didn't understand before. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I hope nothing we're doing is perceived as anything but cooperative and just simply trying to protect our reasonable interest. And to put us on a level playing field, everybody else within the Page 75 December 3,2009 overlay district has all of these uses. We think it is appropriate to go through them and to carve out what is under no reasonable foreseeable conception could be used. We want to be cooperative. I think we've indicated and we've proven that we are being cooperative and we're not trying to push back or be aggressive in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the other item that was further down, just after -- and I'm sorry to keep you having to shovel pages around. Would you mind going back another page or two? One more. Private schools. Do you have a need for private schools on that site? MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'll talk to Mr. Barton. I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now let's look at the accessory-- well, I seem to be the only one discussing. Anybody else have any concerns with the uses other than what I've articulated so far? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You seem to be doing pretty good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have a concern with some of the uses you've articulated, so -- in other words, the private school, that might be an excellent location for a private school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you need to say so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We won't know -- I mean, fast forward 50 years from now, that might be the perfect location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that's fine, I'm not -- I'm just trying to point out. I do -- that one didn't bother me too much, but I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting ourselves into a high intensity use as you had said you did want any high -- no intensive uses. MR. PASSIDOMO: No commercially intensive uses. And I think that was a clear line of demarcation. But clearly, if we come back in, we're going to have to go Page 76 December 3,2009 through a traffic impact analysis, we're going to go through an environmental impact analysis, we're going to go through that whole process. And that's what the LDC is all about and that's why it is difficult to stand here right today and say what could conceivably possible (sic) at any time in the future. Mr. Schiffer's indicated it's pretty hard to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you run down the accessory uses, Ray? Well, that's it, there's only a couple of them. Okay. Then the conditional uses, you've already told us you're going to limit your conditional uses to community facilities, multi-family and essential . serVIce. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Barton asked me, Mr. Chairman, if I could, there is one that clearly we had no contemplation of ever using, but there could be a misconstruction. G, earth mining and extraction and related processes. Clearly that would not -- we agreed to have that removed. But if that's ancillary to an otherwise permitted development, if we were building a lake we don't want the elimination of that conditional use to be perceived in any way to prohibit us from building a lake, extracting materials and removing them from the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're suggesting and I'm just thinking of the Jones Mining pit that's 10 miles or 15 miles further out east and all the trouble it had in a sparsely populated. You're thinking of putting a commercial excavation pit in this location? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, that's not what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need it. MR. PASSIDOMO: No. What I said is I wouldn't want the elimination of this to be misconstrued as prohibiting us from building -- constructing a lake on the property and part of a residential development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a big difference between a Page 77 December 3,2009 lake in which you need the fill for the property as well versus an earth mining operation which is dug intentionally deeper to much greater intensity so you can make a profit off the exportation of fill. You know, you've done enough development -- you've been around enough developments and so have I, you can dig the lakes you need adequately for the amenities that they provide, plus the fill for the property. There is no excuse to take it off-site. And to think you want a commercial excavation in this location is a concern. But anyway, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, aren't these conditional uses, though? Wouldn't they come before a future board and they would have to plead that case with them? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might. But there's also, there's been several attempts of putting excavation facilities through at the state level as a necessity for our need for fill for the county. And there was at one point. If that had gone through, it would have eliminated the county from stepping in and trying to prohibit them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, isn't earth mining G anyway, it's not J? So that's not the big issue. But I just think that if these are conditional uses normally in ago and they can come before a future board and a future Board of Commissioners and make a case and it's acceptable, that's the protection I think we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the danger I find. Anyway, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, to that point, essentially today we are being asked to approve an up-zone of one -- in one respect or another. So I think it's perfectly appropriate to limit the extent and the intensity of that up-zone. Because we're going from golf course to a whole section of additional uses. MR. P ASSIDOMO: But I think, Ms. Caron, in fairness, that whole section applies to all of the overlay district. All we're asking Page 78 December 3,2009 for is to be treated the same as everybody else. There's a golf course next door. These are the standards, the regulations that govern development on that golf course next door. We think this is a helpful exercise to go through and extract things that are inconceivable as future permitted uses. But the fact is, we're not looking for an up-zone to distinguish ourselves, we're looking to level the playing field and to have the same rights and regulations that everyone else in the overlay district has to comply with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- support one little thing. Mr. -- you had stated that you want to leave the option open to build some lakes. Well, as I recall, wasn't the last time we met here was that you were supposed to dig ponds or lakes for the water management -- the storm management? I'm sorry. As I recall, that was one major issue that must have taken 45 minutes or an hour to discuss the storm management of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that what you were talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Item G that he's asking about is a commercial operation. It basically allows earth mining and extraction from the property and he's selling the fill. The excavation of stormwater lakes has never been a problem and wouldn't be qualified under G. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I know. I had misunderstood, that he just wanted to make sure that he was able to put a pond or lake without being considered to be a commercial operation, that's all. Page 79 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, does number G only apply if they want to remove material from the site and sell it commercially? MR. BELLOWS: There's a section in the code that allows a project to excavate and haul off-site 20,000 square feet offill without having to get that conditional use for earth mining excavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a standard clause in-- MR. BELLOWS: That's a standard for all residential developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But ifhe wants to dig his water management lakes -- MR. BELLOWS: That falls under that 20,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifhe wants to dig lakes more than what he needs for his water management capabilities because he wants to use fill on-site for house pads and roads, that's okay too. Well, I mean, everybody's doing it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I don't -- as long as they comply with that limitation, I believe that that's fine. There's a -- and I need to do some checking what constitutes a commercial excavation. I'm not that familiar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood it to be if you take off in excess of the allowable yardage and you're selling it, it becomes commercial. If you use it on-site, every project in this community -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- digs their lakes for use on-site. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that part, you can move it on-site, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did we resolve gas and oil? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one brought it up as a question. Did you have a -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Minimum of 100 holes. Page 80 December 3, 2009 MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if you can just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to hear staff report, so if you want to talk -- MR. PASSIDOMO: But if you can give me direction from the consensus of the commission as to which of the permitted uses you'd want excluded, I can consult with Mr. Barton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From my perspective, I made the following notes: The rezone to ago with the following uses, permitted uses, not acceptable; that is no farm labor housing. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, would you mind referring to them by letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I can't, because I don't have it in front of me. That will be cleaned up before we get done. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was H. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just giving you the information. And the only conditional uses would be community facilities, multi- family residential and essential services. Those are the notes that I made. MR. PASSIDOMO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now, if anybody else wants to yea or nay it, go right ahead. Because he's asking for our consensus and I'm not giving him a consensus, I'm giving him my notes. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, this is difficult, not being able to flip through this paperwork. I mean, I wonder if we could take a quick break and Ray make us copies. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if we take say a five-minute break, can you make copies of those pages for us? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's take a break until Page 81 December 3,2009 11 :01. (Recess.) MR. BELLOWS: Kay Deselem is making the copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't send her back to developmental services to make the copies, did you? Is there a staff report on this particular application? COMMISSIONER CARON: Kay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Kay's got that too. You sent the only person that could talk to us off. MR. BELLOWS: We're running out of people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to hold off till Kay shows up. So unplug us, thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay has returned. And because she has, we are allowed to go forward here today. With that in mind, she's passed out the neutral lands uses. And Mr. Schiffer, what questions do you have, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just to run through this, what are the ones that we're thinking of not allowing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only one that I had suggested at this point is H. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you get to conditional uses, the applicant originally said they wanted B, D and E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B, D and E? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, my only comment is since they are conditional uses, these uses might be fine, but in the future there's no way we could tell now. I don't see the harm in some day there could be a sports camp built out there. Could be a golf school for the citizens. I see no reason to eliminate honestly any of these. Page 82 December 3, 2009 I don't want to touch the gas and oil, because I think that's a complicated issue. And if they -- the county's ever to the point where they need earth mining in the future and the people who govern the county believe that that through a public hearing is acceptable, then I trust them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so Mr. Passidomo was looking for a consensus. I offered some suggestions. Mr. Schiffer, basically you don't believe we need to have any restrictions on the permitted or conditional or accessory uses? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm okay with H. I don't think that's a good place for farm houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you believe that all the conditional uses ought to be opened? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I still don't. We need a consensus from the panel on this board. Does anybody else have an opinion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I tend to agree with Brad at this time, why tie their hands, let it be dealt with some time in the future if it becomes an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, as I said, you know, I think that it's appropriate for us to deal with this now. We're being asked to up-zone this property and I think, you know, we should take a look at these things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And-- VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I happen to agree with you in this regard. I think it's time to look at it, see if we can make sure that we don't have future issues. Page 83 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would be more inclined to let future people look at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it mean Brad's position or mine? I don't know what you meant by that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was to not let the future people -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Brad's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's. Okay, anybody else want to weigh in? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, you don't care one way or the other? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't have anything to add right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm trying to get a consensus. So far it's 3-3. So let's look at it this way: We need to give some direction. I will not vote for this and I will work against it if they're going to include all the conditional uses. That's flat out. So whatever the consensus is, it may end up being voted that way, you will not get my support, Mr. Passidomo. So you can judge it any way you want. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking for it. Let me see -- as a matter of expediency, let me remove that issue from consideration. We'll abide by the conditional uses that you articulated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which were the ones you originally articulated. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was asking. Page 84 December 3, 2009 MR. PASSIDOMO: I think you may have misstated, Mr. Chairman, though. We asked for I as well as E, in the list of essential services. B, D, E and I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask the question. One of the ones we're not doing is a botanical garden. To me harmless. But in the future if somebody wanted to do a botanical garden, we removed it from the conditional uses today. What process would they go through to get their botanical garden on the site? Would they not just have a public hearing anyway to get it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A rezone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would come in to overrule what we made here, using the excuse that everybody else around us is allowed a botanical garden, why can't we. So is that something I guess you're not worried about? I mean, I see no need to take it out, but -- MR. P ASSIDOMO: But Mr. Chair, I think that's really why we come to the conclusion we come to. We have to come back through a public hearing. If it's a conditional use or it's a rezone, this is so speculative that as a matter of expediency we say we'll come back in through a rezone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want it to be a deal breaker, so I'll bow out. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever you want, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I'm trying to follow what the applicant said. And what I want to remind everybody, this is way beyond what we originally talked about on the original application. It was for single-family residential housing. They want to do a proj ect. So all of a sudden through the processes that we put in -- I guess I should say the roadblocks that we put in, we're now coming back to Page 85 December 3,2009 where the more or less real nature of this project may go. And I think that we have every right to question it now versus what we were told originally. So that's all I'm sticking to. If they hadn't come in originally and said what they said, I wouldn't be so concerned with it today. But if you're going to stand to the plate and say something, then somebody's got to hold your feet to the fire and that's where it's at. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'm very comfortable with that, but I object to the suggestion that we're being disingenuous in any way. We're telling you exactly what we told you. There is no project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not saying you're disingenuous, I'm just saying that what we were told originally is -- we're getting now more than what we were told originally. That's why you're back here today is to tell us more. And I'm glad that we forced your hand, or if you voluntarily came back in, fine. But I'm glad it came out this way. Because now we're looking at the various uses that could be there instead of just what we assumed would be the primary use, which was single-family residential. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, and that's what I was waiting for you all to try to ferret out from John. What do you want? I mean, what is it? I mean, you keep saying what we'll accept, what we'll not accept. I know you want to keep it open as much as you can for your client because you don't know what is going to happen a year to five years from now. But on the other hand, we need to know what's going to go on. MR. PASSIDOMO: And Mr. Wolfley, it's-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, we've been burned before here by not being told the whole story that oh, it's just Page 86 December 3, 2009 boilerplate and just leave that in there, and the next thing you know, something gets built that we got burned, so -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, it's the permitted uses except for H. And it's the accessory uses. And it's the four conditional uses described in 3.B, D, E and I. All the other conditional uses would be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what we're down to. Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? Ifnot, let's hear the staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the supplemental staff report prepared for this date's hearing. It is revised IO/30/09 in the footnote. And I won't belabor the issue. You've had a lengthy discussion about it. Staff is in agreement with what's being proposed. We believe that the project remains consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And I -- along with what the County Attorney's Office is recommending and what you have so far come to an agreement on as far as discussion wise, staff is in -- you know, would recommend approval of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, were you at the neighborhood information meeting? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think there's anything that was said at that meeting that this would contradict? In other words, did the applicant say anything to the neighbors that now we're doing something different? MS. DESELEM: I'd want to take a moment and go back and look at the synopsis of that. Page 87 December 3,2009 But overall, I don't believe so. Because the whole idea was it was rezoning to ago with a rural fringe neutral designation. So I can't see where if you're limiting to even less than what would be allowed by right in that or by conditional use that it would be anything less than what the neighbor's would have understood to be proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the prior staff report said that the neighbors had asked that -- Mrs. Perry to paraphrase said that it would go to agricultural that would allow the property owner more uses such as single family, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read it to you. It says right -- we have it in our package. The petitioner re -- let's see, one resident wanted to know where the access to the property would be. The petitioner responded that it would be in the same place as it is today. No changes proposed. The same resident wanted clarification that no commercial uses could be built with this rezone. And the petitioner assured him that commercial use is not an approved use under agriculture or in the rural fringe neutral area and that in order to allow commercial uses, a Growth Management Plan amendment would be required. Several residents asked if there were any plans to remove the golf course. The property owner stated that he intends to keep the current golf course intact. That's the synopsis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I read that. I was worried more about the paragraph above. It does point out that they're aware of the fact that there's more uses, the agricultural uses, such as -- MS. DESELEM: I think the such as doesn't say only. And so the implication is that they just culled out one that at that time they had looked at, but it didn't preclude them from having anything else that might be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they had no objection? MS. DESELEM: That's my recollection, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Page 88 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But, and you know this for a fact, Kay, that when you go to those neighborhood information meetings, when you say there are uses such as and the rest of the discussion has to do with single-family homes, what do the neighbors walk away thinking they're going to get? MS. DESELEM: There is that possibility, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Nebulous other uses that they don't even know and never were detailed for them? No, they expect single- family homes. And what we're learning here is that mayor may not be the case. And that's why I think we need to go through these things. The neighbors need to know that there are all these other uses. And they may be fine with those other uses. But did you detail all these other uses to the neighborhood? MS. DESELEM: No, I did not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's-- MS. DESELEM: -- but I'm not the one that does the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: But did Mr. Passidomo or whoever respected him at the time? MS. DESELEM: When the neighbors, you know, understand, I assume, that it's an agricultural zoning district, they're going to, I think they would have some assumption from that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- that there are other uses that would be permitted. But you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Kay, the word-- MS. DESELEM: -- what they say about assumption, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word agricultural connotates row crops and citrus and cows. I can tell you, you've given this board eight pages of uses that is now going to be applied to this property, Page 89 December 3, 2009 that even members of this board knowing that this was going to be up here today did not download and print themselves. So how -- I would expect that nobody in the public at that meeting would have these eight pages with them and would have known that every -- like group care facilities and care housing facilities and FAR of .45, the public doesn't -- when you say agricultural uses such as single-family residential, the public doesn't expect that to be one of them. And I'm not saying that's bad or good. But I'm saying we cannot rely on the fact that because the public didn't ask the question about is it only going to be residential and that they were told it was agricultural zoning that meant they conceded to all these uses. That is not something I think the public is generally aware of. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Plus you've got the issue of the neutral lands, which is what that list is taken from. It's not so much the ago rezoning, it's the neutral lands, which was in effect at the time anyway. And that really never came up, to my knowledge, in the neighborhood information meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So had the public gone to look for something, had they looked at the agricultural zoning, which they saw this going to, they still wouldn't probably have known that an overlay applies from the rural fringe that has another series of uses that they would have had to look at. MS. DESELEM: I can't say what they knew, but I can tell you that in the advertisement it does mention that rural fringe. And obviously they have the opportunity if they have questions to contact staff or the applicant, and it's kind of hard to be all things to all people. You can't make people ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to follow up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, those people are mostly in agricultural zoning in the neutral fringe themselves, so essentially the Page 90 December 3, 2009 rights they would be given would be essentially the rights that they themselves have. MS. DESELEM: That could be. But the one property adjacent to this one does have a conditional use for a golf course so it's reasonable to assume perhaps that if they have a conditional use others could get conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is adjacent to the Estates, Brad, and some of the people that attended, at least one of them I know, is an Estates resident. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at the information, it's agricultural around it. Some with -- you know, I think it has a lot of trailers and stuff, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes, I believe to the north. But like I said, I can't assume to know what anybody leaves a meeting with is an understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not a big point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Tim Pratt. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PRATT: Well, I'm -- my name is Tim Pratt. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I live on 25th Street Northwest, so I've got a concern about this. I'm really happy to see that you guys are taking so much time to really ferret out what's going on here. I've got a -- I would request that you don't allow this. And the reason being is when I was -- when this was rezoned to a golf course I believe many years ago, I didn't get involved in that. I thought well, a golf course, that's no big deal, that won't hurt me. Page 91 December 3, 2009 And since then they've decided to build the Vanderbilt Beach Road. They didn't want to destroy the golf course, they moved over and they're going to take dwellings. So my contention of this is they have really not been a good neighbor. They've made no concessions. No attempt to try and save people from losing their homes. And I just -- I guess I'm thinking that this can't be good for us either. I'm wondering if this is -- they admitted that they don't know what they're going to do. This is for some five, 10, 15 years down the road. So they're just -- I'm wondering why they even need this. Is it just so they can, you know, run cattle and save some tax money? I'm just not sure. I'm a little apprehensive about this, and I would just ask that you don't let them do this. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pratt, your issue about the road is one that I personally have tried to follow myself. And I certainly agree with you in that regard, that road didn't need to be moved, it had to be moved now because of properties that are in their way that are more expensive apparently and more important than homes in Golden Gate Estates. I still disagree with that. Although unfortunately this -- that is not an issue we can weigh into this factor -- MR. PRATT: Oh, I understand that, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- here today. But I -- I live out in the Estates too and I'm disgusted with the road situation. MR. PRATT: Well, I just -- like I say, everybody here -- I feel much better. You know, I -- and it's my fault, I haven't been very involved in -- actually, this is the first meeting I've attended. And I feel much better knowing that you guys really -- you seem to be really looking out for us, and I appreciate that. But I'm a little suspicious of the Ole Florida Golf Course. And that's why I would -- there's something in this for them, obviously. Page 92 December 3, 2009 And they want to make money and I can understand that. But at what expense? Are we going to lose -- are they going to run cattle and try and, you know, save tax money or -- I'm just -- I'm a little suspicious of them. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, he's got one more question from Brad. MR. PRATT: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I obviously -- you followed the road conversations closely back then? MR. PRATT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was the point made that they weren't able to move the holes on their golf course? Was that the reason why the road -- MR. PRATT: Yeah, it would be very expensive to move the holes on the golf course. You know, I'm not a golfer so, you know, I can't say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But essentially then we have this land for housing that could have contained the holes that they had to move. MR. PRATT: That's what I'm thinking. There was -- I mean, there was other land there that -- and, you know, I'm not a golf course designer, I'm not a golfer, but there was a lot of other land there that it seems to me they could have moved to. And I'm sure it would have been very expensive. And I think it was -- what they did is they went, you know, by the dollar amount. It would be cheaper to force these people to leave their homes than it would be to move the holes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, thanks for that. Page 93 December 3, 2009 MR. PRATT: I'm just speculating. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any more speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, do you want a rebuttal? MR. PASSIDOMO: Very briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I shouldn't say -- I guess corrected by Bruce, we don't call those rebuttals. Do you want to counterpoint? Whatever you want to call it. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Just some conclusionary remarks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PASSIDOMO: Obviously the Commission recognizes the issue of the relocation of a road that occurred years and years ago that was made with the -- in the best judgment of the Board of County Commissioners. It is not an issue in front of you today. But you would be interested to know that although you could have relocated some of the holes from this golf course, you couldn't have relocated some of the holes from the golf course next door. The Golf Course of the Everglades is 18 holes -- it's only 18 holes. And that would have constituted a taking of an entire golf course. If I remember correctly, the testimony in front of the Board of County Commissioners was that the differential in cost was $45 million. So whether they were right or wrong, the Board of County Commissioners had information in front of them to justify what they did. There won't be a reduction in taxes. We're increasing the amount of uses, not decreasing the amount of uses. So presumably the property appraiser may want to look at that, but there's certainly no contemplation that we're going to run cattle here. What you see is really what you get. We want to be treated the same as all of our other neighbors, to have the same overlay district uses on ours, as revised by the Commission. Not to have any special Page 94 December 3, 2009 privileges, just to have a level playing field. We appreciate your consideration, in particular appreciate the Chairman's leadership in getting the map in front of you today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll close the public hearing. And I think we might want to start with discussion, if that's -- nobody objects. There's a list of items I've written down in regards to this issue. And by the way, I think we ought to also consider, if we weren't looking at rezoning this to standard zoning like's being requested with the limitations we may impose on it today, they certainly could come in at any time with a PUD request. And the likelihood of that getting approved is probably the same. I mean, it would -- I don't see them being denied the more use on this property because of its size. So whatever we do, we should be doing something that tries to make it the best we possibly can out of a situation that's going to have a modification to it sooner or later anyway. And so that's where I've been coming from in trying to understand what to do here today. First of all, I think we ought to make the approval subject to a stipulation that includes the map of the future development envelope that's been presented to us today as a limitation to the property. That we delete on Page 2 of their -- of those map pages, items number one and two, and we substitute in language as recommended by the County Attorney's Office concerning consistency with the then current Land Development Code language for the rural fringe area that they're asking to be part of, or the agricultural -- with your rural fringe overlay. That we delete the Page 3 reference to Section 2.03.08.A, because it is in the LDC and it will be part of what their requirements will be. Page 95 December 3, 2009 There's something I didn't bring up, but I see it just as a correction. Number five on the notes on Page 2 it says, the area depicted as future development envelope is the area within which future development on the property will occur. I think the word "will" needs to be substituted with the word "may". It just -- because we don't know until the environmental is done. So I would suggest that correction be added. And that lastly we add the condition that the rezone to ago with a rural fringe overlay is acceptable. But Item H is not eligible under the permitted uses for a use. And under the conditional uses, only Items B, D, E and I are eligible for application for conditional use and through the regular process. And I believe that's all the notes I have. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just have a question, because I don't want there to be any questions down the line. Mr. Passidomo said that they would take out any commercial or industrial uses. And if we make that as one of your stipulations, then are we leaving some question when you get to permitted uses as of right under D, which the greater category is group housing, which gets into family care facilities, group care, which are commercial type uses. And I just don't want in the future somebody to say well, I think this is allowed and somebody else to say no, it's not allowed. Either we're taking out commercial and industrial uses or we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I worded my stipulation referencing specific uses was to avoid that concern. If we just left it no industrial commercial uses, that would be harder to interpret than saying of the non -- the uses that are permitted by right, the only one that shouldn't be used is H. I understand your position -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're fine with some commercial uses. Page 96 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, they're all limited to the height and density restrictions in the regular zoning overlay, so they're not going to be as harmful as multi-family could be, for example. They're all so limited in their intensity. And by those standard regulations that no matter what they are, they're going to come out the same in regards to intensity. That's where I was coming from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm good. I'm just asking the question. I don't want there to be any confusion later. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, in the area where you wanted to change it from will to may, I think it's moot. Will is the intention to do and if they're restricted because of any number of limitations associated with either environmental or other factors, they simply won't be able to build on there. I don't know that changing it to may makes it as restrictive as perhaps we intend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton, I had mentioned this one to you the other day. Do you see a -- what is the better word to use there, will or may? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me ask for clarification. Do you want the "may" to attach to the first sentence or the second sentence where you're dealing with the preserve area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first sentence. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that you won't be able to hold them to it if you put may. Will you'll be able to hold them to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine. I appreciate the correction then. And that will be -- we'll leave number five as is, so we won't stipulate a change to that. Okay, are there any other comments, discussion? (No response.) Page 97 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If Bob wants it, he can have it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move that we forward with a recommendation of approval RZ-2008-AR-I3951, Olde Florida Golf Course, Inc., with the requirements we put on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we go -- before you finish, though, we also had four stipulations originally. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two of those I believe still apply, number one and four. Would those be included in your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. We would eliminate two, we eliminate three and add the additional requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one and four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray. Is there 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. Page 98 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, we appreciate everybody's time and help in getting through this today. And we have a decision to make. We have one more case. It's in Golden Gate Estates. It's -- Mr. Hancock is handling it, which means it's pretty well laid out. We can either proceed with it or we can take a break and come back. I'd rather we just work and get this done, if that's okay with everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi -- or Cherie', what do you need for a break? We just had a break for five minutes. You want to take a IS-minute break right now? THE COURT REPORTER: Ten minutes is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten-minute break? Okay. Tim, we're going to take aID-minute break. We'll resume at 11 :40 and we'll work through lunch. (Recess. ) Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ-2007-11398~ SHOESOP PROPERTIES~ LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break. We're going to try to work through our lunch to finish up here today. And now we're approaching Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-I1398, Shoesop Properties, LLC for the Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be Page 99 December 3,2009 sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Mr. Hancock I think yesterday, and went over some concerns that he's going to be addressing today. So with that in mind, Tim, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Commissioners. F or the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, on behalf of Shoesop Properties, LLC. Mr. Michael Schoeller, owner of Shoesop is here in case you have any questions for him. He's also a pretty good bat in the lineup on my softball team, so we're happy to be here representing Mike. The arrow before you shows you the project location. What's before you today is a CPUD rezone, a 5.46 gross acres of land located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. The property is designated in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as neighborhood center subdistrict, and as such has provided the opportunity to seek land use entitlements consistent with that master plan. As shown on the aerial, the adjacent properties to the north and to the west are currently developed with single-family homes. As you're aware, the granting of this rezone would allow for adjacent parcels totaling up to five acres to request a rezone for a limited number of conditional uses. At this time neither property owner to our knowledge is contemplating that, but that opportunity does remain available to them. Thank you, Ray. Consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan requirements, Page 100 December 3, 2009 the buffering on the proposed project is significant. The west and north property lines which are adjacent to residential retain a 50-foot native vegetation buffer. The vegetation in these areas will be left in place as it is today. Additionally, the entire site is then subject to a 25- foot landscape buffer on all sides, creating in effect a 75-foot buffer adjacent to residential neighbors and 25 feet along both roadway frontages. The required buffering and landscape areas will comprise 23 percent of the usable site area. This site is already encumbered by 1.12 acres of roadway easement, resulting in a net property of 4.34 acres before we get into the development standards that we'll be outlining today. The intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard is currently in design for widening. The plan is to widen the intersection to accommodate the ultimate build-out condition of both Everglades and Golden Gate in advance of the two roadways being widened. In other words, the intersection's going to get done first before the roadways get done, mainly because the restriction at the intersection is turning movements as it stands today. These plans are at a 60 percent design stage, but like many road projects in the county it is on hold due to budgetary constraints. Mr. Schoeller has agreed to convey to Collier County an area totaling almost four-tenths of an acre, again some nine percent of the current useable site. Since this donation exceeds what could be construed as reasonable mitigation for project-related impacts to the roadway network, transportation staff has agreed to compensate the property owner for the difference, as spelled out in the PUD. Areas required to compensate for site-related turn lanes have been removed from that calculation. In other words, if we would have to give I2 feet for a right turn lane into the property as compensating right-of-way, we have not included that in the calculation with respect Page 101 December 3,2009 to the donation, if you will, to the county. The result of these requirements is actually a development envelope totaling approximately 2.I acres out of that original 5.46. Access is fairly limited, as shown on the PUD master plan, mainly because of the proposed widening of the intersection. It will result in fairly restrictive access to the site. Once hopefully at some point down the road if conditional uses are approved on adjacent properties, that access may improve, but for now we have what we have. As you can see from the plan really with the 2.1-acre envelope and the access as shown, the access is adequate but really serves as a restriction of the degree of small-scale retail services that could be constructed on the site. I'm aware of a couple issues raised by the Chairman, and we may need some clarification, so let me try and put before you some of those at this time. The first is within the PUD, in addition to listing the uses that are permitted, we also listed the use that are prohibited. During the NIMs I stated that there were two uses that would not be permitted on the property, but I did fail to include them in the PUD and I'd like to correct that now. Those two uses are one, a gas station. The reason being, we are in the WS-I well-field protection area. Believe me, gas stations would love to be on this corner, they simply can't go there because of the well-field protection area. And I think there would be other use limitations that this board may be interested in. So we will be adding under number 15 gas stations as a prohibited use. The second one is fast food restaurants with a drive-through. Again, we'll be listing these as prohibited uses because primarily a fast- food restaurant with a drive-through, the drive-through becomes fairly substantial in the operation of it and I believe does qualify as a drive-through establishment under county regulations and as such Page 102 December 3,2009 would be prohibited. We want to go ahead and make sure those two are specifically listed under prohibited uses in the PUD. Secondly, a resident, Ms. Susan Mason, requested that we include some development constraints in accordance with the Dark Skies initiative. Some of you may receive that e-mail. And that seeks to protect rural areas from unnecessary ambient light intrusion. Since this project is surrounded on four sides by Estates residential lots, the request seemed reasonable. I inquired of a lighting engineer, and while the language before you today may result in some higher development costs, they do not appear to be extensive or impossible to meet. It's also likely by the time this site develops, more fixtures will be designed to address this issue. As it stands right now, those fixtures are somewhat limited in meeting Dark Skies initiative, but that list is growing every day. So while I don't purport to have done exhaustive research on the item, I feel we can address this issue in our PUD. And I encourage the county, actually ask this board to maybe make a recommendation to the board that they form a small committee to actually look into this further and help develop some standards. And if I can assist in achieving that, I'd be happy to serve. But I think we can do a little bit more to tailor the ambient light issues in the rural Estates. And this is a shot at doing that. The first criteria really is to limit the wattage of the lights to 250 watts HID. And HID is high intensity. What HID does is it -- to give you the best example I can, instead of seeing kind of the yellow glow of a typical bulb, it would be more ofa white xenon or a daylight type of light. And that's what high intensity discharge is intended to do, to mimic daylight more when the light's in usage, as opposed to some of the less attractive light fixtures. So the 250-Watt HID. And we're excluding anything that's required for life safety issues, whether it be exit signs or stairwell Page 103 December 3, 2009 lighting or those types of things. And I thought by limiting it to life safety, that would be a successful limitation. But any exterior lights, whether they be pole mounted or whether they be on the building, would have to comply with this 250- W att HID limitation or lumen equivalent, and to be fully shielded. The other things we're doing in this language is we are eliminating any landscape up-lighting, and any signage lighting would have to be fully shielded. Again, if you're living adjacent to the property, to see lights shining up makes absolutely no sense in a rural setting. So we hope we've been able to achieve that with this language. There also was brought to my attention the potential for a lack of clarity regarding the right-of-way to be conveyed to the county in accordance with the PUD. The PUD master plan that is included in your packet was really -- it became more of a transportation document in dealing with this right-of-way issue. And so all of the detail was intended to show well, what's not included in our reservation and what is. And in that we probably lost something along the way. So what I'd like to do is propose that we add a note to the master concept plan that states -- as you look at this plan you see the crosshatched areas, and there's three different types of crosshatching. What we want to be clear about is that entire area is included in the right-of-way that is to be conveyed to the county within 30 days of PUD approval. The areas that are hatched differently in there are those areas that are part of the compensating right-of-way. So rather than distinguish between the two in the PUD, which doesn't make any sense, I think a simple statement on the master concept plan could read as follows: All compensating and reserved right-of-way is subject to Item 3.A of Exhibit E in the PUD document. That is the part of the PUD document that says the right-of-way as shown on the master concept Page 104 December 3, 2009 plan will be conveyed within 30 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tim, the point that -- and I brought this up to staff, is that the annotation here that there's a right-of-way reservation then is no longer really true. This is right-of-way that's been bought and paid for, is that-- MR. HANCOCK: Partial donation, partial paid for, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was the whole basis. I'm trying to understand what a reservation was and we had no legal mechanism for such. MR. HANCOCK: It was a -- yeah, it was a reservation because we weren't sure how to figure out the balance. Because, you know, how are we going to -- what's the level of compensation. We finally realized that and figured it out. I put it in the document, but I failed to amend the master concept plan to reflect that. I believe this language will achieve that, if it's acceptable to this board. The last item I'd like to mention, and the reason I motioned, we have one of the residents who lives next to the project here in attendance, and discussed with them what their concerns may be. And the master concept plan as you see it, if you look at the upper left-hand corner, the access drive on Golden Gate, the county transportation department asked us to move that as far away from the intersection as possible. Which we did. One of the concerns then is it lies pretty much on the property line, and as a result could be a problem for the adjacent property owner. So what we're going to ask is that the access drive be at least IO feet from the property line to allow for a Type A 10- foot buffer and a six-foot fence or wall along the length of entry drive. That's so that cars coming in and out of the project do not become a burden to the adjacent property owner. Page 105 December 3,2009 The second item that the neighbors have asked that we consider and that we are more than willing to commit to, is that within the 25-foot landscape buffer along the western side of the property, which is adjacent to their home, that we provide a six-foot fence or wall to be included in that buffer. I will tell you that at our first and second NIM, the property owner to the north was present, made no such request. We still have the option of doing a fence or wall or vegetation on the north side. But again, being a small project, and I've already -- I've designed and we've actually gone through the construction of one of these, the building tends to focus more on the corner itself and the space, if you will, tends to be to the rear, but at this point we think addressing the concerns of the neighbor to the west is sufficient, and we'd like to add that language to the PUD. With those points aside, I at this time will turn it over to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want to operate the site from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. And you relate to Big Bear CPUD as the base. 6:00 a.m. to II :00, you're not going to have a gas station -- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- so what would you be selling at 6:00 a.m., groceries? MR. HANCOCK: I believe those are the same time limits that were applied to the Snowy Egret PUD where we have a Walgreen's drugstore at this time. They usually like to operate 24 hours a day. But as someone who's had to run out in the morning and get cold medicine for a child before going to work, that's why the 6:00 a.m. limitation is in there. Page 106 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you anticipate the possibility of a Walgreen's? MR. HANCOCK: I do. I anticipate the possibility . We have no one in the wings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what you're focusing on, more or less. MR. HANCOCK: As I've told the neighbors, I've done a couple of these, and they tend to go one of two ways. It tends to be a single end user, such as a Walgreen's or CVS which operates more than just a drugstore these days. It's almost-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kind of like a grocery store. MR. HANCOCK: --like a mini grocery and essential needs-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I need a qualification. Recommendations, the second recommendation of the hours of operation on the site for all non-essential services, what was the intent there? That -- it's creative language, non-essential services. MR. HANCOCK: That's carried over from the Land Development Code. In essential service, we anticipate under that definition to mean a fire station or police substation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that part of it. So I'm just -- well, do you intend to have a fire station? MR. HANCOCK: Well, within the PUD essential services would be permitted. It's not on our radar screen, but those are included in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as permitted uses within the neighborhood center subdistrict, so we just rolled them in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting to me. Normally I don't get into too much detail on these matters, but it seems to me if you wanted to have a neighborhood center where you could go get cough medicine or milk, you're going to leave yourself open to other things. I don't know, that throws up a curve to me. Maybe I -- I'd like to hear more. I'm not saying no, but I'm just wondering, if the hours of Page 107 December 3, 2009 operations for all non-essential services and of course the LDC says it's for essential services 24 hours a day -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- how do -- I mean, suppose we put -- I don't know that we can, but suppose we put an essential service -- does a well-head represent an essential service? I don't know. That was-- MR. HANCOCK: It's a good question. I've-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm getting at is if you had one that was essential services and you had next to it another, and I don't know that there's room so I'm not trying to go -- but that's my quandary, okay. And I'm visualizing with such a limited space, especially with 25K, that you're essentially looking essentially for a store and a half. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Or a small, you know, if you will, a mini-mall or strip type facility. Those are really the two directions these go once you have your limited development envelope. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to balk at it. It's just that I just wondered, it seems we talk about restricting -- the last go-around we had here, we talked about restricting in anticipation of leaving people in the future with something that they weren't happy with. To my way of thinking, the people who were there who have bought out in the Estates want the peace and quiet. Now, if you have some arrangement with our county government that they might be interested in an EMS station or something of that nature, I think we should know about it and I think the community should know about it. If not, I'm disinclined to want to grant such a thing as that. I'm thinking grocery stores, et cetera. MR. HANCOCK: Well, we will certainly follow the direction of this body on that. We don't have any type of an arrangement or anticipation of a fire station or police substation. Page 108 December 3,2009 I will say that, for example, a police substation is a far less of an operating concern than would be a fire station. But again, we were just rolling the uses in that are contained in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. If it's this body's desire to withdraw that or exclude that, we'll certainly make that consideration. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we'll see what the . . commISSIon says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Ray, could you put up the aerial photo? And Tim, my concern is, is again protecting that neighbor to the west. So moving the road was one of the issues. I think that's fine, you're going to put a 10- foot buffer. Could that buffer follow the curve in the road? Because the other concern I have is you're going to have water management in that 50- foot retained area. From the drawings you're showing, that could be pretty devoid of trees and vegetation. So it would be nice if these people sitting on the front porch weren't able to see cars or lights from cars anywhere in that curve. MR. HANCOCK: And I'll have a hard time wording this on the fly, but the intent here was whether we follow the curve or whether we extend in a straight line that when that fence line stops it would be picked up in the 25- foot buffer so that we don't have a window there. That was my intent was that the two would in combination create a visual buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I do have is that, you know, do you call this native vegetation and water management? If there's a lot of water management in that area, it's going to be pretty devoid of vegetation, so -- MR. HANCOCK: We're not allowed to remove any of the native vegetation to allow for water management. As a matter of fact, the water management, we have to Page 109 December 3, 2009 demonstrate that it will not adversely impact the native vegetation. So there won't be the removal of any area -- any trees in that 50-foot native area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: But if I can -- I think I can address that by just indicating that the wall and buffer will continue along the entry road until it creates a visual buffer along the entire western side of the property. That was our intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you are putting a wall in the 20-foot landscape buffer, correct? MR. HANCOCK: In the 25-foot, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-five foot. So that wall would connect with that wall. So essentially if you did it right, you could run that wall all the way past the preserve area, correct? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. When you say you're not going to remove any trees, but the section you have shows natural grade, and you're going to berm and then kind offill for the development pads on top of that; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where would the water be? It would be around the trunks of those trees that are in there, or -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. This is -- and this is something we're going through in the EAC/LDC sub-committee right now. These are pine flatwoods. There are limitations on how much water you can put into a pine flatwoods without adversely affecting it. We've used those limitations successfully on a handful of projects. So the water management system basically would be designed to pretreat before it discharges into any of the preserve area. You'd only be using a limited part of the preserve as a containment area. But it's just to let the water sit and percolate to the greatest degree you can, which I think is preferable to running off to adjacent sites or the Page 110 December 3, 2009 right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's good. So you really are concerned that those neighbors will not be able to look over and see vehicles moving or at least six feet down see vehicles moving? MR. HANCOCK: That is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lights. MR. HANCOCK: That is the concern they've expressed, and I think with the modification you've made, we've -- in addition to 50 feet of existing vegetation, the wall will achieve that as a visual buffer and also provide a little more sound attenuation being closer to the development than if it were on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The next thing you had is the lighting. You kind of said it has to be this 250- W att HID lighting. I mean, is -- MR. HANCOCK: Or equivalent. Or lumen equivalent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that could be -- that's still a pretty bright light. MR. HANCOCK: It is. We -- that came directly from the Dark Skies website. It does -- there are lighting plans out there that exceed that currently. And it does require a few more fixtures than otherwise allowable. I think it is a limitation and I think it's a starting point in absence of us having any regulation to go by at this point. I'm kind of relying on the expert and the resident who made the request to help guide us on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fixture will be such that it won't -- obviously no light will be spread. Really, the way you worded it, it will be shielded so that it does not pass the property line. But could we not word that so it does not go into the 50-foot buffer and give ourselves that extra protect -- the way it's worded now, they could have bright trees right alongside their property line. Page 111 December 3,2009 So would you have a problem wording that? It's on Page I7. It is A, and it's shielded so the light rays do not pass property lines. MR. HANCOCK: If you want to change from property lines to development area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, that would -- or the 50-foot buffer. You're going to need some spillage to maybe light the back of these buildings. You're not going to come in here and want to put signs on the back of these buildings, are you? Just kidding. MR. HANCOCK: And we -- we promise not to appear before you asking for signs on the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Anyway, I think that if you just -- in that 50-foot, if you really started to pretend that was something serious, then it would definitely not bleed into the neighbor and they won't be looking at bright landscaping. Thank you, I'm -- MR. HANCOCK: I think we can accomplish that, because the light fixtures will be on the development side of the 25-foot buffer, and with full shielding we shouldn't see spill into the native vegetation buffer to any degree. The full shielding is actually something that has -- right now they're having to modify most fixtures manually to achieve that because there aren't enough of them commercially available. I'm hoping by the time we see development on this parcel, there will be a list of commercially available fully shielded lights that meet hurricane code standards. Which right now it takes a lot of work to do that. But I understand the effect is not to light the property up to its perimeter adjacent to the residential. And so I think by wording it that no light will spill into the native preserve areas, we can word that effectively, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the Page 112 December 3, 2009 applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Hancock, I had a question on Page 8 of your PUD under the conditional uses. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'm asking this because I honestly don't know. What is the ancillary plants that you're -- MR. HANCOCK: Typically that is for larger projects that require things such -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. HANCOCK: -- as chillers and whatnot. I think we can strike that. I don't -- let me back up, because I may need Ray's assistance on this. The Walgreen's that was constructed at Golden Gate and Wilson, there is a pump that is required to maintain pressure for the fire system. That pump needs to be covered. That becomes a structure. Whether that would constitute an ancillary plant or not, I don't know. It's a gray area. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. HANCOCK: So that's my concern is I don't want to preclude that, because we do have to do well and septic out here and that material does need to be covered in some fashion. So if that's an accessory structure and if I can get something on the record that says that would not qualify or be required to be an ancillary plant, that that's a part and parcel of the development, then I'd be comfortable removing that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and it may -- they may qualify it as a structure, I don't know. That's why I asked. I just wasn't sure what -- MR. HANCOCK: I think it's only fair we make Ray do stuff on the fly too -- Page 113 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MR. HANCOCK: -- since we have to. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- I suggest striking ancillary plants from the conditional use. That appears to me to be a reference to things like school boards that have ancillary bussed facilities. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I was thinking. MR. BELLOWS: The things that Mr. Hancock's referring to I think we typically treat as accessory type of things to the use. MR. HANCOCK: Cherie', you got all that, right? Okay. Thank you. We're comfortable with that, we can strike ancillary plants. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. And on Page 10 under your development standards table? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question -- well, let me start I guess by asking about your minimum floor area, which is 700 square feet. And then there's a note, it says that that 700 square feet is for the principal structure on the first finished floor. Are you -- aren't you only allowed one floor here, one story? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. We are entirely guilty ofa careless carryover. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: So we can strike the footnote there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then let me just ask you one final question here, and that's on the maximum height, which is 35 feet. And you have an actual of 47 feet. That's a 12-foot difference. I mean, can you just tell me what you need 12 feet for? MR. HANCOCK: We have routinely done that, added I2 feet for purposes of -- and the example's always been an elevator shaft that extends onto the roof. Well, obviously we're one story, we probably aren't going to have elevator equipment on the roof. Page 114 December 3, 2009 It's just a -- it's something we consistently do. We add 12 feet just to handle anything that may be up there. We may find that it's better to put AC units on the roof and do a parapet wall for noise attenuation than putting them on the ground or something like that. So, you know, that shouldn't take more than five or six feet. I'm just -- not sure what that number really needs to be. But the intent obviously is just to handle mechanical equipment on the roof, which then of course has to be shielded based on the architectural standards. That's the sole intent. If there's a lesser number that -- Mr. Schiffer may be of greater help than anyone on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One problem is that the actual -- let's take a sloped roof. The actual height's to the middle of the slope -- I mean, I'm sorry, the zoned height's to the middle of the slope. The actual would be to the peak, or could be a lightning rod or anything else. So lowering that number just lowers the slope of the roof, which doesn't really help the neighborhood, I don't think. MR. HANCOCK: I was thinking clearly of flat roofs, but you're absolutely right, if we were to do a pitched roof on this, it would limit the pitch. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- well, Mr. Schiffer always has a reason for additional height. That wasn't really the reason for my question. And actually, in asking my first question it was solved. What I was trying to avoid was the fact that perhaps you were building this building over parking. And, I mean, you have a very small envelope and I didn't think that that was allowed and I wanted to make sure that that wasn't the case. But you've struck the on -- over the first finished floor, so we're fine. MR. HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This will be for two parties, Page 115 December 3,2009 actually. Ray's involved in this too. In your PUD where you show your permitted uses, under your alpha, I don't see essential services as being in here. And perhaps it isn't even required to be in a listing. But inasmuch as that statement was made in the stipulation about non-essential services issues. So my question really is to either party who can answer it. MR. MOSS: Yes, for the record, Commissioner, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. That language was taken directly from the Big Bear PUD right across the street, and so that's why those hours of operation were incorporated into this one, because they were the hours of operation that were decided for that PUD. And the reason I left that in about essential services is because use number 155 says any other uses considered comparable in nature by the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's the hook. MR. MOSS: So that was the hook, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wish we were more clear, but okay, that's fine. MR. MOSS: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You've got forgive me, board, but I seem to forget why we had issues. Why did you add I4 of your prohibited uses, which was fast food drive-through? I came up here and I'm sorry, my mind, it's age. MR. HANCOCK: In the Golden Gate Area Master Plan under prohibited uses they have the phrase drive-through establishments. And there's been the discussion with this board and the board in the past what that means. And the general definition that we have arrived at is banks are not drive-through establishments because they're specifically allowed. Page 116 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Money's good, food is bad, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Money's good -- well, fast food is bad, and we all agree with that. But the one other allowance we've had so far is pharmacy and drug stores with a single drive-through lane. This body has in the past said that that's not a drive-through establishment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, drugs are good, food is bad. MR. HANCOCK: Well, legal drugs are good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we might have a discussion about that too, but -- MR. HANCOCK: But the point being fast food drive-throughs, the drive-through becomes a very dominant part of the operation. And we've had requests from folks, certainly not the neighbors, but folks in the area say, well, we need more drive-through -- I think you even had it on the Golden Gate/Wilson, you had a woman pleading -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There was a lady, yeah -- MR. HANCOCK: -- for a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- that begged for a McDonald's. MR. HANCOCK: So I think that's why we're eliminating it is because I think in fairness to the neighbors, no matter where we oriented that drive-through, it would be a noxious presence -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You mean lights going, flashing by their homes? MR. HANCOCK: The lights, and quite frankly the speaker box that goes up until the last minute you're operating. And with the hours limited on this, a fast food restaurant, I have yet to have a fast food restaurant agree and go into any site where they have to close by II :00 p.m. So to us it's a moot point. We're not going to get fast food restaurants on the site with a drive-through. Page 11 7 December 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, money, drugs is good, that works, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, got you. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else of the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, since we're on the issue of drive-throughs, on your Page II of your PUD you talk about the drive-through pharmacy. Do you have any problem restricting the drive-through portion of the pharmacy internal to the site? Meaning the drive-throughs always have, in especially in a Walgreen's or any other similar prescription area, they're going to have people conversing with someone behind a window in a loud speaker. And, you know, if you have that internal to the site so that your drive-through is between another building or facing a road if you can meet the architectural criteria -- but I hate to see that drive-through opening up and facing the neighbors next door, because they'll hear every prescription discussion and all the problems of someone's ailments trying to go through their pharmacy. So do you have any problems with limiting the drive-through to an internal exposure to the site? MR. HANCOCK: I -- only from a practical standpoint, and if you'll permit me a brief discussion on it, I may be able to get very comfortable with that. When I look at how, for example, the Walgreen's is oriented on the Snowy Egret CPUD, the drive-through is actually on the side that is next to -- there's residential next to it. That ultimately became a commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's why that happened, yes. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We knew that was going to be -- Page 118 December 3, 2009 anyway. MR. HANCOCK: Typically you're not going to get them in the back, because that's the loading area. So that leaves the two sides that front the roadway. I'm comfortable with it being on those two sides as long as it's not precluded in the architectural design guidelines. As a matter of fact, I think Walgreen's would rather have the kiosk on the side visible to the roadway, because it ends up marketing that service a little bit more. It just has to be shielded with landscaping is my understanding. And if I am incorrect on that, J ohn- David -- MR. MOSS: You are incorrect. MR. HANCOCK: I'm incorrect? MR. MOSS: The architectural code does discourage drive-throughs between a building facade and a roadway. But it does allow them, if you enhance the landscaping, by providing a Type B buffer. And if you also provide a porte-cochere over the drive-through window, it does allow it in that circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the other point I would make is that if you were to put a Walgreen's on the north or south end and then put another building alongside it, you'd still be internal to the site and you'd have that other second building as a buffer internally. So that's kind of why I was asking if you would mind stipulating that. MR. HANCOCK: With what John-David has clarified, we're comfortable stipulating with it. Because it just means -- I mean, we've got a 25-foot buffer out there anyway. Beefing up that buffer and a porte-cochere is going to be required anyway because of where we live and the elements. The one thing I will say, Mr. Strain, is typically if you put a Walgreen's or CVS, I know for a fact there's not enough room for anything else, particularly on this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? Page 119 December 3,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my question, how many square feet is the Walgreen's. MR. HANCOCK: Well, the maximum that we're allowing is 25,000. And I will tell you, that's a bit of a pipe dream, because that assumes you do 100 percent office. Because the parking demand is lower. And that's how we arrived at the 25,000. You cannot physically fit any more than that. If it goes to retail, the number will be below 20,000, because you simply can't fit it in parking. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So the typical Walgreen's is? MR. HANCOCK: Fourteen to 16,000, depending on the exact footprint. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's just what the Chairman was talking about, another building. I was thinking, how are you going to fit another building. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, I know on the Snowy Egret Plaza we've got the Walgreen's, we've got this little tiny postage stamp of green space behind it that you might be able to put a I,500 square foot building on. That's about it. This site is smaller because of the right-of-way issues. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, on Page 11 of your PUD, Item F, do you mind striking that? I can't understand what it's doing here in a PUD. MR. HANCOCK: I believe that was -- that's a bit antiquated. I have no problem striking that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How you get your approvals and you move forward through your process with the neighborhood is something you're more than capable of and more knowledgeable of. I'm not -- I don't see why we should be referencing in a PUD private entities for approval, so, or for review. MR. HANCOCK: We agree, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have anything Page 120 December 3, 2009 else of the applicant before we go -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, below that you reference a five-foot fence wall. What would it be, are you changing that to six? Look in G. MR. HANCOCK: Come to think of it, that's actually in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that the fence shall not exceed five feet, if I'm not mistaken. I would like to put at six-foot fence up next to the neighbors instead of a five-foot fence. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's a new one on me. MR. HANCOCK: And I did not bring my copy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I would like to say that between here and this coming back on your consent, if we can look at that. Ifwe can do a six-foot fence there, I would like to specify a six-foot fence in that location. If the Golden Gate Area Master Plan does not provide for that, then I think we need to add some language that the landscape buffer within one year of planting shall reach a height of six feet so that between the fence and the buffer we get that elevation reached. That's -- again, I'm trying to create that six-foot visual buffer, because, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll check on that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I just need to make sure we're not in violation of the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to ask, looking at what's on the screen right now, behind the house is an open area. I mean, it looks like a parking lot, but I can't imagine that that's what it IS. Right there. Do you know what that is? MR. HANCOCK: I don't. The homeowner is here. But I'm not Page 121 December 3,2009 sure what that is. I do know this area, there was a fire that went through this area not too long ago. But beyond that -- it's obviously not -- I honestly don't know. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the homeowner who lives there is here? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: And whether he speaks or not is entirely up to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, depending on the use, it may be-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Be moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the wall idea may be silly. But anyway, okay, any other questions of the applicant before we go to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, thank you. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Mr. Hancock was very thorough in his presentation. I don't have anything to add, but I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I like the thoroughness of your presentation. Are there any questions of county staff on any of the issues that we have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. Page 122 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience wishing to speak? (No response.) MR. MOSS: Mr. Chairman, if I may put something on the record. I know it's been very well pointed out in the staff report, but I just want to make sure it is clear that normally drive-through pharmacies are not permitted by the subdistrict. But because there has been a precedence for one in the Snowy Egret PUD, the applicant is requesting it. But it is not consistent with the compo plan. I just want to make sure you are aware of that. But of course you're entitled to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And just because we allowed it at Snowy Egret entitles them -- MR. MOSS: That's true, it's not an entitlement. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not an entitlement. Should we make that change? I mean, is there any talk about making a change -- that particular change to the master plan? MR. MOSS: Not that I'm aware. Maybe Ray knows of something. MR. BELLOWS: That is part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, so it would have to go through comprehensive planning to make that change. But we'd have to double check with David. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so there's no reason-- MR. BELLOWS: Not that I know of. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- overwhelming reason? All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this petition? If you do want to speak, please come up to one of the microphones. Sir, come on up and identify yourself to the microphone and then . say your pIece. Page 123 December 3, 2009 DR. MANDELKER: MR. VlXAMER: Good morning. My name is Y onel Vixamer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that for the court reporter, please. MR. VlXAMER: Y-O-N-E-L. V-I-X-A-M-E-R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VlXAMER: Yes, I'm okay with everything that was said, except that my wife is not too comfortable. She's not a -- she doesn't like speaking in public. But she's not too comfortable with the hour of II :00 p.m. That's the only concern that we have now. Because we have four small children that we are raising right next to the development. That's the only concern that we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll certainly bring that up to the applicant. Sir, before you leave, do you own the house directly next door? MR. VIXAMER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Way in the back of your home, that apparently is a cleared area. What is that? MR. VlXAMER: I think it's -- that's another house that's all the way in the back. It's the parking of that house in the back. You may not see the house but of course there's a house there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that's on his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's another house behind your house? MR. VlXAMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your property? MR. VlXAMER: Not on my property but right next -- at the end of my property there is another house there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He's on your property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we all can't be talking on the record, so -- Okay . Well, we'll have to -- that's odd. Thank you. Page 124 December 3, 2009 MR. VlXAMER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock? There he is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you calling him back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim? Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I would have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're bringing him back up. Hours of operation. Your reaction, Tim? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Speaking to Mr. Schoeller, I think we can pull that back to 10:00 p.m. without precluding something like a drug store. Because if I'm not mistaken, Snowy Egret closes at 10:00 p.m., the Walgreen's there. So I just mentioned it to the applicant's wife, and we'd happy to put IO:OO p.m. as our hours of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what time in the morning was that, 6:00? MR. HANCOCK: Well, she's got young kids and if they're anything like mine, you know, 6:00 a.m. is -- we'd like to leave it at 6:00 a.m. but limit the evening hours to 10:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Tim, do you happen to know whether there are any Walgreen's that will build if they don't have an outside drive-through? Someone testified once before here about that and I just wondered. MR. HANCOCK: Let me let Mr. Schoeller, since he's the one that's had discussions directly with Walgreen's on a previous project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do remember something about it. MR. HANCOCK: And Mr. Schoeller was sworn in. MR. SCHOELLER: Mike Schoeller. I did develop that property for Walgreen's, and they will not put a Walgreen's in without a drive-through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I remember that with -- Page 125 December 3,2009 MR. SCHOLLER: That was our big issue and that was even going to be a deal maker or breaker, because they had to have the drive-through for people that couldn't get out that would just drive through and didn't want to. But to set their minds at ease, the way these pieces of property are designed and the way that the master plan has designed them, there's so much of a buffer and so much property between the house and the building, if you go to the Walgreen's and look at it and you stand behind that property, you can hardly even know there's a Walgreen's there. You can hardly even see it. From the road you can't see it very well because of the buffers and everything. And when you go from 5.46 acres down to two net acres, we're losing a lot of land on the sides for development, but it's to preserve the Estates and to preserve the aesthetic value of where we live. I live out there, I've lived out there for 23 years. And I want everybody to be happy around me, I don't want to cause a problem. So when I do these projects, I try to talk to the people and Tim talks to them and we try to make everybody as happy as we can, you know. But yes, Walgreen's or CVS will not build without a drive-through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anyone? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I just noticed that there was another house north of this. I didn't see it from before. And now it makes me wonder where the gentleman lives. Right there, yeah. And I didn't know whether this gentleman lived off of Everglades or off of Golden Gate Boulevard. Not that it makes any difference. MR. HANCOCK: That property is accessed off of Everglades. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The one to the north? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Page 126 December 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at his driveway. MR. HANCOCK: There's a driveway connection -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I meant off of Golden Gate. Yeah, he's off of Everglades, correct. So I -- because I had a question, I was going to bring it on the very end, were there intentions of buying the properties to the north. Now it looks like not, so -- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Mr. Schoeller's bleeding enough as . IS. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one thing you -- in dropping back the hours, does the pharmacy stay open with the drive-through past 10:00 across the street, or -- because a pharmacy drive-through is really a good service to the community. It is no real -- other gain than that. MR. HANCOCK: That was the question I asked of Mr. Schoeller. The one up at Snowy Egret, I believe it is limited to IO:OO p.m. And the building and the pharmacy, they all close down at 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: So I don't think we're precluding a CVS or Walgreen's by having a IO:OO p.m. limitation, particularly if we can leave the operating hours starting at 6:00 a.m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you wouldn't want to push to maybe keep the pharmacy open till 11 :00, or just forget it? MR. HANCOCK: In deference to our neighbors, I think it's not the right thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you have anything? You're complete, you're done? Page 127 December 3, 2009 MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. If there are questions on all the background we supplied for the pharmacy drive-through during the Snowy Egret, I'll be happy to go into that. But I would prefer not to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't open any more doors than you have to at this point. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Then I will quietly step aside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may be asked to put aID-story high-rise in there or something, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. So long as there's parking underneath. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will-- is there anybody else that wishes to speak? If not, we will close the public hearing. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a list of things I'll read for discussion, then we can go from there. If there is a recommendation to approve, the following 11 stipulations I've made a list of. They would add gas stations and fast food drive-throughs as prohibited uses. The Dark Sky language as presented and modified in our discussions would be incorporated in the PUD. They'd clarify the master plan concerning the right-of-way issue. They would move the driveway IO feet in from the property line and buffer it with a wall. The 25-foot buffer on the west side would have a wall presumably of six feet, but that will be something that Tim will research and come back to us with on consent. But whatever the allowed height will be will be the maximum allowed height, not to exceed six feet. The reference to ancillary plants will be struck from the criteria for conditional uses. Page 128 December 3, 2009 The footnote number one -- or the only footnote on Exhibit B will be deleted. The drive -- if there's a drive-through, it will be set up so it's internal to the site. If not, it will be -- meet the other architectural standards in whatever format it will. But the issue here is not to have it exposed to the residential neighborhood. We'll strike Item F on Page 11. Verify that the fence height is five or six feet, I already said that. And the hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Those are the issues that I made notes of while we were discussing it, should someone want to make a motion. Is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have -- has any beside myself a question or concern regarding the essential services issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any, and-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's just as we presented it. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve subject to the stipulations? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to approve subject to the stipulations -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and staff conditions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As you stated and as staffhas stated. Page 129 December 3,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded it. All those-- discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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. And I wish to compliment Mr. Hancock on the way he has handled himself in this affair. It's typical to your style. And Tim, did a good job and you worked very hard with everybody. We appreciate the effort you put forth, so thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you very much. Thank you all for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made the meeting much more pleasant. Okay, we're on to old business. Are (sic) there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we have new business. David -- I think we took care of David's issue in the beginning of the meeting so that has gone away. There is one thing I'd like to mention to staff as something that would be a very good policy for you to institute in the future. When you have neighborhood informational meetings and you have a PUD Page 130 December 3,2009 or a rezone being presented, if you could have handouts or at least in your discussion with the people in the audience, you explain to them the actual uses as stated in our code for the areas that are being modified, I think that would go a long way to help people understand that when someone says it's agricultural, such as residential, they mean it's agricultural with all these myriad of other uses that could possibly be there. And I think we would have a better reaction from the public if the staff went -- took the effort to do that. MR. MOSS: I think you're right. And we've started, as Commissioner Homiak recommended a while ago, listing all of the uses in the PUD, rather than just the general SIC Code. We've listed them individually. So now people can request the PUD and see what they are, for that very same reason. So I think that's an excellent idea. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? And not only for the neighborhood attendees but also for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I agree with you there. Although we have the opportunity ahead of time to do our research and bring that matter -- bring those -- download that material and bring it with us, but that's not -- certainly we could include it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It would be helpful if the staff could do a little of it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, we will also do the same, if someone's rezoning to a standard rezone, such as C-5, we can provide -- make sure that the copies of the C-5 uses are provided at the NIMs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be much more helpful to the public as well, thank you. Any there any other comments, any public comments, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to Page 131 December 3, 2009 adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We're unanimous. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:50 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 132