CCPC Minutes 02/04/2010 R
February 4,2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, February 4,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, CDES
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4,
2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION
OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO
HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA
PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAm MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 2010
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -JANUARY 26, ]O!O
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-PL2009-1304, Barbara Karen Lehmann, Trustee of the Barbara Karen Lehmann
Declaration of Trust dated August 20,1997, represented by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall and Associates,
Inc., is requesting a 97-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in section
5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a I 17-foot dock t'leiIity to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is
located at 27 East Pelican Street, legally described as Lot 31, Isles of Capri No. I, Section 5, Township 52
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
1
B. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, Sembler Family Partnership #42, represented by Robert Mulhere,
AICP of RW A, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of RoetzeI and Andress, requesting a rezoning from
Rural Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as
McMullen MPUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed-use
development. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commcrcial
development. The subject property is generally located one-half mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Extension, the south one-half of the southeast one-quarter of the southwest
one-quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South. Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
C. Petition: PUDZ-A-PL2009-437, Sarecino, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W A, Ine, is
requesting a rezone from Residential Planned U"it Development (RPUD) for a project that was known as
the Triad RPUD, to RPUD to allow development of a maximum of 40 attached single-family independent
living dwelling units and I no assisted living facility units, care units or group housing units in a project to
be known as the Sarecino RPUD. The subject IO.75i acre property is located in the northeastem quadrant
of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Alep)
D. Petition: PUDZ-A-PL2009-734, Radio Lane Development LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau of
RW A, Inc, is requesting a rezoning from Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to RPUD to
allow development of a maximum of 86 units which could he any combination of single-family attached or
multi-family on 10.75", acres for a project currently identified as the MAC RPUD that will be known as the
Totino RPUD. The subjcct property is locatcd on Radio Lane at the northwestem quadrant of thc
intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay DeseIem, AICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
II. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
] 3. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
)/2]/10 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
2
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the February 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'd please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the
roll call.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is
present.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is
absent.
Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
Page 2
February 4,2010
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. Ray, I
think everybody's -- everything staying more or less as noted on here?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I do know that there are
handouts involving some of the cases coming up.
Mr. Nadeau, I believe you may have some handouts for us, and I
think staff may have some. IfMr. Anderson is here, he may have
some.
I'd like to ask that you distribute the handouts early in the
meeting, like now, and then we can read them during our break or
during any slower times, and that would help us be more prepared for
your particular item.
And make sure you give one to the court reporter, please. Thank
you.
MR. NADEAU: Good morning. For the record, Dwight
Nadeau, representing the petitioner.
There were some concerns about the disclosure information --
(At which time, Mr. Wolfley enters the boardroom.)
MR. NADEAU: -- in the two last petitions that are in your
agenda today.
This information was produced by the Ohio attorney yesterday
afternoon. It has been forwarded to county staff, including Assistant
County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Mr. Wolfley is
here -- Commissioner Wolfley.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I don't see Bruce Anderson,
but I know he's got a change coming up to his, but we'll deal with that
Page 3
February 4,2010
during the meeting.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Okay, Planning Commission absences. Next week we have off,
but after that it becomes intense. We have a meeting on the 16th of
February, which is a Tuesday, in this room at 8:30. It will be for the
Immokalee Area Master Plan. It will be the first of two or three
scheduled meetings.
Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on the 16th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks good. Then on the] 8th
is our regular meeting. I don't know how much we've got yet
scheduled for that meeting. But does anybody know if they're not
going to be here on the 18th?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to be late.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney's going to be late.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 7,2010 REGULAR
MEETING
With that, we'll move into the approval of minutes. The set of
minutes that we were distributed were January 7th, 2010. Is there
either a motion to approve or a motion to correct?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
Page 4
February 4,2010
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I would have to abstain, because
I wasn't here that day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak will be abstaining
from the approval of January 7th meeting.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - JANUARY 26, 2010
The BCC reports and recaps, Ray, for January 26th?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners
heard the PUD amendment for the Naples Bath and Tennis. That was
approved by the board 5-0, subject to the CCPC conditions.
The rezone for the Olde Florida Golf Course was continued to
February 23rd.
The sign variance for the Lemetka Plaza, that was the Benderson
project, that was approved on the summary agenda.
And the variance for the Vineyards, that was approved by the
BZA 4-1, opposed. And it was subject to staff conditions, along with
some additional conditions. One was they wanted to -- the roof to be
Page 5
February 4, 2010
painted green. Two, that the residents within the homeowners
association that abutted the maintenance tract has at their request
within 20 days that they request the building be rotated so the doors
face away from their development but the building placed within five
feet of the wall and landscape buffer with additional trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. Thank you, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Don't really have
any this morning. We'll move right into the issues.
Consent agenda items, there are none of those.
Item #9 A
PETITION: BD-PL2009-1304, BARBARA KAREN LEHMANN,
27 EAST PELICAN STREET, ISLES OF CAPRI
And with that, it will take us into the advertised public hearings.
The first one up for today is Petition BD-PL-2009-1304, Barbara
Karen Lehmann, Trustee for Barbara Karen Lehmann Declaration of
Trust on 27 East Pelican Street, and I believe that's in Isles of Capri.
It's for a boat dock extension.
All those wishing to testify on this item, please rise to be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part
of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
Page 6
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Rocky, it's all yours.
MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky
Scofield, representing Barbara Lehmann of27 East Pelican Street in
Isles of Capri.
The property is -- we have it on the overhead? Feel free to read
that handout during my presentation, the other agenda items.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the IT was just in here trying to
adjust all the screens, so maybe something got turned offby accident.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there you go.
MR. SCOFIELD: All right. You know, Ray, I've got a little bit
better one than that.
In Isles of Capri down on the very end is Pelican Street. This is
East Pelican Street. And you can see the lot there is highlighted. It's
located on Snook Bay. For the record, I'm a Cracker, so we say
Snook, okay?
I'm going to -- to start out with, the request -- we need to -- I need
to change this request of the BDE, and I'll give you the background on
it.
When this application was submitted, another staff member of
our office submitted this application and the measurement was taken
from the old property line, the platted property line. And I've
discussed this before in front of this commission that a lot of times
platted property lines don't always line up with actual shorelines,
seawalls, ripraps.
And in this case, as you can see there, the blue line going across
these properties right in the middle, those are the old platted property
lines. And you can see there's a good deal of property between that
blue line and the mean high water line, the shoreline.
Right now, and -- yeah, that's correct. So when this application
was done the staff agent who filled out the application adhering to
what the LDC says, and they always want you to measure from the
Page 7
February 4, 2010
most restrictive point, which in this case would have been the property
line, which is 28 feet landward of the mean high water line, that's
where these measurements were taken from.
So in the packet you got where it says we're applying for a
97-foot boat dock extension for a total of 117 feet, well, the
communication wasn't made in our office. Back in '05 another person
in our office went to the state for Mrs. Lehmann and got the necessary
-- it's called a Certificate of Lands Filled Prior to 1975. And we've
discussed this before. I'll be glad to go into detail, if you want.
But basically what that is, is when you apply for a state permit,
the state looks at that and they see your property line and they kick it
back to you and they say well, you've got to show me who owns that
property between the platted property line and the mean high water
line, because you're not the riparian owner, it means you're not out to
the water.
So what we do is we fill out the application, the Certificate of
Lands Filled Prior to 1975. We show old aerials. We go through the
process. The state comes back to us with a big, long document from
the trustees and they -- what it is, they say we have no title to that
land. The state lays no claim on it. Everything below the mean high
water line the state does claim. But that upland property, they give you
a certificate saying they don't claim.
The owner takes that certificate down to the Clerk of Courts. It's
recorded. And then what you see now, a few years back on this aerial
here on the overhead, now when you bring it up in the Property
Appraiser's Office you'll see the entire lot out to the mean high water
line is in yellow. So now that belongs to the owner. And it's kind of
by default. The state says we have no claim on it. You can kind of
have it. And so that's -- when it's recorded, that's what it is.
So now I have papers which I wi II submit here today. This
request that we're here today for should read it's a 69-foot boat dock
extension for a total of 89 feet.
Page 8
February 4,2010
And this is the drawing on the overhead now showing that. And
I will submit these for the change.
(Handed document.)
MR. SCOFIELD: Now, again, the quick history on this: This--
when Ms. Lehmann bought this property, it was one lot back in '02.
And the dock that you see there on the left side with the boat -- well,
they're both very similar, but the one on the left, that's the one in
question. This was one lot 120 feet on the waterway, had this dock,
boathouse. When she bought the property she immediately applied
and had the lots subdivided into two 60-foot lineal foot lots of
shoreline.
When that happened, this dock was in the middle of the property.
So now the property line, riparian line, split the dock pretty much. So
now to come into conformance that dock has to be removed. The lot
next door's been sold and that one, there'll be a similar boat dock
extension coming before you in the near future for that lot. But that's
the existing conditions right now.
And this is an aerial showing the existing dock. And then in the
purple magenta color there, that's the proposed dock, how it will tit on
this slot. And again, on the lot next to it there will be a similar dock
being proposed there.
You can see on this aerial very clearly where the shallow areas
are and where you have to go out to get into deep enough water to
moor a boat.
This is in the aquatic preserve. We have the DEP and Corps
permits. So the state allows you to go out to minus four feet of water
in the aquatic preserve to moor your boats. And the setbacks here, we
had 15-foot setbacks on each side. We have two boatlifts which the
LDC allows for two slips. And these are the proposed conditions.
This aerial is a comparison which we try to always bring up and
showing you on Snook Bay there all the other docks. Everything's
pretty much similar. The proposed dock that we're here today is not as
Page 9
February 4, 2010
far out as the existing dock that's going to be removed. All of these
docks here are out the similar distance, and most of them longer than
what we're proposing. And you can see the shallow areas in there.
Again, it's in the aquatic preserve. State really will not let us
dredge if we can move the dock out to deep enough water. And so
that's what all these docks show in this area.
So that's -- if anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, one thing, what's the
length the boat's going to be on this site when we're done? It looks
like you've got two lifts. Are we going to exceed the 50 percent?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, we're not sure, but what we're propo --
what Mrs. Lehmann's proposing, one is for a 30-foot boat and the
other one's for a 20. The inside slip is for a 20. And that's what we
put in the application. And then a 30-foot boat on the outside.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the lot width is 60?
MR. SCOFIELD: Is 60.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no --
MR. SCOFIELD: So they can't go any -- you're pretty much
maxed out. You have 15 feet to either side for the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't we have a
requirement, the combined length of 50 percent of the lot width?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's one of the criteria.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. And we stated in our application that
we did not meet that criteria. However, if you read the staff report,
they say the intent of the criteria was met, even though in actuality it
does not meet the 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is,
what do we measure to? Your elevation or section drawings show you
measure to the outside of the pile. The plans are measuring to the
Page 10
February 4,2010
center of the pile. Where should we be measuring, do you think?
MR. SCOFIELD: To the outside.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the drawings that are
the plans -- in other words, you show a setback of 15 feet, but that's
actually to the center of the pile. So will the dock --
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, what they try to -- you know, always,
you know, any structure that's a permanent structure in the water has
to, you know, be within the setbacks. So it would be not the center of
the pile, it would have to be the outside of the pile.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though the way
you show it in the plan -- in other words, you won't go back to this
plan and say but wait, we showed it to the center line. You're
acknowledging that the plan --
MR. SCOFIELD: That's right. You know, and that's just -- and
that's something that's not caught between the CAD person and the
staff person that's making the application. So that -- yes, in actuality
that should be to the outside of that piling.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you'll build it that
way.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is, is the depth
here -- you've shown this a little different than normal. You show us a
zero of the MGBD and then mean high water's a foot and a half above
it, mean low water's half a foot. So some of these depths -- for
example, the outer one has a five-foot depth which essentially would
be a four and a half foot depth at low tide and a six and a half foot
depth at high tide. So the concern is are we able to bring in too big a
boat here or --
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, no. I mean, the aquatic preserve rules
which we're regulated by is minus four feet mean low water at the
state. And that's the furthest extent of the terminal platform of the
dock. You can put a lift outside of that, the state allows that. I think
Page 11
February 4, 2010
it's a bad ruling, but it's something we're stuck with in the state. I
think we should be allowed to go in the deeper water, but they restrict
us to minus four feet and that's low water. So yes, it would be right
around six feet, five and a half feet, high water.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So do you think -- have
you gone too far or are you right at that?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, we're right at -- on the end of the dock
we're right at minus four feet. Because it gets very shallow quickly on
the inside slip.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're at your section AA,
four feet doesn't look like it's at -- well, you have to subtract. Okay,
that's fine, the tolerance is close enough. Forget it, I'm done, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Does the extension we're
talking about this morning differ from what was on the notice?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. That's why I stated earlier that the
notice -- your notice stated, and we're applying for a 97-foot
extension. In actuality it's 69 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Does this present any problem
legally?
MR. SCOFIELD: Not that -- we've done this before. I've
submitted the paperwork this morning for the record, and it's lessening
what we had. But go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams.
Commissioner Kolflat, that is a lesser use, a less intense. It's a
smaller extension than what we noticed. So the notice was actually
for a greater encroachment into the water and I don't have a problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any
questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
Page 12
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, Rocky, and
we'll have staff report.
As part of the staff report, will staff comment on the changes and
whether or not they have any impact on the analysis.
MS. CASERTA: Good morning, Commissioners. Ashley
Caserta, Department of Zoning.
Staff is recommending approval for this dock extension. And I
don't think that the change of request makes much of a difference with
the review. The actual design of the dock is not changing, it's just
where the measurement is being taken from. The mean high water has
not changed, so I don't think that the staff analysis would change at all
with this request.
I don't have any other presentation. If you have any questions,
I'd like to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ashley, you're responsible for
putting all this together, correct?
MS. CASERTA: Sure, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me bring your attention to
the conclusion statements where you make recommendations, and
there are three. And number three speaks again to prohibited exotic
species. This would be the third time that I've asked that it be taken
off. In each case it has been agreed that that doesn't belong there.
Can we have some sense that that will finally be removed from
these petitions?
MS. CASERTA: Number three regarding the exotic species?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. Each time we have
asked that you remove that. The last time the young lady from
environmental has come forward, there is -- we have no activity under
water there that we're concerned with.
MS. CASERTA: It is a standard stipulation from the Land
Page 13
February 4,2010
Development Code and we can remove it from the staff report and
presentation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you guys have said that.
Now this will be the third time. I'd like to see it removed rather than
talking about it. Because it's annoying as hell to see it like this.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any
questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why not?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, the concern I have is
this is a narrow lot and they are putting in more than 50 percent of the
boat, you know, you've noted that.
But if you look at the placement of the outer lift, the concern I
have is that if they do put a big boat on that, it's going to stick into the
setback. In other words, right now it appears the center of the lift isn't
the center of what they're calling as a 30-foot area that they can put a
boat in. So how are we going to make sure this boat's not sitting --
MS. CASERTA: If a vessel were to go in that did encroach into
the setbacks, that would be in violation of this approval. A Code
Enforcement case could be opened and they could be charged with a
violation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I would assume that
the center of the boat would probably sit on the center of the lift. No?
So Rocky, maybe explain that for me.
MR. SCOFIELD: The boatlifts are correctly shown. When you
moor a boat on a lift, generally the cradle beams that go underneath
the boat, the rear -- the one toward the stern of the boat, usually that
cradle beam -- the heaviest part of the boat is near the transom.
Especially with outboard engines. Even inboards.
So if this is the stern of your boat, your lift is usually four to five
feet from the stern of the boat. That's where most of the weight is.
Page 14
February 4, 2010
Most of the boat hangs out over the front cradle beam. So that's how
these lifts -- that's why they're shown this way, they're positioned this
way. The boat will come in from the west -- the boat will come in
from the west, the bow will be to the east.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you.
I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you have one? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm just -- I'm concerned
about the -- your thinking on criterion -- secondary criterion number
three, which very clearly states that it is the length of the vessel or
vessels in combination that cannot exceed 50 percent. And I don't
know where you get the intent to be other than just what is stated in
clear, plain English.
MS. CASERTA: That was something that staff discussed within
our department. And that was our professional opinion, that the intent
was to not have a larger boat, rather then that the two boats in
combination are stacked upon each other wouldn't meet the intent of
the code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's not so, Ashley. The
intent is that it only take up 50 percent of the width. So it wouldn't be
a bigger boat. I mean, you're not -- that's not a logical statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the difference is the literal
interpretation of the ruling is what Ms. Caron's talking about. And the
intent is something I guess if staff has -- would have to go back and
may have researched the way that was formulated in the first place.
I'm not sure -- but the literal statement is what I think Ms. Caron's
focusing on.
MS. CASERTA: I do understand the literal statement. And that
was my first thought when I was reading and looking at this petition.
However -- let's see. Am I on here?
Okay, the two vessels will not be moored length-wise as if they
were moored maybe from here to here and would take up more than
Page 15
February 4,2010
50 percent of the water frontage. Since they're not moored front to
back, they'll be moored side by side and won't be taking up more than
50 percent of the water frontage. They'll still be at exactly 50 percent
if they do the 30-foot vessel, as described.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand what you're
saying. But that clearly is not the intent of the code or it would have
said that. The code is very clear here. And it doesn't affect their
petition, because remember now, we're supposed to be, and we've had
this discussion many times, following these criteria precisely and
exactly.
So now you can't start making changes because you dreamt up an
intent. The code is very clear here. It doesn't change whether or not
you can approve this or not, recommend approval or not, because we
only need two -- four out of the six or something for the secondary
criteria. And there's only one in question. But to make an
interpretation that clearly doesn't match the words on the page seems
to me to be, you know, not the intent of the code.
MS. CASERTA: I did say that it does not meet that criteria, it
was just staffs opinion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, when you are opining
on this, and maybe it's not the view of the property owner, the
applicant, it's the view of his neighbors that could start to get blocked
by multiple boats stacking up on the dock. But it -- you said it's not
met. We play scorecard. It's not going to affect the outcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a transportation question.
Just kidding, John. If you all haven't noticed, John broke his leg, and
it was kind of insinuated in the beginning we ought to ask him up here
Page 16
February 4,2010
every single time for every application. But since Nick -- that's
punishment from Nick, I don't think we need to do that to John
anymore, he's had enough.
With that I'll ask for any -- are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to
speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you. And
we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I recommend motion for
approval -- submittal to the board with motion of approval.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That motion's been made and seconded.
Is (sic) the motion maker and the second accept staff stipulations one
and two and dropping number three, as recommended by Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion on the
motion?
(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.
Page 1 7
February 4,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, SEMBLER FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP #42, MCMULLEN MPUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is Petition
PUDZ-2007-AR-l1320. It's the Sembler Family Partnership No. 42,
known as the McMullen MPUD off 951.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission?
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anderson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke with both Mr. Anderson
and just briefly with Dwight Nadeau on this matter.
And with that, I guess whoever's going to make the presentation,
it's all yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Page 1 8
February 4,2010
Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and
Andress Law Firm on behalf of the applicant.
With me today is Dwight Nadeau, planner with RW A.
This project came before you almost a year ago, and at that time
you asked us to continue it in order to update a market study and to try
to work with representatives of Swamp Buggy Days with respect to
nOise concerns.
Some things have changed since that time. Probably the most
important item that's changed is that residential uses have been
dropped from the application. There have been concerns expressed
about mixing residential uses with businesses that were more geared
for contractors and concerns about compatibility of those two uses
together.
A revised market study was submitted. I think staff does not
agree with everything that is in there. But we have agreed to disagree,
and my client wants to let the free market system operate on its own.
We have worked closely with the Swamp Buggy Days, and we
have agreed to provide a noise disclosure statement in all contracts
that will be placed, and contracts provided to buyers. And the County
Commission is scheduled to consider next Tuesday whether to
authorize the County Attorney to advertise an exemption in the noise
ordinance specifically for Swamp Buggy Days' operations. And let
me state for the record, my client is supportive of that exemption in
the noise ordinance.
Also that has been resolved is the issue of proximity to
Physicians Regional Hospital and the PUD to allow for some medical
office uses. We have an understanding with the comprehensive
planning department that just over three acres of the PUD will be
eligible for medical related office type uses.
And I want to take a moment and explain, there are a couple of
uses that at first glance might seem awfully similar. And those are
uses 19 and 20. Nineteen is health care services, and number 20 is
Page 19
February 4, 2010
health care units or care units. And that includes group housing
assisted living facilities.
The essential difference is that number 19 is for nursing homes,
where nursing is the most important component of that use. An ALF
is different because it is not primarily dependent upon a skilled
nursing care. There may be some, but it's incidental, it's not the
prImary purpose.
Another reason is that under the SIC Code, which dates from
1987, ALF uses are most similar to the uses that are listed in SIC Code
group 8361, and that contains a long list of undesirable uses, such as
alcohol rehabilitation, drug rehabilitation, halfway houses for youth.
And rather than, you know, repeat that SIC Code number and then
exempt everything else that's listed in there, we simply decided to go
with our own more precise definition of what the care units will be,
and it is tied into that definition that's provided in the Land
Development Code.
We're not aware of any opposition to the project and we're
appreciative of the fact that staff is recommending approval.
I'm going to ask Dwight Nadeau to come up here and discuss the
specifics of the site plan and the development standards. And after he
finishes, he and I both will be available to answer any questions.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
my name's Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for R W A and I'm
representing the Sembler Partnership No. 42 this morning.
I'm probably going to be standing in front of you for about six
hours today, so I'm going to change my presentation style and I'm just
going to have a friendly chat with you, layout all of the facts, we'll get
the record straight. I'm not going to really use code citations, we're
just going -- I'm going to explain the project to you.
The subject property being 19.32 acres is at the intersection of
951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. Rattlesnake Hammock extension
would go over and serve the McMullen parcel, which is this portion of
Page 20
February 4,2010
activity center number seven.
Now, the Growth Management Plan has very specific language
that's been written in the FLUE related to land uses. And I wanted to
show you what really is permitted in this portion of the growth
management -- of the activity center number seven.
Oh, boy, I can't read that.
Okay, this is the excerpt from the mixed use activity center
section of the Future Land Use Element. And what it says in here is
that this particular property is to be commercial development,
exclusive of the quarter mile medical use rule. We'll get into that
later.
The permitted uses include personal indoor storage facilities,
mini storages, offices for various contractors, building and trade. And
then that would include engineers, planners, primarily A&E firms.
Now, that 185,000 square feet would apply to both of those land
uses. And there are accessory land uses that are permitted associated
with the A&E, but you can't build a Lowe's because it wouldn't be
accessory to the architectural and engineering firms. Therefore,
there's really a mini storage land use and some offices that are
permitted.
Now, with the understanding that group housing is a permitted
land use within any commercial zone, and this is within an activity
center, this rezoning process is intended to provide for senior housing
opportunities and not be subject to the quarter mile rule that I'll discuss
in a few minutes.
So I'm telling you with complete honesty today -- unfortunately
my client isn't here -- but the project is going to be developed as a
senior living facility. The contract purchaser is going to be purchasing
both the Hammock Park Commerce Center to the east -- to the west,
and the McMullen property for an entire continuing care retirement
community. But it won't have the buy-ins, it's going to have the rental
opportunities in it. So it's not going to be as restrictive as a typical
Page 21
February 4,2010
CCRC.
Now, here's the PUD master plan. And as you can see, the 19.3
acres is effectively surrounded by natural areas. Both properties that
I'm speaking of, but more particularly this McMullen tract, has
received a South Florida Water Management District permit and a
Corps permit. And the preserve boundaries and jurisdictions that are
identified along the northern property reflect those permits.
This portion of the property is within the Hammock Park
Commerce Center PUD. It is all entirely conservation. So there is no
opportunity to cross between the two projects. However, the roadway
will be completed to serve two entrances, as well as to serve future
development in the south.
Now, with regard to the land uses, the entire site could be
developed with CCRC land uses at a floor area ratio of .6. The
medical office -- the medical related land uses are permitted within
this small band here. It provides for adequate opportunity for some
medical office or some medical diagnostic centers. This distance is
roughly a little more than 200 feet and this is just a little bit less than
200 feet. It still remains a viable office parcel, consistent with the
Future Land Use Element.
Now, let me tell you how this boundary is measured. On Page 9
of your comprehensive planning memorandum in your packages, Mr.
Weeks has made a policy decision on how a measurement is to be
made for this quarter mile boundary.
This is the measurement by literal reading of the Future Land
Use Element that we were proposing. And that was to be measuring
the quarter mile or 1,320 feet from this point.
Through Mr. Weeks' policy discussion and extensive discussions
with Mr. Weeks, he did make a policy decision, and that was to make
the point of measurement for the quarter mile to be in this location
with the facilities and services that service the hospital. Even though
these medical offices are in the same tract as the hospital, this is the
Page 22
February 4, 2010
location where Mr. Weeks and our petitioner agreed to measure that
boundary. Therefore, this little swath is what shows up on the PUD
master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dwight, before you go too much farther,
do you believe your application and the use that you intend, which is
the CCRC, is dependent on needing any of it classified within a
quarter mile of the medical facilities?
MR. NADEAU: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are you going into all this?
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. If it's not something
that you're concerned about and you don't seem to be objecting to the
MR. NADEAU: No, not at all--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staffs conditions, I was wondering--
MR. NADEAU: -- I just wanted to make -- I wanted to make the
record clear so everyone can know how we got to this point. Because
our prior measurement was giving us a recommendation of denial, so
that's all. I'm just showing you what has happened working with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had a question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Hi, Dwight. Are you
saying that it's an absolute that there will be an ALF, that's what you're
going for and only that? What happens if it doesn't entirely happen, is
this an alternative?
MR. NADEAU: No, it's not necessarily going to be an ALF.
There is a contract purchaser, but we need to retain the opportunities
that are provided for through the Future Land Use Element in this
language.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is --
MR. NADEAU: So we could have a mini storage.
I'm sorry to interrupt, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right, I interrupted
Page 23
February 4,2010
you. I apologize.
So what I think you're saying to me is the possibility, although
perhaps remote, still exists that you might want to use that 3.16 acres
or some part of it for medical offices.
MR. NADEAU: That's very true. Ifas a part of the continuing
care the senior housing development chooses to need to have maybe
20 or 30,000 square feet of medical office, it could easily be located
there. But the senior housing is not dependent upon the offset.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that, but I thought I
would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, but the point I was trying to
make is that they don't seem to be disputing the need for the 3.16 acres
and the result that staff came to. So I don't know why we want to get
into a debate on that. And I was going to try to save you some time in
your presentation if you just work on the issues that are more relevant
that we're going to really be needing to work on, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: If! may, because I don't want to get into
this issue of four years ago when we can hammer it down now.
So are you willing to accept staffs viewpoint as shown in the
monitor up there?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, thank you.
MR. NADEAU: I would like to try and ask for some
clarification from staff on the PUD exhibits. On that permitted land
use -- on that permitted land use 19, these are health services, skilled
nursing care. I want to show you -- I want to show you from the SIC
Code what these particular land uses permit.
This is where the majority of all of the senior care is provided
for. There is another category, 8631, where it does have
rehabilitation, you know, alcohol/drug dependency shelters and those
sorts of things that mayor may not be found to be undesirable for this
particular piece of property.
Page 24
February 4,2010
And this is the reason why we have a permitted land use 19 that
has the specifics of these land uses. But as a catchall we're getting the
senior housing in 20, as Bruce explained.
Now, I think we had some discussion about changes -- or looking
at the stipulation for building the bridge across 95 I .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, when I had asked for
handouts earlier, Bruce wasn't here. Bruce does have a handout that
might clarify that bridge issue for the paragraph that is in question,
Exhibit E. And--
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we have worked with transportation
staff and the County Attorney's Office to delete paragraph AA on
Exhibit E and replacing it with the following language. Quote, no
building permits shall be issued for this McMullen PUD until the
bridge/canal crossing described in Section 5.5.L of Ordinance 07-30.
The Hammock Park Commerce Center PUD is constructed as depicted
in figure one below. End of quote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Dwight, that may help explain
the bridge issue. And when we get to questions, I'm sure if we need
more clarification. But that basically wipes out that entire paragraph
with the replacement that Bruce --
MR. NADEAU: Indeed it does, yes, Commissioner.
Mr. Anderson's already gone over issues related to the Swamp
Buggy, and I don't have any further presentation materials for you, so
I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I sure will try to help you with
questions.
So does anybody want to start?
Ms. Homiak. I'm sorry. Boy, I'm messing up last names today.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In Exhibit A, number 20.
MR. NADEAU: A.20, yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That you're specifically wording
to leave out the SIC codes.
Page 25
February 4,2010
MR. NADEAU: Yes, we were. We were working--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So are you using -- and you're
including care units only including -- and you're including group
housing and group housing facilities?
MR. NADEAU: Assisted, yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, and the definition of that
in our Land Development Code includes drug rehab, homeless
shelters, halfway houses, all the things that are undesirable to a lot of
people in the community. And that I was -- thought that its specific
SIC Code, leaving it out was supposed to alleviate those types of
things.
And if you're looking for assisted living facilities, then nursing
homes and independent living, why don't you just say that?
MR. NADEAU: Well, these two particular land uses were re-
crafted about five times. We've been working with the County
Attorney's Office. If it meets the pleasure of the Commission, I may
defer to Ms. -- to Heidi to assist with the explanation of this.
Ifwe need to remove the term care unit, we can. We just want to
ensure that we get the senior housing opportunity, the ALF, the
independent, the continuing care, so we can provide for the current
contract purchaser.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant
County Attorney.
I didn't work on this particular project, but I would refer you to
the Sarecino PUD, where the way we handled that issue is we
specifically excluded certain uses. And I can pull that language from
my file and read that into the record, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just -- Karen, the language she's
going to pull up is on the second project we have to discuss today.
Page 26
February 4,2010
And it's on number -- it's on Page 1 of 10 of -- on Exhibit A. So if you
want to look at it, it reads the following: Health services including but
not limited to skilled nursing care facilities, groups 8051 through 8059
and care units, only including group housing, group housing facilities,
assisted living facilities, independent living facilities, continuing care
retirement communities and nursing homes, all for persons over age
55 and excluding mental, emotional or alcoholic and drug addiction
rehabilitation. That is the language they use there, and it maybe more
meets some of the concerns you have.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For consistency we could add that
language at the end, if that's your desire.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's a -- Karen, do you
think that -- I think that covers the issues you're bringing up, does it,
from your review?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think so. But it doesn't cover
homeless shelters or defender halfway houses. There's a whole list of
things under group care facility, which I'm assuming -- it's a different
wording but it says group housing facilities. It's not even the same
definition of a house, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, that's a good point. And
whatever we find to resolve this, we ought to make sure that we carry
it over on those other projects. Because while this one is in an activity
center, those other ones are in residential areas, makes it even more
concerning. So--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We'll expand the exclusions, if that's
your desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that would be a good
move. Okay.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Does that mean that there will
be group housing there or not?
Page 27
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be group housing, but we're
going to be excluding soup kitchen -- I mean homeless shelters and
things like that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I may be naive here,
but wouldn't this be an excellent location for those things? It isn't in
the middle -- it's in the middle of commercial areas. Why are we
excluding those things? I know people don't want them in their
backyard, but society needs them.
MR. NADEAU: Well, society does need them, but we're also in
a political process and we received a letter from the Naples Lakes
owners, it mayor may not be in your package, and there was a list of
obnoxious uses to them. We excluded those uses for several reasons:
One, watching the Board of County Commissioners in various
adoptions; and also the letter that came from someone anonymously
from Sherwood Park -- I'm sorry, from Naples Lakes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Naples Lakes is across
951?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that we might want to
remember is right next door -- I should say within one tract of this
facility is the -- what's the name of that great big place that's a
homeless shelter out there? Reverend Mallory owns.
MR. NADEAU: First Assembly of God?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First Assembly of God, yeah. That's a
rather large homeless facility right next door to this project. So I'm
not sure that we haven't already met maybe the need that would be in
that area by that larger facility that's there taking care of it now, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The homeless needs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
Page 28
February 4, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there are -- anyway, I don't
want to hang on the point, I just want you to tell me out loud why you
don't want them. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on questions from Mr.
Nadeau. Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know you -- this becomes
somewhat moot when the owner does own the parcel next door. But
could you put interconnection in case these two parcels are split up
and sold and developed commercially between the one to the west?
Would that be all right?
MR. NADEAU: Well, the connection between the two projects
are going to have to be the Rattlesnake Hammock extension, because
the easterly 80 feet of the Hammock Park Commerce Center is in a
conservation designation with the Water Management District and
Corps. So we can't physically cross it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There would never be a way to
go through it, okay.
MR. NADEAU: Well, we could open up the permits and try, but
we just got the permits.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you do develop this
together, people, staff and everybody's going to be running out onto
Rattlesnake and going around that?
MR. NADEAU: Potentially the client can help me. Mr. Tom
Hareas is in the chambers with us. I don't believe that he's been
sworn, but he may be able to give you an idea.
But I can tell you right now, we're constricted from providing
interconnection east to west.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any
questions?
Page 29
February 4, 2010
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to get back to this
concept, if you put an ALF facility on this property, it's probably a
very good use of the piece of property. However, it does back up to
the Swamp Buggy facility.
How are you going to monitor this letter that supposedly is going
to solve all the noise issues? Because while we don't technically
qualify ALF units as residential, people live there 24/7. Why should
their rights be any less than had you put a multi-family development
up there?
MR. NADEAU: Of course. Commissioner, we've attacked this
on actually two fronts. We've been assisting Swamp Buggy Days to
try and get their noise ordinance exemption.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which allows them to be as loud
as they are today.
MR. NADEAU: Which allows them to be as loud as they want
to be. And any complaints would be non-actionable.
In addition to that, we have provided for full disclosure of the
Swamp Buggy facility in any contract documents or lease documents
that would be offered to potential residents of the senior housing
facility .
In addition to that, we are -- while staff has removed the
condition, we are going to include sound attenuation measures in the
construction of the buildings such that the -- there would be a
3S-decibel reduction from the ambient noise outside the building.
I understand from staff in discussions yesterday that someone
was actually out with a dosimeter listening to the Swamp Buggy races
this past weekend, and they determined that the sound levels were
within the acceptable limits as provided by the current noise
ordinance.
So with all of that, we feel that we have ameliorated any
concerns related to this Swamp Buggy noise and compatibility issue.
Page 30
February 4, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where in the documents does it
say you're going to do that sound attenuation?
MR. NADEAU: It would be added to the document. I'm
bringing this up to you today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was in the old, but--
MR. NADEAU: It was in the old, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it got taken out of here, so--
MR. NADEAU: But you'll find in the supplemental staff report
that Nancy's gone through and identified all of those old stipulations
and the reason why she has had them stricken.
Weare willing to take that noise attenuation construction matter
on our own, so we will accept that condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: You can go ahead for right now,
because I'm going to start coughing again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many days a year are the
Swamp Buggy races?
MR. NADEAU: It's three days a year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Six.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, twice a year but three
days --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR. NADEAU: Well, it's six days, yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we're talking about six days.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there any other activity there
that would break any kind of sound barrier?
MR. NADEAU: Probably not that noisy. They may have some
dirt track races and they do have rave parties on the weekends, but --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because this whole discussion
reminds me of somebody that moves in next to an airport and then
Page 3 1
February 4,2010
three years later screams about the noise.
MR. NADEAU: It does somewhat, doesn't it, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. For six days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve?
MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams.
Just to be clear on Mr. Nadeau's comments, just because someone
is compliant with our ambient noise readings and our statute, I only
have to mention the two favorite words of the county to point out what
a problem that can continue to be, in Stevie Tomatoes. We have never
found them in violation of the ambient noise or noise readings or
anything else, but it certainly does not lessen the complaints we
receive to date on a daily basis.
So just to be clear, because the noise readings are okay and they
were okay during Swamp Buggy this weekend does not mean it will
not adversely affect the residents within it. So I just wanted to be
clear.
The readings may be fine, but that doesn't mean that you're not
hearing it and the bass or whatever else isn't traveling through the
walls and into the ALF.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And my point is further
made in that what happens out there today is not necessarily the only
thing that can happen out there. They're not limited to six days a year
or whatever.
And beyond that we do know, we've had these issues. And we're
talking about a very vulnerable population that can't -- you know, can't
get up and move in a lot of cases. So they're stuck if they move in
there and that becomes an issue for somebody who didn't see the slip
of paper on the bottom of the 87 forms that you have to fill out first for
Medicare. So I think it's important.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you check the noise level and it
doesn't surpass the limits in the noise ordinance, then why are you
Page 32
February 4,2010
trying to offer some kind of an exemption?
MR. ANDERSON: We're not offering an exemption, we're just
supporting one that was requested by Swamp Buggy.
COMMISSIONER MIONEY: Well, if the noise is not
surpassing that, why is it necessary?
MR. ANDERSON : You need to ask them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, are --I'm sorry, do you
represent Swamp Buggy, sir?
MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine, go ahead.
MR. JOHNS: For the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in?
MR. JOHNS: Yes, you did.
My name's Randy Johns, for the record.
We've had -- this noise thing has come up several times. And in
the old racetrack, the noise became a problem. Whether it exceeded
the noise limits or not, there were so many complaints came that the
commissioners decided to move us out to where we are right now.
And I know and you know if enough people come and complain,
you're going to have to react. We're trying to get an exemption from
it, just like you have for the airport, just like you have for the drag
strip over in Immokalee. We want to be protected. We're not here to
try to stop these guys from going forward, we just don't want to be ran
out from where we're at.
So we have on -- I think it's on February 9th we're going in front
of the board. Jeff Wright from the County Attorney's Office has
drafted a noise exemption. And we're going for a recommendation of
approval or to be -- to go forward with it, I should say -- to advertise it
and to try to get an approval.
So based on us getting the approval, we have no problem with
these guys going forward. Ifwe don't get this, we need to work out
some deal that the Swamp Buggy is protected that we don't have to
Page 33
February 4,2010
move.
COMMISSIONER MIONEY: Yeah, I mean, I support the
project, and I don't think that they are surpassing the noise level and I
don't see why they need to go and get an extra piece of legislation
about this if they're not surpassing the noise level. But I guess if they
want to do that to protect themselves, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's a -- you've got to look
at the size of the Swamp Buggy grounds facility. It runs north to
south. They're currently on the far north end. This facility at
McMullen and the rest of the potential facilities that could be built on
the south end don't have the same exposure to what's on the north end
right now. That does not limit Swamp Buggy from moving or
expanding to the south end some day. If they do, that level of noise
might get more intense closer to areas that might object to it. And I
think that they're smart going forward with this exemption, because
it's cautionary and it's probably a good move.
That however doesn't mitigate what could happen to the people
living in this project. A lot of people don't read that fine print that
comes with all their hundreds of pages of documents when they move
into a place. And Swamp Buggy themselves will be covered by what
they're proposing to do. I think it's the duty of this board to make sure
that the future people who occupy this facility at McMullen are
equally covered, regardless of what Swamp Buggy does to cover
themselves. So that's everything in a nutshell.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, my opinion on this
matter is Swamp Buggy's been there for years, they've been there first.
And as we talked about the analogy of people moving in next to an
airport and complaining, I don't know -- I definitely wouldn't be able
to approve this today until I knew that they got their exemption. So I
don't know how legal-- how any of the board members feel, but I
wouldn't be voting for approval until they got their exemption.
Page 34
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully before the day's over
we can see what other issues we can address to make that happen.
Mr. Murray and then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this Commission may
recall that I tried mightily to have Mr. Wright, the Assistant County
Attorney, to include the Swamp Buggy as the same exemption that
was given to Immokalee's trade port for their racing. Now we're going
to have an exemption, perhaps.
I have, and my wife have sold tickets at the Swamp Buggy for
the last seven years. And on Saturdays the racing begins somewhere
and it's time trials, it's very intermittent. It begins somewhere around
12:30,1:00, can end, as it did this last weekend, at 2:00 or it could be
4:00. Very intermittent. The sound -- I sell tickets, I can hear the
noise, it's not that terrible.
On the next day of Sunday racing, they have races and it's
essentially the same thing. A little more intense but not bad.
And I'm fully in agreement with Commissioner Caron that we
have to protect the people who are going to move in there. On Page 3
of 5 where the staff has indicated that will be -- shall be designed and
constructed to a soundproof -- to be soundproofed with a sound level
reduction of 35 from I guess ambient. I'm not sure what that number
should be.
But I can tell you this: The Swamp Buggy is not a for profit
operation like Stevie Tomatoes and it does good things. It provides
lots of money for lots of folks in the community. So I would be really
upset to think that we would encumber an organization that has been
successful and effective, and that alternatives are possible through
building and design. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any more you
want to add?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just to say that I think
everybody's in favor of what the Swamp Buggy people are doing and
Page 35
February 4,2010
their business. They've been there forever. They're part of the
character of Naples.
Our job is to take this petitioner and make sure that he protects
what he puts on his property. It has nothing to do with Swamp Buggy.
Great, I hope you get your exemption. You were forced to move out
there in the beginning to solve a noise issue.
So the only point here is that these people who are going to come
in and if they move in an assisted living facility, we should require
them to protect those people that move in there from the potential
nOIse --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- hazards. And that was my only
point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any other questions?
Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In connection with what Ms. Caron has
just stated, Mr. Klatzkow has requested an additional developer
commitment from the applicant, and they've agreed to add language
that would indicate that within 120 days of PUD approval that they
will record a notice of proximity to the Swamp Buggy grounds and
make reference to the noise that's generated. And that will be
recorded against the entire development. We'll attach the legal
description so it will show up on any title commitment that is issued in
connection with a sale of any real estate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Didn't -- I think the petitioner
said that this is a rental instead of an ownership issue. They're not
going to be selling units, they're going to be renting them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you move the mic a little closer
Page 36
February 4, 2010
to you?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So I'm afraid that they wouldn't
see that title issue.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, you'll have two protections: One
is the notification that's already in there that they have to give to any
prospective resident, and then you'll have the second layer, which will
be something that's recorded that would be pulled up if a tenant
wanted to check the encumbrances or check the -- or in the event of a
sale. So it would protect both the retirement community as well as the
commercial property.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, did you have something?
MR. ANDERSON: And I just wanted to reiterate about the
sound attenuation, because that's going to be part of the building.
We'll reinsert that old stipulation. And I hope that between that and
the two forms of disclosure that that will be sufficient to assuage any
fears.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe.
MR. ANDERSON: I said I hoped.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not sure who's going to want
to answer this on the applicant's side, but let's start with Exhibit A.
And it would be Page 2 under B, accessories, numbers two and three.
One is that they're both pertaining to uses accessory to what
would presumably be office space.
In the prior PUD application they were limited because of some I
believe comments from staff in comprehensive planning that they be
limited to 5,000 square feet. In this particular PUD application they're
not limited. Can anybody explain why?
MR. NADEAU: Through the various iterations of the document,
Page 37
February 4,2010
in the process that limitation may have just fallen out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have no objection to adding the
MR. NADEAU: None at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- limitation back in?
MR. NADEAU: None at all. And that's going to be for two and
three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
On the next page, under Exhibit B, Page 1, under care unit
intensity it talks about an FAR of .60 which has been customarily
accepted by this board for many other particular cases.
But you have no ratio of reduction between the square footage of
care facility and the maximum commercial. So under this scenario
you could consolidate all the FAR at .60 on a section of that property
and still try to fit in 185,000 square foot of commercial. I'm not sure
that was the intent -- the understanding at the time of the GMP
amendment.
I certainly would think we need a conversion ratio of so many
units of care unit intensity to commercial square footage reduction.
Have you -- staff was supposed to let you know of that concern.
I'm sure they did. Do you have a response to it?
MR. NADEAU: Well, in actuality, speaking with W.T. Bowman
of Tindale-Oliver last evening, we did a trip generation analysis to
take a look at if we did take 185,000 square feet of the permitted land
uses, that being half of that mini storage, half of that 185,000 being in
professional office, with the addition of the proposed senior living, our
trip generations are substantially less than what the maximum are that
are identified in our document.
So I guess the answer to your question is that yes, we would not
be able to have the .6 floor area ratio on those lands that would be
identified for medical office. But there is the possibility that all 19
acres could go for senior living and use that .6 FAR.
Page 38
February 4, 2010
So no, we do not have a conversion. And if you'd like to discuss
a little bit of that with Mr. Bowman, he's here to maybe offer some
commentary .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're making an assumption that my
concern is over transportation. My concern has nothing to do with
transportation.
My point is you're asking for too much intensity on that parcel,
and I don't believe that -- had we known during the GMP amendment
process that you intended to use a .60 FAR for care facilities on there,
as well as in addition to and on top of the 185,000 square feet in
commercial, you may have had a different outcome on your Growth
Management Plan amendment.
So I'm asking you if you're going to consider a conversion. It
will certainly have bearing on whether -- how I decide to vote on this.
It is strictly up to you guys. You had time to consider it before today's
meeting. It's your call.
MR. NADEAU: Perhaps we could come back to that while we
have our expert take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be a break before I get
done anyway, so yeah, that will be fine.
Under the transportation issues, Bruce, do you have a typed
handout for that language you want to have changed? Or could you at
least put it on the overhead so we could read it? I know you read it
into the record, but it's hard to remember.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, my only copy I had to give to staff, so
if you'll display it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is it the one that you sent around
last night? That you sent back to staff last night, has that changed
any?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes -- no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the intent of this was to get
the county out of the middle of the financial part of funding this
Page 39
February 4, 2010
bridge. Is the county satisfied this is done?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the big kahuna is nodding his
head yes. Okay.
Then the way this would happen is some private entities would
have to come together, get that bridge built for this project to get any
building applications.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that include an SOP?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
They could get an SDP ahead of that, but they would not get the
building application permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was my concern.
The building of a bridge that's built will be the first phase that's
shown on Exhibit E?
And Nick, I'm directing the questions to you because when you
broke John's leg, I didn't want to see him have to hobble up here on
top ofthat suffering as well. And I'm sure you have just as much
familiarity with it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's hobbling.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's got an exhibit. Let me grab the
exhibit from him, it shows the complete bridge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was where I was going.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, while we're waiting for John
to come forward, I just wanted to note that if the parties didn't come
together and come up with an agreement for the fair share, this
property owner would not be able to go forward until that bridge is
built, so that means he'd have to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
CHAI RMA N STRAIN: It's just got to get bui lt one way or
another before a building permit --
Page 40
February 4,2010
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue. Understand.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can tell us that Nick really didn't
break your leg, we know that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's what happens when you
disagree with the boss.
All right, you're going to see today two exhibits here that have
been provided by Sembler. And the first one that you're going to look
at right here is the -- what's discussed in the Hammock Park PUD as
far as the Section 5.5.L that was discussed. This is actually the north
half of the ultimate bridge design that has to go in there.
This is the replacement bridge for the culvert bridge that exists
there today, okay?
This is now the exhibit that's shown as the ultimate future design
for the bridge, which is also going to be dependent upon that what is
called Hacienda Lakes development, coming into the south of
McMullen PUD and Hammock Park PUD. All ofthem are going to
need to be participants in the ultimate bridge design.
But the first two PUDs, McMullen PUD and Hammock Park
PUD, are participants in -- if you'd go back to Exhibit 1 -- in this
exhibit because of the right-of-way constraints that are there today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you foresee any possibility that the
county would end up being responsible to expand this bridge once the
first phase is put in as required by this document here?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this time, no, we do not. We're
trying to structure that so that it's only the adjacent landowners that are
benefiting from this bridge that are responsible to widen it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the county need to have
Page 41
February 4, 2010
some kind of oversight in the planning and design of this bridge so
that it's easily expandable? There are some bridge systems between
flat decks and pre-cast and con/spans that aren't -- that may not be as
economically expandable as another one could put in. How's that
being handled? Because there's no language to offer a review process
for that at this point. Or is that automatically done?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You're going down the right track.
We've been through this with Sembler for what, it's been a year and a
half now or so? About a year and a half in planning this bridge and
coordinating it with the intersection design.
It's been coordinated with the 951 widening and the Rattlesnake
connection to that intersection. So we've really worked with Sembler
and RW A, and Banks Engineering I know is also involved in this, so
-- we've worked with them to have them incorporate our design, and
we're happy with it so far.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your design is for the traffic
movements, the lanes and all that. The physical structure of the
bridge, is that being addressed by county to make sure it will be
expandable?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we will get seen at the
right-of-way permit phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By then it's all designed.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you provided information to
anybody about the design that's preferred for expandability?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point no, because we're
looking at the applicants to find the most economical design that they
can put in there that will be approved as well in our right-of-way
permit.
This is also subject to a Big Cypress Basin right-of-way permit,
which does have some certain criteria on what kind of bridge can be
built here. I believe this is a -- you can use box culverts in this area
Page 42
February 4, 2010
with special permission, and I believe there's a minimum design low
member elevation that has to be met, which I believe they have sought
a waiver from South Florida Water Management District on that low
member design.
So there's a lot of effort and expenditure that's been put into the
design process on behalf of the applicant that the county didn't have to
spend on, so we're really happy with the contributions that are being
made toward the design of this bridge and the ultimate construction of
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're standing, and I
know it's probably -- I hope it's not painful for you.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A-I talks about a c.A.T. bus shelter that
will be going in this location.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the developer shall make
payment in lieu at the time of development order application.
It's nicer if we know values so that the payment doesn't become a
disputed issue down the road. So do you have a value that is used
standardly that we could put in there instead of the reference like --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We do, but the value is relatively
old. The value that I last had was around 25,000, and that was
probably two years ago. So I have yet to get an updated value on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the value the responsibility 100
percent for this particular project?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So maybe if -- with the
developer shall make payment in lieu at the time of development order
application for 100 percent of the design in construction cost, I'd
rather, so there's no dispute as to how much they're contributing, and
whatever that design and construction cost is, they'll end up having to
cover it then.
Page 43
February 4,2010
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The county's okay with that, if the
applicant has no objection. And we can work out the value between
now and the time that this goes to I guess consent on the Planning
Commission's consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the applicant.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Any objection to that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce is nodding his head that he has no
objection.
MR. ANDERSON: Just let the record reflect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard it. Thank you, Bruce.
The -- that's it out of that document.
In the original PUD that came to us about a year ago, besides the
SL, sound level, reduction building envelope of 35 that was required,
there was another sound issue, and I'll read it. It was staff
recommendation number four. The owner or its assessors and assigns
shall construct a berm and sound wall totaling 12 feet in height along
the property boundary adjacent to Swamp Buggy grounds no later
than when the residential development or care unit development
receives its first C.O.
Now, as far as staff goes, the staff person involved in this, I'm
assuming that this sentence was put in here to protect members of the
public who would be buying in this facility, while I also understand
there's a need to make sure Swamp Buggy grounds doesn't have any
problems.
The fact that they're off the hook or they will be off the hook
doesn't alleviate the protection of the public. Is there a reason why
you wouldn't have re-recommended item number four to be included
in this new PUD?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of
Zoning.
And Commissioner Strain, the reason that the wall and berm
Page 44
February 4, 2010
combination was removed was because at the time that was written we
had a residential component to the PUD. I removed it once the
residential component was removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your stipulation back then
said the following: No later when the residential development or care
unit development receives.
So it seemed to me that you were concerned about the care unit
development as well. And why did you -- why are you not concerned
about it now?
MS. GUNDLACH: The information's always changing and
evolving. And at that time that that was written, and that was about a
month ago, I had sent out a code enforcement investigator to do some
sound readings at the October Swamp Buggy event. And he had
reported back to me that the readings were well within the confines of
the noise ordinance.
And also, since then we had approved a PUD that is catty-corner,
it's at the northeast corner of McMullen PUD, it's called Good Turn
PUD. And that has an adult congregant living facility component as
well. And there are no soundproofing or berms required in that PUD,
so I was trying to be consistent.
However, I've heard a lot of testimony this morning and had
some conversations yesterday, and I would certainly support the
12-foot combination wal1/berm combination, if that's what the
Commission would like to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I was going to suggest that.
Also, I keep hearing it was a residential component. Now it's
assisted living facility where people and residences are going to live.
So why do we switch back and forth? People are going to live there.
So I definitely suggest keeping the wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
Page 45
February 4,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just while we're on that issue,
these are multi-story buildings. The 12- foot berm's not going to help a
50-foot tall zoned building. I mean, these people are going to be in the
upper floors. I think if we want to protect them, let's protect them
with construction. The berm is going to protect the parking lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the height requirement? Do you
remember -- well, I'll pull up the --
MS. GUNDLACH: I could tell you that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're at 50 feet with actual 62.
So yeah, 12 feet's only going to cover the parking deck.
And I'm not for being impractical, but I wanted the record to be
clear on where staffs reasoning was in the change between the two
recommendations. I think it's -- after we go on further here today,
we'll probably have more discussion on the matter.
And it's getting close to break time, I'm at a point where I can
break on my questions for just -- I haven't got that many more, so why
don't we come back at 10: 15 and resume.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from
the break. Let's try to move forward with the remainder of the
questions of the applicant.
Somebody from the applicant needs to come up to the
microphone.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the things I think that would be
important to clear up today, since you've accepted the staff positioning
of the medical acreage, 3. whatever acres it is, exactly what uses you
believe are limited to that section of the -- not limited. What uses can
only -- have to go on that section of the property? Are there any uses
that you're asking for that you feel need -- that have got to go in that
medical area so that there's no dispute with staff over what can go in
there and what can't in the future?
Page 46
February 4, 2010
MR. NADEAU: It's 19--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Principally the concern is to allow ALF and
just medical office uses. If there's a concern about a particular use --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now I believe you all think
that number A.2, A.9, A.l6, 17, 19,21 are limited to that quarter mile
radius. Is that what you're believing?
So if you build an ACLF, are you telling us that you're going to
have the skilled nursing care facility located in that radius area? And
if you're not, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I want everybody to
acknowledge that here today so we don't have a fight going down the
road.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, the three acres is the limiting factor.
Anything can go related to the ALF on all 19 acres. It's just the three
acres that there are going to be limitations as to medical or some other
-- a medical office use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you could turn to Exhibit
A and look at number 19. You see the -- do you see the double
asterisks over on the next page, Page 2? It says, these uses are
permitted under the GMP as support medical uses and are only
permitted within the boundary of a quarter mile offset from the
hospital to the south as depicted on Exhibit C.
So how -- if you're going to build an ALF, are you then saying
that those services can be spread throughout the property? Is that
what your assumption is?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, an ALF could.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that
staff is in agreement with that. And David, you're the closest staff
person. Is that going to be a problem or is that acceptable?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive
Planning Section.
And yes, staff is in agreement with the uses listed on Exhibit A
Page 47
February 4, 2010
that are indicated as support medical uses.
Or to state it differently, staff also agrees that the item number
20, which are care units, group housing, so on, which includes assisted
living facility, staff agrees that that is not limited to the support
medical office portion of the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about No. 19, the skilled nursing
care facilities that would be part of the CCRC or ALF?
MR. WEEKS: Struggling with that one a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is the time to get it on the
table.
MR. WEEKS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's resolve it today.
MR. WEEKS: The applicant has identified it as a use limited to
the support medical portion of the site. It does -- there's three SIC
codes there in that grouping and they're all nursing care facilities that
require skilled nursing on-site.
And I'm still struggling with trying to distinguish that from
nursing home which is listed under number 20, which is not restricted
to the support medical area. And my understanding of a nursing
home, I'm struggling to understand the difference. Because a nursing
home does also by nature have skilled nurses on-site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: So if anything I think I would go ahead and make
the decision that number 19 does not have to be limited. I just don't
think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the premise it's accessory or part of
the use ofa bona fide CCRC or ALF. But ifit was a skilled nursing
facility only to support the hospital, it would have to be limited. Is
that a fair way to look at it?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, I would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that number 19, when it
comes back for consent, we ought to clean the language up, because
Page 48
February 4, 2010
I'd hate to see it become a problem when you actually came in for
your SDPs and we had a dispute over what it meant at that time. Let's
just get it resolved on the consent agenda.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I just want to -- should
perhaps that be broken into two separate numbers so that health
services -- and I'm not sure now what is covered under that category --
would have to be limited, but skilled nursing facilities would not have
to be limited? Is that what we're trying to achieve? And could we do
that simply by doing 19 and 19.A?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think whatever way you do it, you
know what the clarification is and --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, just the number, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: That's a good suggestion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One would have a double
asterisk and one would not, and the one that would not would be
provided that it's part of a ACLF or CCRC.
Okay, I don't have any other questions at this time of the
applicant, but I would like to know what the conversion ratio is being
as a proposal.
MR. ANDERSON: The W.H. is for warehouse. Immediately
under that, that's a G.O. for general office. And then under that is
M.O. for medical office. And that conversion factor is 1,000 square
feet equals one dwelling unit, one room.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for every room ofCCR -- for
anyone of the -- by the way, you used dwelling unit and I'm
concerned about that, because not all the units inside a ACLF or
CCRC may be considered dwelling unit.
But for every unit within an ALF or CCRC, you would reduce
your warehouse capacity by 1,000 square feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
Page 49
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for every seven units you would
reduce it in general office by 1,000 square feet. And 15 for -- M.O. is?
MR. ANDERSON: Medical office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Medical office.
Okay, based on -- and I'm assuming the trip generation
relationship is higher for the medical to the room because the people
who use the rooms probably use the medical there on-site and they
would save trips on the road.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's -- okay.
Mr. Vigliotti, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. Bruce, would you be
willing to live with the stipulation that this doesn't go forward unless
the Swamp Buggy gets its noise exemption?
MR. ANDERSON: I want to make sure I understand what you're
asking. That--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Swamp Buggy is trying to get
a noise exemption, okay. Would you have a problem holding this up
until -- or make this subject to them getting their noise exemption?
MR. HOREAS: Tom Horeas, the Sembler Company, the
applicant.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. HOREAS: Tom Horeas, Sembler Company, applicant.
At the beginning of our application process, it was suggested by
staff and the commission body for us to, you know, work with Swamp
Buggy and the associated neighboring groups, which is the Sembler
standard, actually is what we do.
We've had several meetings, several conference calls and
everything. And it was crystal clear to us that the noise issue was
paramount for this application. That's why earlier this morning we
would like to put that condition back in that staff had recommended, I
think it was about a year ago or a little longer than that, about the 35
Page 50
February 4,2010
decibels requirement for the buildings.
Because we feel at the Sembler Company that our goal is to make
our users, our constituents, our tenants, our folks who are using the
property happy and content in addition to making the county happy
and content and our neighboring neighbors, whether they be
recreational facilities or independent units, single-family homes,
condos, what have you. That is our goal at the Sembler Company.
We felt as though putting a permanent solution to this problem is
paramount.
Being a former architect, we thought it was key to put the
construction specification into the building standards to keep all the
noise out. Regardless if the exemption goes through or not with
Swamp Buggy, we think that that's the prudent long-term pragmatic
thing to do, based on all the input that we've received from this body,
staff. Some staffs no longer here, unfortunately, but their comments
were taken very seriously by the Sembler Company so -- and the
neighbors, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That -- okay. So you would
agree to the stipulation?
MR. HOREAS: Agree to the stipulation?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That this doesn't move forward
without their exemption for noise.
MR. HOREAS: I don't think we can. Because ifthe goal is -- if
the goal I think is to control noise from a generating source which
exists today, predated the Sembler Company and McMullen and
Hammock Park, that problem's going to exist forever.
So we want a permanent solution. So we think that if by putting
the decibel specifications, as staff has recommended last year, into the
document, this protects everyone, the users, whether they're tenants or
contract owners within the ALF facility. It protects Swamp Buggy, it
protects the county, it protects everyone. We think that that is a
prudent thing to do.
Page 51
February 4,2010
Because at the end of the day if the Swamp Buggy exemption
doesn't get approved for whatever reasons, and I'm sure we can all
guess on those, I don't know, but if it doesn't, you're still back to
square one.
So in reference to time, which is very important to the Sembler
Company to get this rezoning completed and this project on-line, it's a
solution that I guess has to be dealt with, you know, really now, the
here and now.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, as far as the construction
and that's already agreed to. Everybody's going to do that. My
question is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me offer a suggestion. We don't
know if the Swamp Buggy grounds request is going to be approved
next week or not. Most likely it would be.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not going to go on next week. It's been
continued to the second meeting in February for the board to look at.
And it won't get approved until probably the first meeting in March, if
the board wants it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In any case, this project wouldn't
have its -- wouldn't be undertaken until that's resolved.
I'd suggest that why don't we add a stipulation in our voting that
if the Swamp Buggy approval does not occur, then they have to in
addition to what they would do regardless, which is the building code
upgrades to the 35-decibel R level that was in the previous
application, that they then add that sound wall that we discussed.
But if the Swamp Buggy criteria does get approved, the sound
wall would not have to be added. And then that way there's -- it
leaves a lot of encouragement for this development to make sure to
help get that -- no concerns over that sound restriction getting
approved.
And if it didn't get approved, we're right back where we started
with a year ago anyway, which at that time staffhad found to be
Page 52
February 4,2010
sufficient, and I think it's the best we could probably do anyway.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My only concern is again the
Swamp Buggy's been there for years and years and years. I'm worried
that you're going to get people moving in, whether you call them
residences, living, ALF, it's people. And my concern is they're going
to complain about the Swamp Buggy that's been there for years and
years and years. I just want to protect them, that's all.
MR. KLA TZKOW: One thing we could do, and I'd have to work
with Nick on this, we could bring this item to the board at the same
time as the proposed ordinance goes to the board so they'll have both
issues at the same time to deal with.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I think that's a good
idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just kind of look at that
sound reduction thing that you have. I mean, there's something called
a sound level reduction. I'm not sure what that is. I certainly know
what STCs are.
So what is it that you really intend to provide? And obviously for
you to provide it is the benefit of your operation.
MR. HOREAS: I don't have all the specifications in front of me,
but in order to meet the 35-decibellevel, it could be done with
different kinds of building materials, different assemblies of building
materials, et cetera. I'd have to, you know, defer to, you know, an
acoustical expert and all that.
But I know when you set a standard, though, of that decibel,
there's different ways to meet it. And obviously you have to meet
local codes on top of that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, and maybe I can
wait for staff, but what does a sound level reduction of 35 mean? First
of all, you have to reduce it from something. So what is that, from an
Page 53
February 4, 2010
ambient noise? The code has no real requirement for exterior walls.
They certainly do for interior walls, but --
MR. NADEAU: That's accurate, Commissioner.
Again for the record, Dwight Nadeau, R W A.
I did a little bit of research on noise levels. I am not a qualified
expert witness, I'm just going to tell you what I read over the Internet.
And that is that -- and my knowledge of the noise ordinance.
The Swamp Buggy grounds can currently enjoy a 100-decibel
reading at the track. The noise ordinance I believe is going to reduce
it potentially down to 70. Ifthere was a 70 -- a very, very loud rock
concert or a standing next to a jet airline is about 102 decibels.
As you come down into more of the ambient noise of70
decibels, I can relate it to a refrigerator or dishwasher in your house
runs at about 55 decibels as far as sound. So there would be a
35-decibel reduction from the ambient sound outside the building.
So if it were 100 db, it would bring it down to 65 db.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the 65 is our essential
code ambient that we're allowed.
Just worded, the reduction of35 doesn't really make sense I think
in terms of construction. Ifwe establish an STC rating, essentially
what we would have to do is raise, you know, what the code would
require between partitions.
It's just a difficult thing for you to really do with a number here
without -- I mean, what you were describing is you're going to take a
very loud noise and you're going to have construction that would
reduce a 100-decibel noise to --
MR. NADEAU: By 35 decibels.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 65? Okay, that might work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it reduce any noise by 35?
MR. NADEAU: That's accurate, too, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you start with 65, you reduce
down to 30.
Page 54
February 4, 2010
MR. NADEAU: That's right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Why don't we look into this and get
back to you. Because I think it's construction materials. In my
experience, depending on what kind of construction materials, how
much stucco you put on, what kind of insulation you put on between
the inside wall and the outside wall would have that effect, so --
MR. NADEAU: Actually, the most important factor, Nick, is the
glazing of the windows. So if you put up hurricane glass, which we
intend to do, that eliminates the diaphragm effect of the window.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're going to find
you're going to use double layer window.
But obviously you can build a hotel at an airport, so you can
figure this out. But I don't think the way you describe it as a reduction
is something that anybody's going to be able to hold anybody to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between now and consent we
need language that it can be held to. And I'm sure that staff can draw
that up.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In actuality, the question I was
going to ask was posed by Brad, so I'm comfortable with the answer,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll take -- yes, sir?
MR. HOREAS: I think your suggestion, Chairman, is a very
pragmatic suggestion with regards to conditioning with the wall and
the berm in the event that the exemption does not get approved. I
think that's a fair compromise that I think would make I think
everyone happy, including the future residents there too. So we're
willing to agree to that.
The -- one other thing I wanted to mention. With regards to the
Page 55
February 4,2010
Good Turn PUD that was recently approved, was there acoustical
standards and wall requirements in that PUD?
I just -- my concern is just for consistency, for my own
edification, is the -- if a resident was there and they heard maybe a
slightly drop in noise but the same kind of noise, and if they didn't
have that requirement, I mean, how did the county handle that
situation? I'm not being facetious by no means, I just -- for my own
knowledge, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe the difference between
the two is that on this one the Swamp Buggy people realized it was
coming through and got involved with it and posed the question. I'm
not sure the question was even brought up in Good Turn. Had it been,
I'm sure that it would have been considered more intensely then. It
may have been our fault we didn't catch it, but we do reserve the right
to get smarter as time goes on, so --
MR. HOREAS: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're trying.
MR. HOREAS: My grandfather in Greek, I'll translate, used to
say to me, that's why we put erasers on pencils, Tom. And I was like,
good one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
MR. HOREAS: Thank you for answering that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before I would go with the
12-foot wall, there's a 25-foot setback, I believe.
MR. HOREAS: That's correct. Type B.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So somebody coming out of the
unit would have 25 feet and 12 feet. Wouldn't there be --
MR. HOREAS: Well, I think there was a--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- kind of a --
MR. HOREAS: Yeah, that's a good point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that create kind ofa
Page 56
February 4,2010
penitentiary effect?
MR. HOREAS: Good point.
I thought there was a suggestion. I think it was by one of the
staff members, that it was I think a six-foot high berm and then a
six-foot high wall combination is how I interpreted it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's plenty of--
MR. HOREAS: Which I think would look better aesthetically,
just my opinion, over the long-term, rather than a 12-foot high wall.
Because you run into other problems with that wall. It looks
penitentiary, structural issues supporting it. It's -- it looks like a DOT
wall then getting that high.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other point is, though, it would only
go along the common property line between you and Swamp Buggy,
which is only the far eastern line from --
MR. HOREAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I'm reading here.
MR. HOREAS: Correct. That's how we interpret it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a risk assessment approach, your
potential of putting that up is probably close to zero.
So Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a couple of comments.
One is that we judge each one of these petitions separately and
distinctly. So whatever happened to Good Turn has no relation to
what is happening --
MR. HOREAS: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- here now. Though Lord knows,
we do try to be consistent.
Secondly, before the petitioner leaves, we haven't had any
discussion at all of the market demand study, and I would like to hear
from the people on that issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we ought to get that before
staff comes up. And if you have a question on the market study, looks
Page 57
February 4, 2010
like Mike's here to respond.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Mike Timmerman, Fishkind and Associates.
We prepared the market demand study for the McMullen PUD.
Our focus on it was the office space. We also did look at the assisted
living and CCRC uses.
So the questions that really were raised when we did the original
study were the amount of supply of existing office space that was in
the market. We went through exhaustive lengths to go through and
expand and identify those existing vacant spaces.
We looked at the space -- we looked at our subject site,
McMullen PUD, and its influence by the hospital, and then looked at
additional space from that five-mile radius, which is how we identified
the existing space. Focused 100 percent of the use that's within that
one-mile radius of the subject site as competing and influenced by the
hospital. The further we got away from the property, there was less
influence, therefore being less demand because of the generation of
employment by the hospital.
There is an awful lot of space that's available up near the
five-mile radius, which is near that intersection of Collier Boulevard
and Davis Boulevard. That is more influenced obviously by the
interstate. A lot of that space that had been built was built
speculatively. But it doesn't have as much influence from a standpoint
of the hospital and the existing medical space that's there right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But there's no actual commitment
here for anything specific either. We have it may be an ALF, it may
be medical office, it may be general, it may be contractors. So, I mean
MR. TIMMERMAN : Well, the main thing we're looking at is
the influence of the hospital. If you look at the other hospital sites,
both NCH and North Collier, the majority of the space, office space
Page 58
February 4, 2010
that's built around there is medical in relation. The doctors like to be
close to the hospital for calls and things of that nature. That's typically
what ends up happening around hospitals, which is the reason we kind
of focused our analysis of the influence of the employment center.
If the hospital were not built yet, and the hosp -- this was 10
years ago and we were talking about a hospital, then there may be a
little bit of difference. But the hospital's existing, it's growing, there's
a tremendous amount of potential for residential development and
growth over the next 15 to 20 years in this area. So we're looking at
the existing hospital locations and saying well, that influence of that
additional space, whether it be general office or medical office, the
influence of the employment of the hospital is a main driver for that.
And the further we get away from that, the less that influence is going
to be affected.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Obviously staff has a different
opinIOn.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, and we addressed staffs -- all of
staffs questions.
Their questions, when we did the original study, were basically
there's an awful lot of office space that's available in the marketplace,
why do we want to add more.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is a true statement.
MR. TIMMERMAN: It is a true statement. And what we did is
we went through and we looked at product within one, three and
five-mile radius. And what we found was that the majority of the
office space is available up near the interchange.
And as we see this area growing, there is going to be more of a
need for office space. Obviously there's been a change. That majority
of the use will be at senior housing's use, which we haven't seen a lot
of that development occurring in Collier County for many, many
years.
So again, the influence of the hospital, that general area and the
Page 59
February 4, 2010
amount of growth potential that's there, we felt that there was adequate
demand for office space.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the medical office on the
hospital grounds or right surrounding that?
MR. TIMMERMAN: That was included in our analysis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And so that's 100 percent
occupied?
MR. TIMMERMAN: I don't believe it's 100 percent occupied
right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think so either.
MR. TIMMERMAN: And again, we're looking at it from a
standpoint of five, 10, 15 years. At some point in time that will be
occupied. Obviously the existing space will be occupied first. And
we're looking at it from a planning exercise. Developers are not
obviously going to go ahead and develop something if there's not
enough demand.
We have to look at this last five-year period as an anomaly in
economics. There was a tremendous amount of speculation. When
retailers develop retail space, they build it based upon the residential
rooftops. And we were building a lot of residential rooftops. Well,
what we didn't -- they didn't understand was the amount of speculation
that was being built in the marketplace. And as we worked with
retailers over the years, we would make discounts in those rooftop
numbers to account for the speculative amount of inventory that was
in the marketplace.
But many developers went through and speculated based upon
the growth that they saw occurring. Personally and from the research
that we had done many years ago over the last -- I've been here 27
years -- over the last 1 O-year period we were very concerned of the
amount of speculation that was being done. However, we're not the
ones that say you can't put it back, it's the market that really influences
that.
Page 60
February 4, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, on Page 17 of your report
you say that the data indicates that the county as a whole has higher
levels of per capita --
MR. TIMMERMAN: Per capita.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is catching today.
-- senior housing facility development than the five-mile radius.
But then you exempted what was approved to the north of that. I
mean, you made a special note of it, saying we exempted the 400-bed
CCRC proposed north of this. Why?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, at that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because it was too close and
would have conflicted with --
MR. TIMMERMAN: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- with your figures? It says here
the potential development's timing, funding and probability of
completion of this proposed CCRC is not known at this time.
And I would submit to you, we don't know it for your project
either. There have been zero commitments for timing or completion
or anything. Or probability, actually.
MR. TIMMERMAN: From the research that we had done and
talked with people, the probability of that continuing to move forward
as a CCRC was limited. And we made that note to say we're not sure
if this is going to occur. From the research that we had done, we
discounted it. We don't know if that's going to occur. We don't know
what's going to happen in the future for anything. But this particular
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. We don't know about yours
either.
MR. TIMMERMAN: We don't. But this particular piece of
property, the CCRC that was planned there, there had been talks of
changing that to multi-family and to other types of uses. So we
weren't sure exactly what was going to end up happening there.
Page 61
February 4,2010
And the CCRC, I mean, we really haven't -- aren't building a lot
of senior housing -- we haven't built a lot of seniors housing in Collier
County for the last 10 years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you haven't been watching these
meetings then, have you?
COMMISSIONER CARON: My point exactly.
MR. TIMMERMAN: We haven't built. We've been planning it,
yes, but there hasn't been a lot of stuff that's been built.
So, I mean, obviously there's a lot more that's being added to the
marketplace and that there's a demand for in the marketplace. So
we're seeing that demand increase. As our population is aging, we're
going through and seeing more of that demand in the marketplace.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What we're seeing is that
apparently there's not that much of a demand or some of it would be
coming out of the ground.
MR. TIMMERMAN: It all depends on the economics --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, we keep approving and
approving and approving.
MR. TIMMERMAN : Well, it depends on the economics of the
business itself too. And that may be one of the reasons why you're not
seeing as much of it being built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute.
While this exhibit is up on the screen, I now remember Good
Turn Center. It isn't contiguous to Swamp Buggy Days. That is a big
difference between the McMullen PUD and Good Turn. Good Turn is
separated by Swamp Buggy by over 20 acres or more in distance
equal to your project.
So for the prior gentleman who had a question about why we
didn't impose the restrictions on Good Turn, that's most likely why it
never came up to question. It's quite a distance from Swamp Buggy
Days, as comparison to this one that is contiguous.
So now that being said, I had a follow-up.
Page 62
February 4, 2010
You had said there's a relationship between the hospital or
hospitals and commercial such as this project?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, there's -- if you look at the
concentration of office, medical space, it's -- there's more medical
space that are around the hospitals, because the doctors, obviously if
they are -- need to get to the hospital for rounds in the morning, they
want to be able to get to their office close. So generally you find more
concentration of medical office obviously around a hospital. That's
not always the case, but many cases you do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason is this is a sister facility, this
hospital, to the one that was the Cleveland Clinic, it's now Physicians
Regional on Pine Ridge.
Physicians Regional on Pine Ridge doesn't have any commercial
except one little -- I mean, doesn't have any commercial generated by
the hospital. They have the Vineyards Shopping Center that was there
with the Vineyards DR!.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then across the street from that they
have a very small, I think maybe even less than a five-acre parcel, and
that's the only medical in the area that I know of. So that hospital
seems to be an exception to your statement.
MR. TIMMERMAN: At the point in time that that was built
there, there wasn't a lot of land developed. Remember, we've got
Golden Gate Estates to the south, which is all Estates zoned. There
wasn't a lot of commercial that was planned there other than the retail
shopping center.
The hospital, if you remember, that site was not really designed
-- it was there, it was large, the hospital went to that particular site
because it was close to the Interstate 75 and everything else. But if
you look at North Collier and the main hospital, obviously you see
there's a lot more land that's available for commercial development
and there's been more of a concentration of office space and medical
Page 63
February 4,2010
space around those.
And that's where this particular property's the same way. There's
land that's available around for it and that will allow for more
generation of medically related uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think more for the edification
of this board and certainly to help Commissioner Caron in that regard,
I am currently the chairman of the Physicians Regional Hospital
system and I can tell you that historically NCH, because of its being
the sole provider here, had drawn to it proximate to it hospital offices
and other ancillary activities. This will also occur with Physicians
Regional and Collier.
The one that was bought up there, it became Cleveland Clinic,
was a particular format that Cleveland Clinic likes to operate. And I
think you can say with certainty, and I'll say it with certainty, that
there will be additional medical office needs. Currently the Collier
County -- Collier County with the 951 hospital is actually operating at
census almost full and is contemplating additional beds. So there is a
need, it will be growth, and I can say it with that degree of certainty.
I'm not trying to testify, but I am telling you what I am aware of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you said you're chairman
of the hospital?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of Regions Physician (sic) Hospital?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know that.
Do you have any conflict on this board?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know you were chairman of the
hospital. That's--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's no conflict.
Because the matter is this organization trying to rezone some property
Page 64
February 4, 2010
to use it. I don't know what will be there. I don't have any activity
with them. I don't see it as a conflict of interest whatsoever. I'm not a
paid position being a chairman of the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any
questions from the applicant, if any?
Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I just wanted to supplement Mr. Murray's
remarks to remind you, a year ago when we were before you we had
the CEO of Physicians Regional speak and ask you to approve it
because they knew that they needed the doctors' office space. I just --
we may have forgotten about that and I just wanted to bring that up
.
agam.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll ask for the staff report.
Thank you, Mike.
MR. TIMMERMAN: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Staff is
recommending approval of the McMullen petition. It is consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC.
And if you have any questions, it's my pleasure to answer them
this morning.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, do you think it's still
appropriate to call this a mixed use planned development? There's
nothing mixing here.
MS. GUNDLACH: We contemplated that as staff. And because
of the quasi commercial/residential use of the ALF, we still consider it
a mixed use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, we had a
Page 65
February 4,2010
conversation last time where we caused residential to be mixed use by
the ALF. So now an ALF can cause commercial to be mixed use too?
That's a powerful trump card then, I guess.
Ray, remember our conversation that I asked at a prior hearing
why it's a mixed use and you said because it has an ALF, which is a
commercial use? So now it works the other way?
MR. BELLOWS: You can be a mixed use if you have two types
of different land uses, such as residential or commercial. That's one
type of mixed use. You can have a community facility in a
commercial, which we would deem community -- other community
facilities like in the CF district, that could also be deemed a mixed use
project.
Now, in regards to a PUD such as this where primarily and now a
commercial project, ifit limited it to an ALF, I think you could say
because an ALF is also found -- is a use permitted in the commercial
district that you can go with the commercial district.
It's just a designating nomenclature. I could see a case could be
made for mixed use also. Because there are some other mixed uses
that are more --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't want to lose the real
meaning of mixed use, you know, which this might blur. I think it
should be removed. But your call.
The other question is, on this quarter mile radius, how do you
determine when a building complies with that? In other words, if a
building touches that, is anything in the building allowed, or do you
actually go into the floor plan of the building and plot this radius and
state that things on the north side of the building, for example, could
not be medical, things on the south side could? How does that radius
affect the building and the uses in it?
MS. GUNDLACH: I could ask the appropriate staff person.
Thank you, David.
MR. WEEKS: I wanted to hear your answer.
Page 66
February 4,2010
MS. GUNDLACH: I have no idea.
MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of
Comprehensive Planning Department.
I don't know that that situation has ever come about before.
Based upon the language in the Future Land Use Element, the
measurement for the qualifying property is from the -- wouldn't be
inclusive of the boundaries of the support medical project.
So in this instance the presumption would be if they go to
develop with medical office uses that they will in fact plat the
property. And we would be -- the expectation would be that the entire
platted lot or tract would fall within that quarter mile distance.
But your question is one we've never dealt with before. But that's
certainly possible that the line cuts right across the lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you would--
so if a building was half in, half out of the line, half of the building
would be available for medical, the other half would not.
MR. WEEKS: Ludicrous as it sounds, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ludicrous it does sound.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you've got a question of staff?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just a comment, sir.
I think Commissioner Schiffer asked how we would regulate that
sound, decibel reduction. We have a section in the airport zone that
talks about how to do that with the building standards. We'd reference
that section and just say per this section with a 3S-decibel reduction.
And it talks about building construction standards and how to apply
for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, excellent. Good. Thank
Page 67
February 4,2010
you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I have a request. If it's okay
with all the parties involved. We were discussing the timing of the
noise ordinance. And my request is if we could let the noise
ordinance go forth the second week in February as originally planned.
I just thought it would be nice to have that information for when I
prepare my executive summary, which is due on March 13th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we put a stipulation in that's
caveated upon the success or failure of that, that takes care of it.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that it becomes that
necessary to run together, because the outcome is determined either
way. It works either way --
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think, so -- okay, are there any
public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Randy Johns, but he spoke already. But
he may want to speak again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody would like to speak on this
matter, please raise your hand.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bruce, do you want a rebuttal to
nothing the staff said?
He's shaking his head no.
Okay, with that we'll close the -- oh, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. I would like Mr. Weeks to
come back up and comment on the market demand study.
MR. WEEKS: As noted in the comprehensive planning
department's staff memo dated January 21, 2010, on Pages 5 and 6 is
where we discuss the market study.
And I first want to say -- before I get into any of that, I first want
to say that the petitioner's comments, as I heard them, were mostly
Page 68
February 4,2010
pertaining to medical office uses, and just to remind the Commission
that a very small portion of the site is eligible for support medical
uses.
This whole project site is different than your typical activity
center. It goes back to how the comprehensive plan was amended to
add this plus or minus 19-acre site. As you know from the
presentation and your prior involvement with the petition, this
quadrant is treated differently -- this portion of a quadrant is treated
differently than the quadrant of any other activity center. Because at
the time of the comprehensive plan amendment the applicant's
position at that time, and that was not the people before you today,
their position was that there is a need for more C-5 type commercial
uses. We need more contractors' licensing -- contractors' offices, other
C-5 types of uses.
They made their case and ultimately were successful in getting
the plan amendment approved. And as you see, the language is very
specific in the types of uses that are allowed.
This develop -- this property is not allowed to have your typical
activity center commercial uses. You can't have your general office
uses, you cannot have your retail, your neighborhood commercial,
community shopping center. The types of things you usually see in
activity centers are not allowed at this location.
I mention that specifically because I believe the context is
important. Because this is within an activity center, mixed use activity
center. One of the factors to be considered at the rezoning is in fact
the market study, the types of commercial uses within a two-mile
radius ofthe project site.
I believe that has far less relevance to this piece of the activity
center than it would to any other activity center. Because it's not open
to all of those general commercial types of uses.
Staff did take issue with some of the analysis, as noted in the
memo I referenced. We were concerned that maybe some properties
Page 69
February 4,2010
were excluded or discounted that should not have been. But
ultimately, despite those misgivings in our opinion in the market
demand study, we still came before you with a recommendation to
find it consistent with the plan. And it really comes down to in short
that context of the types of commercial uses that are being proposed
and that are authorized by the Future Land Use Element versus other
activity centers.
COMMISSIONER CARON: David, how do we reconcile? I
mean, we were all here when that growth management plan
amendment went through. How do we reconcile the fact that that was
presented to us as a need for industrial, for C-5 uses, C-4 and C-5
uses. And now we want to mix up C-4 and C-5 uses with assisted
living?
I mean, because they're telling us they could have both. They've
shown us a conversion ratio. If they want to have both, that seems to
be very poor planning, to allow industrial C-4 and C-5 uses on the
same piece of property as an assisted living facility.
MR. WEEKS: Couple of comments. One, if their objective -- if
they are at a level that they could make a commitment to only doing
the continuing care retirement center -- I don't believe that's the case,
but if they were, I question whether they would even need this
rezoning. We might instead be looking at a conditional use or a
rezoning to PUD but without all their commercial uses.
Without this rezoning, the property would -- the portion of it
would still qualify for the support medical uses. The property would
still qualify for the types of community facility uses that are allowed
anywhere within the mixed use district. That includes the ALF use,
the group housing, nursing home, those types of things are allowed by
the FLUE without necessitating this rezoning.
But of course they are asking for the types of commercial uses
they're allowed as well.
Staff did, in our consistency memo, did raise that concern about
Page 70
February 4, 2010
the mixture of uses, just as we had back when there was a residential
component, that we have the highest intensity type of commercial uses
allowed with the lowest intensity of commercial or quasi residential.
But we do not take a position to say that this should not be
allowed, and here's why: Jump to any other mixed use activity center
quadrant and they allow the full array of commercial uses, C-l
through C-5, and they allow residential. So activity centers by design
allow for a mixture of use.
The decision-making process is where we should evaluate is it
appropriate to have a propos -- any given proposed mix of uses. Just
because it's allowed by the comprehensive plan does not mean it's
appropriate and should be approved. And I'm not suggesting this one
shouldn't, but that's where we're coming from, from the staff
perspective.
So they're allowed to have the C-5 type uses, but they're also
allowed to have the community facility uses and the support medical.
The question is, for this body and the board ultimately, is should
that mix of uses be allowed. And if it is, is it necessary to impose
certain development parameters to ensure compatibility? Be it
buffering, open space, setbacks between the uses, those types of
things.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks, David.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
before we close the public hearing?
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one more.
On Exhibit A, on number 20 that I was questioning before, could
it just simply -- if that is truly the intent, to just have the assisted living
and nursing home and that type of thing, could it just simply say care
units only, including, and leave out group housing -- group housing
facilities and then start with the assisted living and continue the rest?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The State of Florida has a serious of
Page 71
February 4, 2010
statutes that address assisted living and they use a lot of different
terminologies. The CCRCs are a unique animal, and I believe group
housing -- they have definitions for group housing as well as ALFs.
I'm not sure if everything's covered by leaving it out. I guess the
applicant would know that better than anybody, unless staff has an
opinion on that.
Heidi, are you getting up to address us?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, not really. I'm just getting my
Land Development Code because that's the definitions that we refer to
In --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, do you know from a -- I
guess from your applicant's viewpoint whether the group housing is
something you need, or does a reference to a CCRC, which I believe
covers -- by statute I think it covers everything. Would you be
inclined to look at that, or not?
MR. ANDERSON: My recollection is that those are separate. A
CCREC is different because that's aging in place. And an ALF is not
as wide-ranging as a CCREC.
What we maybe should do, if this would be sufficient, is
specifically exclude those uses that Ms. Homiak is raising.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we previously agreed
-- had stipulated. I was going to bring that up in a stipulation. But if
that's not -- ifthere's an easier way, I think is what she --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But it looks to me like the
definition of care unit includes all of that anyway. It includes
everything that's included in group housing or group care facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Category 1 and 2. So it includes
all of the -- it still includes all those things. But here you're listing it --
I mean, if it just says care units only including assisted living,
independent living, community retirement, care retirement
communities and nursing homes, all for persons over age 55, is that
Page 72
February 4, 2010
not what you're asking to allow here, all those --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, there might be a
solution.
You know where the concerns are.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And staff knows where the
concerns are. There's a lot of different language in both statute and
even our code that addresses all the types of uses that everybody
wants or doesn't want. And one of the stipulations I was going to
suggest we make today was that the restrictions on this group housing
language get cleaned up by the consent agenda. And that would give
staff and the applicant time to make sure that they got legally the right
references there before anything is agreed to be taken out that may not
necessarily address the issue you're concerned about.
Is that a solution that you think would work, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think if staff, if they
had time to come back and look at the options they have and then
come back with cleaner language, and we got it ahead enough that we
could then look up those terms ourselves, rather than just guess on
what they mean and try to take them out because we're not sure what
they mean, that might be a better way to approach it.
Does that work for everybody?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will do the job.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, onto another issue.
Since we are talking about the potential of C-5 uses, C-4 and C-5
uses next to assisted living facilities, what provisions have you made
in your PUD to buffer and separate those uses?
MR. ANDERSON: What buffering development standards do
Page 73
February 4,2010
you have to separate the ALF from any of the C-4 or C-5 uses? What
do we have in the PUD for that?
MR. NADEAU: We don't have buffering standards, because
there's going to be separate tracts that would be associated with the
next to occur development order. The buffering would be established
at that time through the Land Development Code provisions.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're going to rely on
minimum code to do this?
MR. NADEAU: We're going to rely on our Land Development
Code to put in the buffering, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any other
questions before we close the public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Public hearing's closed.
And let me -- I have as a suggestion some stipulations. Let's
have some conversation before a motion.
I made notes, I'll read off what I've made, and then you all can
decide what we want to do.
The first one would be that we add some restrictive language to
the references to group housing. I think it was number 20 that we
were focusing on.
We also add sound attenuation requirements for the building,
similar to those that were in the prior PUD application, as
recommended by the staff report.
Likewise, we add the requirement for the sound wall from that
prior application, contingent upon the approval or lack of approval of
the Swamp Buggy Days application be exempted from our sound
ordinance. If they're exempted, then the wall doesn't need to be there.
If they're not exempted, then the wall does need to be there.
Another item -- number four would be to add a notice of
proximity as indicated by our County Attorney.
Page 74
February 4,2010
Number five, the 5,000 square foot limitation is missing from the
accessory uses where it used to be in the original PUD. We want to
put those back in.
Number six, for the C.A.T. contribution in the transportation
section, change that to read it's going to be 100 percent of the cost of
the facilities and design.
Number seven, we're going to clean up number 19. We may split
it up into 19.A or B or whatever methodology staff and the applicant
work out to address the quarter mile rule.
And number eight, add a conversion criteria that was previously
displayed for those units -- not dwelling, just units -- developed under
uses 19 or 20.
Those are the notes that I made. Does anybody have anything --
Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on number two, which
was the sound thing, I thought the thing that Nick had was better,
essentially referencing the airport zone and make it meet those
requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I wasn't trying to say -- I
was just indicating something has to be added. He was going to come
back on a consent with some definitive language. That's what I was --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question,
number three was the berm. So if they do get the berm waiver, in
other words, their sound doesn't have to comply with the landscape
code, I think you said do they need the berm then, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- do they not need the berm?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Swamp Buggy gets the waiver, then
there's no need for the wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't it be the other way
around? In other words, if the Swamp Buggy does get away with it,
that means they can move the use closer. That means they don't have
Page 75
February 4, 2010
any concerns over sound. So shouldn't we be protecting the people
under those circumstances? If they don't get the waiver, then we have
the sound ordinance to protect us, thus no need of the berm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the way this was originally set up
in the original application, Swamp Buggy's waiver wasn't applied for.
So this was to protect the facility if Swamp Buggy didn't get the
waiver. And they were also going to do the sound attenuation.
But your point earlier I thought was a good one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's not going to work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said a 12-foot berm or wall
combination's going to do no good to a 50-foot high building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so I'm thinking that -- well,
because I think there needs to be some kind of incentive for this organi
-- for them to help make sure that Swamp Buggy gets approved, and
that would certainly provide it.
But if it's not -- I mean, it's not a do or die situation from my
perspective. I don't think it's going to help as much. I think it will
help the lower floor, whatever that may be, but I don't think it's going
to do much good for the overall building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think the berms should
be a requirement at all. But if -- the place where it would be a
requirement is if the Swamp Buggy gets the approval and that means
they can do anything they want.
Now, I think what you're saying is you want, by causing the
removal of the berm if they don't get the approval, to inspire these
people to help them get the approval. I think they've said they'd do
that.
But in other words, I would think the berm would be necessary if
the Swamp Buggy does get the approval. Because that means they're
able to then make more noise and there's no control on it.
I do think first of all the berm isn't necessary at all, because it's --
Page 76
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you suggesting we change
stipulation number three so the sound wall is required if the Swamp
Buggy gets the exemption -- or does not get -- yeah, either way then.
You're basically saying no matter what, it's required.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, what I'm saying is the
way you first worded it is if they get the exemption, which means they
have no -- there's no community control over their sound, then they
had the -- they didn't have to build the wall. And I'm saying that's
when they really would need the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's fine, I don't have a -- I
understand what you're arguing. It makes sense. I'm not debating it,
so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Personally, I think I'd like to
just get rid of the berm entirely. That's -- and a berm -- you know,
sound, as it comes through the air, especially from a distance, it's just
going to redevelop on the top of that wall anyway. So you're really
wasting money on that berm, money that could be spent on the
windows.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Mark, just to avoid any
possible ambiguity that might result from -- you said in number two
similar to what was in the original PUD for sound attenuation. Would
you -- 1 know you're being gentle in the language in assuming that
they would work together on that, but is there anything that you
wouldn't want to see from that one? In other words, take it from --
reinstate it as it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad's earlier point
questioning what it really means in relationship to sound was a good
one, and then Nick offered a suggestion to clean it up. So I was
leaving it open enough so they could insert --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you meant by
similar to.
Page 77
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- those -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm good with that. I just
wanted to be sure we're not going to get into ambiguity. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I have a question. We
discussed a possible stipulation that this doesn't go forward unless the
Swamp Buggy does get its noise exemption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they have a right to develop their
property. I mean, I don't know -- we could discuss it. But my thought
would be they have a GMP amendment that says they can do certain
things, they have a right to do them.
Whether Swamp Buggy gets the exemption or not should not
prevent someone's property rights from developing. Now, what we
should do is try to make sure the best protection we can provide is in
there, and I think that's where the debate might want to focus.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'd like to hear from the
board of any other suggestions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I've read off eight stipulations.
We talked about two of them. We're down to one that seems to be we
want to make sure we all understand it, and that's the sound wall.
Originally the sound wall was going to be an if/or situation or not
at all. Brad's point about a 50-foot high building being protected by a
12-foot potential sound wall is really reasonable. It's really requiring
somebody to do something that's going to cost money that may not
have the effect out of it. So I'm wondering if he's not right -- right
from the get-go why do we even need to bother with it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, do you have something
you can do to help me feel comfortable here?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think that the effort that the
Planning Commission is undergoing to reduce the actual noise is the
right approach. Because the Swamp Buggy's there. It's a permitted
activity. And even if the board doesn't pass that exemption, I don't
Page 78
February 4, 2010
know how from a code standpoint you're going to be able to hold
somebody doing something that they've been permitted to do and have
been doing for years from not doing. I mean, it would be a mess from
a code enforcement standpoint.
So irrespective of what the board does with the exemption, I don't
really think there's going to be a negative impact to the Swamp Buggy
for when you get the surrounding area developing around it.
So the right approach really is to ameliorate the noise to the
expected community by using the sound walls and architectural
features and what have you. I do think that's a good approach by this
Commission.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine then, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion?
Go ahead, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: I just wanted to share with you, there was
some concern about what the minimum code buffering is between the
intense commercial and the ALF.
And depending on who comes in first, somebody -- one of the
parties is going to have to put in a 15-foot wide Type B buffer, and the
other party would have to put in a 1 O-foot wide Type A buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just for our enlightenment,
the buffer that would have to be -- let's say the sound issue never came
up. What buffer would be required between this PUD and Swamp
Buggy grounds?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, currently there's a preserve. And that
-- so long as it acts as a Type B buffer, that would be sufficient. And a
B buffer, just to let you know, trees are 25 feet on center and there is a
required six-foot; it could be either hedge or fence or wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said there's a -- now, the
Swamp Buggy grounds is on the east side of the property. There's a
preserve along the north side. I don't --
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, sorry about that. Okay, along the east
Page 79
February 4, 2010
side there's an access road. And on the other side access road is
currently some Swamp Buggy land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. GUNDLACH: It would just be a D buffer, a 20-foot wide
Type D buffer as you see depicted on the master plan. And a D is
trees 30 feet on center and a hedge that's 24 inches high of planting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was another buffer with a
requirement of a fence or a wall.
MS. GUNDLACH: That was your B buffer, B as in boy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When would that kick in?
MS. GUNDLACH: That kicks in when we have like a -- what
we were describing earlier, which would be the ALF next to a C-4,
C-5 type use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Internal to the site with a higher
intensity use next to a lower intensity use.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this potential project being an ALF
has a higher intensity use potentially next -- or low intensity use next
door to a high intensity use.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So wouldn't we be better off suggesting
that if they go with the ALF or group housing of some type on the area
that -- on the property adjacent to Swamp Buggy that the buffer
between that and Swamp Buggy be elevated to the higher buffer?
MS. GUNDLACH: You know, there is a higher buffer in the
minimum code that might help us, and that's the Type C buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what is --
MS. GUNDLACH: And that is different from the B in that it has
a double row of trees planted 25 feet on center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Type B though has a fence or a
wall.
MS. GUNDLACH: So does the C.
Page 80
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we were looking at a Type
C buffer with the -- right from the get-go, and if they went -- because
no matter what they have there it's most likely going to be in conflict
about whatever the future is for the Swamp Buggy Days area. Type C
just means more plantings.
But if they go with an ALF, they would be required to put a wall
in. I'm not saying a sound attenuation wall, but a wall. And that just
might suffice to give at least a medium level of assistance for sound
rather than none at all.
Just throwing it out on the table for discussion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea where
you're going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you seem to dwell on these issues
a lot --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I like your input.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so. And actually, the
smartest thing is if they ever did any C-4 uses that they would put it on
the eastern property line. Let them become a buffer too. But I think
they're not going to put C-4 uses, at least that's not the expressed
intent, so let's not waste a lot of time on that.
But if everything, all their plans fell through, it would be nice if
the C-5's occurred on the eastern boundary. And then you would have
them plus a buffer.
But I think you're right, if you put a C buffer along the eastern
boundary, that's probably the best we can do by default.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- yes, sir?
MR. HOREAS: Ijust wanted to interject a couple of things.
One, since you have a code in place for the acoustical around an
airport, which I think is wonderful, obviously -- I'm sure the airport's
been there many decades -- there's probably good factual information
with regards to whatever decibel levels that are required there and how
Page 81
February 4,2010
well they work in terms of absorbing sound.
So I just offer the suggestion that maybe staff would look into the
criteria that's already established there and try to match that with this
situation for the long-term solution, to make sure that the sound is, you
know, completely encapsulated, or whatever the appropriate word is,
or blocked into the facility I think would be a good suggestion.
And as a developer/owner of the property, I think it would be --
we would rather -- you had mentioned, Commissioner Schiffer, that --
about the berm and the wall being away. I couldn't agree with you
more, being a former architect. Because if the goal is to block sound
at the -- all levels of the facility, which I think is the intent of the
board, I know it's Sembler's intent and our consultants, to do that
effectively long-term, I would rather channel resources, money, talent,
designs, specifications into the building for the -- you know, for an
ideal acoustical treatment to keep the sound out of all those buildings
forever so we never really have to ever visit this again for this
property is my suggestion.
Another suggestion I have too is with regards to Swamp Buggy, I
know it's been there quite so many years, and there could be a
possibility in the future that that facility gets relocated somewhere
else, for whatever reasons I might not be aware of. But that event
happens. And we'd like the condition on whatever you all decide with
regards to a wall, a berm, and acousticals, that that's required only in
the event that the Swamp Buggy facility exists as a loud
decibel-generating I think activity center, what have you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you've been waiting patiently, and
then Brad.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I gave the advice to the applicant after
reviewing our sound code around airports, I think applying the money
to the building structure requirements as written in our airport code to
Page 82
February 4,2010
the strict standards that are there is a much more beneficial use of the
money than a berm and a wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And also--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, you'll get the added
use that it will prevent the noise of 951, which will be somewhat loud.
So you're going to benefit wrapping your building in sound protection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm just concerned that
we're not micromanaging from this planning board. The one who has
all the incentive is the developer himself so that he doesn't create
something that's a problem for his residents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is in the past
when we don't micromanage we find it comes back to bite us, so
sometimes it's better to be overly cautious than under, so -- then let's
suggest dropping the reference to the sound wall that was previously
suggested and replace it with language to the effect: The eastern
property line will have a Type C buffer.
And now as far as any type of wall goes, because the Type B
standard, for example, has a wall, is anybody concerned in pursuing
that or just dropping the wall reference altogether?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How tall is the wall?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Type B buffer I think is only six
feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Drop the wall.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd rather see tall trees, more
trees than the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just leave the--
eastern property sign will have a -- eastern property line will have a
Type C buffer.
Ms. Caron?
Page 83
February 4,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: IfI'm not mistaken, I think Nancy
said that there's a wall involved in a C as well, so --
MS. GUNDLACH: They have the option of a wall or a six-foot
tall hedge.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Kolflat's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, we've read all the
stipulations. I can read them again, if you'd like, if it's not clear to
anybody.
Staff, are you clear on where we're at? The nod of the head
seems to say yes.
So is everybody on the Planning Commission clear enough to
make a motion? If so, I'll call for a motion.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320,
McMullen Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. I move that it be
recommended for approval, with the stipulations as offered by the
Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded it.
Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Also by staff, there were some
staff stipulations.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, if! hadn't said that,
I assume that was intrinsic to it, but fine. By staff and --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, there was nothing on this one?
Page 84
February 4, 2010
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there isn't any on this one. It just
says recommendation of approval. There's no staff stipulation, so --
okay, motion's made to approve with stipulations previously
discussed. It was seconded.
Any further 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.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. It took
all morning. Thank you, Bruce. Kind of predicted that, though.
Okay, it's 11 :24. The Planning Commission usually breaks for
an hour for lunch. We can either start on a new one and get 15
minutes into it and break or we can break now and come back at
12:30.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Break now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will break now and be back
here at 12:30 to resume.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Wolfley is absent from boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from
the lunch break. We'll kind of resume where we left off. We were
Page 85
February 4,2010
going into a new petition before we left. It was the first of two
Sembler -- both of them are Sembler, but we'll take them one at a
time.
Item #9C
PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL2009-437. SARECINO RPUD
It's Item C, Petition PUDZA-PL-2009-437, the Sarecino, LLC.
That's on Radio Road near Davis. Formerly the Triad RPUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had a conversation yesterday
with Mr. Nadeau, and we will be going over all the issues today.
Okay, Dwight, it's all yours.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, here we are in the afternoon.
Moving forward our next petition for Sarecino RPUD. It's your
planning number 437, represented by Sarecino LLC.
Just as a housecleaning matter, we had some disclosure of
interest information handed out to you in advance of to day's hearing.
I also have a modified Covenant of Unified Control that had a typo in
the name. That has been corrected, provided to staff. I can put it on
the visualizer, if you'd like to see that, or we can just let that go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had a correction of a name? Which
name was corrected?
MR. NADEAU: The -- if I may, this was the Covenant of
Unified Control. Little bit down, Ray. Pull down. Not that way, that's
up.
Page 86
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're talking about the folio
number that I --
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, the folio number and the name of the
development. We made those corrections.
There was one folio number that had an extra zero on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. NADEAU: So that's all been corrected and provided to
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Subject property is located in the northeast
quadrant of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs
Boulevard. It's called Radio Lane. It was the former Radio Road
right-of-way. But when they created the intersection of Davis
Boulevard with Radio Road, Radio Road turned into Radio Lane east
of that intersection.
Property is 10.75 acres. I was the petitioner's agent for the
former Triad RPUD amendment. And that converted the property
from C-l to a PUD with a limitation of 86 dwelling units.
This petition is in no way changing the density that was
approved, and in fact this is going to be a senior housing project. It's
going to include both 40 independent living cottages, as well as an
opportunity for an assisted living facility of up to 100 bedrooms on
approximately a 2.8-acre property, parcel. The property is intended to
be platted. And I guess I'll get right into some of the pictures.
This is the master plan for the PUD. We've allocated all of the
land uses. We have a residential tract. We have an assisted living
facility tract and a recreation tract.
That's the schematic view. I'm going to put up a picture of what
the actual development may look like. I don't want to be held to it. It
just shows the layout of the cottages and the footprint of the building.
So you can see the cottage arrangement in the northern portion,
with access off of Palm Springs Boulevard. And the ALF facility is
Page 87
February 4,2010
the institutional sized looking building to the south portion.
We have some artistic conceptualizations of what we think the
ALF is going to look like, and if I may show you that. It's too bad we
can't get a brightness control on here, because that's a little dull. It's a
very vibrant picture.
So there's going to be articulation in the front. It's almost going to
look like an enclave of homes, but it will be an institutional assisted
li\1iIlg jf(l<:ility.
In attendance with me is Mr. Lloyd Chapman, who is a --
probably the potential operator of this facility and has some
explanation for you on the operations. We'll bring him up when the
time is appropriate, or ifthere's any other questions.
Now, swit<:hing over to the independent living cottages, this is an
artist rendering of what they could look like. This is the chara<:ter of
the units that we're trying to portray. And it's going to be set along the
streetscape. These are small little cottages for independent senior
living. They are all attached, but they're attached in a means where it
provides a street front with articulated fronts. I'll show you the
streetscape.
Again, it's dark.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe if you took the others
away, it might --
MR. NADEAU: So we're trying to attempt to achieve a
neo-traditional design where things are more compact. We want to do
a fee simple conveyance.
As you probably know, there are re<:ent changes in the lending
laws. Federal lending laws have made it virtually impossible to get a
loan for a condominium. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are requiring
that a <:ondominium project be turned over or have 90 percent of the
units sold and have a solvent association before they would lend to
individuals. That's why it's essential these days now to be able to go
through platting processes, so we can have fee simple ownership and
Page 88
February 4,2010
deal with homeowners associations. Just wanted to provide that as a
side bar.
Now, I'm going to show you a rendering of what the floor plan
for the cottages may look like.
So there are going to be no less than 750 square feet. There's
going to be a one car garage that would be entered into. And there is a
34-foot driveway that would provide for the second vehicle for this
particular unit.
To illustrate this, I took one of the figures from the PUD
document and I've highlighted the geometry of the units, how they're
back-to-back. And the curser is actually on the 34-foot dimension
from the face of the garage; therefore there's adequate room to park a
car and not be over the sidewalk.
Additionally, there may be some questions about how setbacks
are applied. Because we are going to be creating lot lines in here,
there will be zero setback between the attached units. There would be
a minimum five-yard side yard setback for end units, and then the
minimum distance between structures of being 12 feet. That's to
identify these separations between the multiple buildings that are
throughout the site.
Now, there was some concern expressed related to the preserve
for this particular property. When I did the Triad rezoning, we had a
site plan that would provide for a 1.62-acre preserve. That preserve
was specifically articulated in 2.13, native vegetation requirements
from that Triad Ordinance 05-11.
And I'll put this on the visualizer, but I just want to read the crux
of the material that's in here. It says, pursuant to Policy 611 of the
Conservation Element, a minimum of 1.34 acres, 15 percent of the
native vegetation on-site is required to be retained and replanted.
The RPUD master plan depicts one preserve area, the 1.62-acre
preserve depicted as retained native vegetation. This is due to the fact
that of the 10.75-acre site, only 8.92 acres of the site is native. So the
Page 89
February 4,2010
required 15 percent of the 8.92 would be the minimum of 1.34
identified in the paragraph above.
The final paragraph is which provided the latitude. It says, the
minimum width of the preserve shall be an average of30 feet but not
less than 20 feet in width. The design, area and configuration of the
native preserves may be modified from the depiction on the RPUD
master plan. However, the remaining native preserves shall not be
decreased below 3. -- 1.34 acres in total area.
Thus we have a conservation area. It's been recorded with South
Florida Water Management District and was approved through the site
development plan process with Collier County as a 1.36-acre preserve,
a little bit larger than what the requirement is.
If you'd like, I'll put this language on the visualizer. It's the last
paragraph that's the operative.
Now, another item I'd like to discuss with you is in our workings
with the neighborhood there was a number of requests that were made
of us. We had several, several meetings in addition to the
neighborhood information meeting. Ms. Cathy Gorman in the
neighborhood was very happy to allow us into her home on three or
four occasions where she brought in some of the neighborhood
interested parties. And you'll also find in your package that there's a
letter of support for the petition.
One of the requests that was made at a late date was the
opportunity to be able to put a service access for the assisted living
facility not having to travel on Palm Springs Boulevard.
So to that end I coordinated with the transportation department
and I've come up with a little schematic of what this may look like.
And if! may, this is the simplest version for you to see. We would
just put an arrow on the master plan and say proposed service
entrance. The service entrance would actually be very similar to
looking like this, where we would be coming off of Radio Lane
generally centralized with the ALF, we'd provide the 24-foot apron --
Page 90
February 4,2010
or the 24-foot wide pavement surface, the required 50-foot setback to
the control gate. And not having an SDP in process, we merely got a
yeah, it looks all right from transportation. So I just wanted to bring
that to your attention. And that is a request that we would like to
make today to try and help the residents of the neighborhood.
At this time I'd like to -- well, no, I need to probably go through a
few document changes.
There were some concerns that were voiced related to some of
the accessory uses associated with the assisted living -- the assisted
living tract and the recreation area tract. I have those suggested
changes here in a strike and underline version I'll put on the visualizer.
If you could zoom in on those.
Now, this has been provided to staff. And the petitioner has
taken a look at this. There's a little clarification I need to make. But
the -- in the assisted living tract, the accessory uses customarily
associated with principal uses, including but not limited to dining
halls, swimming pools, other internal amenity activities such as
exercise rooms and administrative offices. Now, I've also put
language in there that no commercial land uses are permitted. Well,
what's that really meant to mean is that usually in these ALF facilities
there's an internal beauty salon where they can get their hair done,
there may be some vending machines, those sorts of uses that are for
the exclusive use of the ALF residents, they may be permitted. But
from the overall perspective, no commercial land uses open to the
general public would be permitted in the ALF tract.
Secondly, in tract RA, the outdoor recreation facilities, in
addition to the private clubhouse, could include a community
swimming pool and deck, activity courts and bathroom facilities. So
that's really all that would be going in this amenity center that would
be just north of the ALF track.
And as far as the accessory uses to the recreation facilities, they
would be limited to maintenance storage, shelter and equipment
Page 91
February 4, 2010
rooms. So we hope that this clarifies some of the concerns that may
have been made -- been identified.
There was a -- some concern about some development standards
in table one. We've gone ahead and made a few changes in here.
Most particularly to the clubhouse recreation buildings where the
accessory -- the number of stories and the building heights are
consistent with the principal structure building heights and number of
stories. So hopefully that resolves that concern.
And then finally --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait, will you put that back up
there again?
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point of the correction was
missed.
Would you scan -- pull out on that so we can see the top bar?
So under single-family independent living you can have a -- you
have a one-story maximum height zoned of 24 feet, maximum
building height actual 30 feet. But if you build an accessory structure,
you can build a two-story accessory structure at 35 feet high and 45
feet actual. Now, why would you want to do that?
MR. NADEAU: A one-story not to exceed 24 feet and two-story
not to exceed -- they should be consistent with the principal use
building heights. I will make that correction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's going to be a lot more, so I'll
wait until we get the rest of it, thank you.
MR. NADEAU: And then finally there was some question
related to the planning conditions that are in Exhibit F of the
instrument. Many of these came as a result of our negotiations with
the neighbors. And we've been talking with legal staff as well as the
petitioner and Kay about how to try and address these. I've made some
suggestions here.
The first item relates to limitation on rental units to only those
Page 92
February 4,2010
persons 55 or older. It was in the former Triad PUD that it would be
enforceable by the lot owners.
Legal staff has requested that it be the responsibility of the
county to ensure that there's language restricting it -- any rental to 55
or older. And the evidence of this disclosure language would be
provided prior to approval of the first development order. So that type
of disclosure language would be included in the SDP -- in the plat
materials.
Secondly, number three is redundant with the development
standards table and so that has been removed.
Number four, as far as limitations on the square footage of the
independent senior living units, that's in the development standards,
and that has been removed, given the redundancy.
Number five, is regarding the controlled access to the
development. And we would put that in a separate agreement with the
neighbors.
Number seven is the construction of a fence. The residents had
some concern about some of the residents to the east traveling through
the subdivision, using it as shortcut to get to the Circle K and get to
the bowling alley, and the developer has kindly said that he's going to
facilitate the permitting and construction of a fence to try and prohibit
or limit the amount of people walking through the subdivision. And
that would be in a separate agreement with the neighborhood.
And then finally eight is the developer would work with the
neighborhood to approach the transportation staff as far as making any
changes to the interconnections of, let's say, Radio Lane within Davis
Boulevard. We're willing to try and set up some meetings, sit down
with staff, come to that. But that would be in a separate agreement.
With that, Commissioners, I'll conclude my presentation, and I'd
be happy to take questions. But I do know that we'd like to bring up
Mr. Chapman and the petitioner, Scott Gillespie of WXZ.
May we do that, or do you want to do questions?
Page 93
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave this picture you have
on here --
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I have some serious concerns about
what you've proposed.
But Mr. Murray has a question, then I'm certainly going to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm certain they're the same
senous concerns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, you got this approved
in '05.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five years ago. And the language here
says you'll work it out with the neighborhood. You've not done that in
the last five years.
MR. NADEAU: Well, that was a different developer. That was
Triad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same issue, though. Same issue. Walls
and other things with the development. The developers -- or the
neighborhood is proceeding here in non-objection because they're
probably relying on the language that used to be under this section that
really shouldn't have been here, because it didn't say anything. It just
said you shall work. And evidence of that is you didn't for five years.
So where is the agreement? Do you have an agreement with
you?
MR. NADEAU: The original PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have--
MR. NADEAU: No, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an agreement worked out with the
neighborhood with you today?
MR. NADEAU: No, I do not. We learned of this concern
yesterday morning at about 11 :00. But we can get an agreement for
you for the consent hearing.
Page 94
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we'd want to read it and
weigh in on it and have the neighborhood's opportunity. And in a
consent we can't have public testimony like we do under the time that
we come for a vote. In the consent it's all done with.
Part of the problem in pointing all this out was that there are
some things that should have been sewn up and buttoned up and taken
care of before this was scheduled, especially now that you know some
of these in the manner in which they are presented to you.
The fact that you need something with the neighborhood and the
neighborhood had an NIM and wrote a letter liking your project and
the fact that a lot of these things were in here and never addressed I
think is serious. I think you need to address these before this project
were to change its position that you want it changed to today.
MR. NADEAU: Well, in actuality, during the SOP process for
Triad, it was called the Sarecino SOP, there were some discussions
and some improvements were proposed, but that SOP was never acted
upon. So this new developer came in and is willing to make these
commitments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can tell you from this
person's point of view, any arrangement with the neighborhood, and
we'd have to know who the neighborhood was anyway, will be the
predicate for anything that follows. Because you're not ready. You
may be up to the starting line, but your shorts are hanging on your
knees. So you're not ready to run, in my opinion. That's a very open
issue here. Several of them, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we need to do is go through
the issues we have and before we vote today you may want to
consider requesting a continuance to come back with the answers that
I'm sure -- I know I have a slew of answers -- questions over this
whole proposal. And I think others are going to have the same, if not
more.
Page 95
February 4, 2010
So why don't we go through the process, you'll understand what
our concerns are, and you may want to consider before a vote to ask
for a continuance to come back and answer the concerns that we have.
MR. NADEAU: Understood.
May I bring some folks up to talk about the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Mr. Chapman, Shaker Heights, Ohio.
Is that L. Chapman or R. Chapman?
MR. CHAPMAN: L. Chapman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's R. Chapman?
MR. CHAPMAN: I don't know. I'm Lloyd R. Chapman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. I just -- there's a
couple of Chapmans up in that area.
MR. GILLESPIE: I'm not a Chapman at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you got up when I asked for
Chapman, so that's good.
MR. GILLESPIE: You looked at me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Chapman, go ahead in whatever
you were planning to say.
MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you very much. My name is Lloyd
Chapman. I spent 15 years in Florida as a director of nursing in two
hospitals and an administrator of another. Moved to Cleveland Ohio
to be an administrator for two hospitals there back in 1988. And in
1996 built my first assisted living center in Mentor, Ohio. Operated it
myself. And in 2001 I built a second assisted living center in
Mayfield Village, Ohio. Operated that assisted living center and then
formed Senior Living Solutions Group.
And at Senior Living Solutions Group we help others develop
assisted living centers. Sometimes we manage those for them and
sometimes we help them find folks to manage those facilities who are
local and well-known, good, strong operators.
I've had the privilege of serving these folks who are planning the
Sarecino project for a period of the last seven or eight months to help
Page 96
February 4,2010
them work with their planners to design a project that is very
consistent with the market study that we commissioned several
months ago.
We see a fairly significant need for assisted living for the elderly,
people who typically are 86 years old or so on average at the time of
move-in. People who typically need help with two or three or more
activities of daily living, such as bathing or dressing or medication
reminders.
Our staffing standards are excellent industry-wide. And it's been
our privilege to participate in the process thus far.
I'll stand by Mr. Gillespie and see if you have any questions from
me regarding the operation or the intended operation of the building as
the Commission considers the project further today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question. Have you ever heard
of a company called Senior Housing Solutions?
MR. CHAPMAN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is?
MR. CHAPMAN: That was a prior organization that I owned as
well. I changed the name of it to Senior Living Solutions when I
became the only principal in the company. There used to be two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The address you -- that's on the
letterhead that you provided, you ever hear ofRDL Architects?
MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're your neighbor?
MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. I lease my office space in the same
building that RDL is located in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I was trying to
understand your background. You've provided a good understanding
of it today. Thank you. I didn't know you'd be here. But in trying to
understand who you were, I found a lot of questions as to the address
provided. The phone number is a cell phone out of Atlanta, Georgia,
not of the neighborhood. 404-539-1000?
Page 97
February 4, 2010
MR. CHAPMAN: It's actually 440-539-1000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, well --
MR. CHAPMAN: And I typically put my cell phone on my
business card because I work in six different states and it's kind of
hard for people to track me down otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's kind of hard to nail down
your, I guess, criteria in order to determine if your letter was coming
from a position of experience. It seems like you've got the experience.
Are you also the intended operator of this facility?
MR. CHAPMAN: My company will either operate the facility
or will help the developer select an operator for the facility. We
haven't decided yet.
I'm interviewing a couple of different parties over a period of the
next two or three months to try to decide if we'll bring in a regional
operator from this area or whether I'll hire people that live here and
operate it myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the reduction of parking spaces, how
does the space request of reduction here compare to other places
where you've -- and where have you obtained the same reduction?
MR. CHAPMAN: Excellent question. We've retained that
reduction in Mentor, Ohio, we've retained that reduction in Mayfield
Village, Ohio, and we're requesting that same reduction in three other
projects that I'm working on currently.
We got that parking standard from ALF A, the Assisted Living
Facilities Association of America. At 86 years old, with 100
individuals potentially living in the unit, we typically see four people
with automobiles. The balance are our staff. And we've carefully
counted the number of staff individuals. And the national standard as
we see it now is one-half space per unit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide -- assuming this comes
back through a continuance, and even if it doesn't, then who knows
how it will survive -- the reference that you just had from the ALFA?
Page 98
February 4, 2010
MR. CHAPMAN: I'll be happy to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And not -- I'd prefer it not be in a letter
format, but in some document format where it's a printed matter.
MR. CHAPMAN: From ALFA. Sure, be happy to do that. And
I'd be happy to provide my own resume and background and further
detail as well in writing, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Also the market study that he
mentioned as well.
MR. CHAPMAN: Be delighted to provide that as well. That
was performed by a company called VWB Research who do about
900 senior housing focus market studies per year. They're quite
excellent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem with the parking standard
that you're asking about, we've learned very quickly that if we provide
something to one, it becomes to all. An example for it is the FAR
that's being used for these kind of facilities now is .45 in our code. But
we deviated once a long time ago to .60 for one particular applicant.
That applicant's attorney was hired by numerous other applicants, and
before you know it they were all asking for .60.
I'm not saying that's bad, but we've got to be very sure that the
demonstration of its validity is provided. A letter from you who is the
potential operator of the facility doesn't carry a lot of weight.
MR. CHAPMAN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your backup's going to be crucial.
MR. CHAPMAN: You bet. That makes good sense, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions ofMr.
Chapman?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just a comment too on that
whole parking standard.
You said that you took it into account the fact that most of your
Page 99
February 4, 2010
residents would not have cars and that the rest of the parking would be
for staff. I think you make a grave mistake in not including visitors.
MR. CHAPMAN: Oh, I understand. And we do in our fuller
calculation. I was just a little nervous and --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
MR. CHAPMAN: -- should have mentioned that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Because that becomes
critical.
MR. CHAPMAN: It really is critical. And we have a pretty
good idea on any given day at any given hour how many visitors are
in the building at a certain point in time as well. That will be
addressed in the stuff that you get in writing too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Did you have something you wanted to throw in or are you just
standing there because we're looking at you?
Okay, I guess that wraps up the presentation.
MR. GILLESPIE: The only thing I might add is on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the record, your name?
MR. GILLESPIE: Scott Gillespie. I'm the development director
for WXZ Development. Weare the general partners operating --
development manager for this community.
And I just wanted to mention on the neighborhood items, in
working with Dwight and the neighborhood group that was assembled
through Mrs. Gorman's assistance, as Dwight mentioned, our goal
here was to be proactive. And as he mentioned, we had the original
neighborhood -- the NIM meeting I believe you call it -- and we
followed up with about three other meetings with that group. And
they were very positive. I've done this for many, many years and I try
to be very receptive to the things that we can deliver.
Page 100
February 4,2010
And we felt that all of these items were for the most part
legitimate requests, and that's why we put it in this format. If the
format is incorrect, obviously we're going to make the correction as
necessary .
But I did want you to know that it was basically just an attempt to
do the right thing with the neighborhood so we weren't coming into a
situation where they would be opposed to some particular element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the concerns this board has,
whatever goes in the PUD document is a public document, controlled
by code enforcement at the county. There were certain statements in
this planning questionnaire, planning statements that weren't really
enforceable. Especially things where it says, the developer shall work
with the neighborhood. That doesn't really say a lot. It just says
you're going to work with them, it doesn't say how far. It doesn't help
to have that in a public document.
But if you have a separate agreement with the neighborhood that
shows that these issues were worked out and the neighborhood still
supports your project, well, that kind of seals up all the holes and
makes it a lot more viable, so --
MR. GILLESPIE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's a switch, so -- Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to invite Dwight to come
back up, please.
Dwight, go back to that document where you referred to
commercial uses, please.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to make a suggestion
that's just preliminary. I'm sure others might have further thoughts on
it.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But to the extent that it might be
appropriate to put something there, you might entertain the possibility
Page 101
February 4, 2010
of saying something like commercial land uses, if any, are permitted
for the sole benefit of the persons living there, however you want to
phrase it. And I'm sure it can get tighter than that, but that was just
something that I thought you might want to put in there to avoid
having a question at some other point.
Do you intend -- is it within your design, your plan, to have room
set aside for the purpose -- like a little beauty parlor and so forth. And
I think that's very common. So then I think that is appropriate to say
that otherwise code may one day come in and give you a bad time, so
MR. NADEAU: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. You might want to
think about making that even tighter, but that was the thought.
MR. NADEAU: That's an excellent suggestion. We can use the
-- some terminology similar to commercial uses aren't permitted --
public commercial uses aren't permitted, but those associated with the
facility, for the exclusive use of the residents, something to that effect.
Yes, thank you, commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to be doing applicant
questions now.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Dwight, a couple things.
One thing is looking at your map, your -- I'm not sure what exhibit --
Exhibit C. Would you do me a favor, again, put "R"s in all the little
squares. The way you draw this it looks like Tract R might be only
the center one. But would you have a problem doing that, adding Rs
into all the other tracts?
You know, there is -- there's a lot of lines here that can get
confusing. And just to make sure that the ones adjoining the ALF are
Page 102
February 4,2010
in fact Rs, not ALF's, okay? Do you know what I mean?
MR. NADEAU: I do know what you mean, Commissioner. I'm
trying to see -- virtually everything outside the ALF tract, the tract R
and -- excuse me, the tract RA is all R. So the lakes and the
residential, except for the preserve tract, are all R.
I can put as many R's on their as you'd like, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it just -- you know, you
define a boundary, call it R, you define another boundary, call it ALF,
and I'm just worried about the ones that are in between, to make sure
that you assign which one they are.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is fine. Okay.
The -- do you have a -- I guess maybe describe how you're going
to build these things. Because these little guys, you're calling them
single-family, but they're really not, they're multi-family units in our
code.
MR. NADEAU: By definition any time you have three or more
units attached within a single building it's a multi-family. However,
because we have the opportunity to plat attached single-family, similar
to a townhome, that's where we enter into this issue related to
setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but what are you
considering these, single-family or multi-family?
MR. NADEAU: They're considered attached single-family.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, first of all you're
going to get -- you can't take that into the building code with that
logic. What would make these not be attached buildings, just because
there's a lot line between them?
MR. NADEAU: Well, they will be attached buildings, but the
lot line will run between the common wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will you have double wall there
or will it be a party wall structure?
Page 103
February 4, 2010
MR. NADEAU: I don't know the construction techniques. I'm
not even sure my client knows, because it's in the design stage. But
more than likely it will be very similar to a townhome. And there may
need to be those fire walls that separate the units.
It will be a double wall I understand from the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think the only way--
I mean, you're going to have trouble with the building code, seriously,
I mean, that these buildings not be considered attached. And they're
not going to be townhouses, because our code defines -- or the
building code defines a townhouse, it has to have two open sides to it.
But anyway, so what construction do you imagine this to be?
Are they wood frame, are they --
MR. GILLESPIE: They'll be both CMU and wood frame. The--
I don't want to tell you that all of the first floor is going to be CMU
and that the roof section will be trusses, but it will be a -- if it is a
wood frame -- and we haven't gotten that far to actually define the
specific construction standard that it's going to be under -- it would be
a double wall, if it's a wood frame. And if it's a concrete masonry unit
wall, it would be a single wall between each unit.
And as far as the townhouse, and I haven't -- I'm not familiar with
the code and how deep it goes into definition, but it would be open on
two sides. There's a side kind of courtyard with each one and then
there's an opening on the front as well. So I don't know if that plays
into the townhouse definition or not, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it will. But, you
know, we don't want to solve building code issues here.
But you're going to really -- you're considering these
single-family units and they'll be constructed as independent
single-family units.
MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to have an
interesting time with the code, but you can go that way.
Page 104
February 4,2010
MR. GILLESPIE: Okay.
Dwight, a question on table one.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some of this, I mean, you
have a minimum floor area and a minimum of lot area that are
identical. I mean, obviously we know what your intent is. And you're
always going to have to have a lot area bigger than that.
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, so I'm not going to focus
on that.
On the minimum side yard where it says zero feet when attached.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you change that to put
zero feet where attached? And the only reason I'm pointing that is if a
unit is attached, I don't want the other setbacks like that driveway to
start getting narrower. In other words, so theoretically you could
stagger one foot, two foot, you could do something pretty weird. And
you're going to have enough fun with the fire separation on this
already. So would that be okay?
MR. NADEAU: Not a problem at all, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just change it where
attached, so the intent is that when you touch, you can touch at zero.
MR. NADEAU: Would that apply also to rear yard?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
Let me see ifthere's any other -- I think, you know, I too have
questions about the parking. You -- do you have a plan that actually
shows the whole site plan as you propose it or -- where are you in
other processes in the county. Have you gone in for SDP or anything
like that?
MR. NADEAU: We have not. We have not. We're in for our
ERP permit because mod. because this was permitted through the
Water Management District.
Page 105
February 4, 2010
But I don't -- did you bring any ERP plans that may show
driveways?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just curious how much
parking you really are providing. I mean, we've only gotten a tiny
glimpse of it when you did the gate. We know there's some opposite
the gate there.
And if the project's not that far thought out, feel free to let that be
the answer.
MR. NADEAU: No, I actually don't have a site plan. I thought I
did, but -- no, I don't have a site plan that shows the specifics of the
parking around the ALF building. We did have this -- we did have
this exhibit that shows some of the parking arrangement where we had
parking in here, along here and around the porte-cochere.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. That looks nice.
You'll make it happen that way.
MR. NADEAU: Very good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On your plan here, Tract R in the
lake?
MR. NADEAU: Yes. The water management facility would be
permitted in Tract R. Just like --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It would?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, the water management facilities would be
located in Tract R. It's standard practice. Some of the roadways --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So is the converse true?
MR. NADEAU: Well, no, you typically don't put residential
units in a water management tract.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but I'm just saying, is that
your water management area or not?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I don't think it should be
Page 106
February 4,2010
labeled residential then. I think it should be labeled water
management. Storm -- you know, lake water management.
MR. NADEAU: We could do that. But it would fall within
Tract R. And we could call water management lake; that would be
simple enough.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I -- remember I was
asking you to put R in, and I notice there's another one that does have
Rs in it.
What other difference is there between the one in staff report and
the other exhibits here? Are they pretty much the same except for
that, or what else does --
MR. NADEAU: They're pretty much the same. Actually, Ms.
Deselem just highlighted all of the tracts. Let me put this up here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because what I was
asking you to do this actually has done already, so -- but I just
wondered now, because I only looked at the other one.
MR. NADEAU: Sure. This particular exhibit has the ALF tract,
the RA tract, all of the Tract R around. We can put this in Tract R but
just say water management lake for Commissioner Caron's concern.
I'm not so sure that any additional labeling for tract Rs would be
necessary, unless you wanted it to bleed over into some of the
roadways, like in here maybe or--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just take the Tract R off
and leave the word lake. Because you are actually asking for a
deviation pursuant to that lake and its location. And if you leave Tract
R on there with the unstated attempt to possibly move it into
residential and move the lake somewhere else, it's going to cause other
concerns other where. So why don't you just take the reference to
Tract R off of it.
Page 107
February 4,2010
MR. NADEAU: I can do that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: It will be built within the Tract R -- within
Tract R, but I'll take the label off.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one other thing I thought
of. The lining of the road coming out of this thing, is it perfectly in
line with the property on the other side? I would --
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- assume so.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Ray, it's going to start with you,
though.
Ifthere's a deviation or a change from an accepted standard in a
PUD for acreage, how much of the acreage has to change before it has
to come back through the public process? Say if you had 20 acres and
they changed it to 22 or to 18.
MR. BELLOWS: A designated tract?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Land Development Code allows for
minor changes to tract locations and sizes, unless it affects a preserve
tract. Then that would trigger an amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you -- in the old PUD there
was table one called projected land use tracts. And under Tract P,
preserve, it showed acreage 1.6.
In the old PUD under 2.13, which was up on the prior board, the
master plan depicts one preserve area. The 1.62-acre preserve depicted
will be retained native vegetation.
And then if you turn to the master plan attached to the old PUD,
it has a table on the master plan in which 1.62 is again the number for
Page 108
February 4, 2010
the preserve.
Now, I know why they changed it. Because they put a catchall
phrase under 2.13 that was up on the screen earlier. And I'm just
wondering if that's -- if they're intending to tell us one thing but put
catchall phrases in to come back with another lesser item, I don't
particularly think that's a good process to have.
Ifwe said 1.62, it was approved at 1.62 in three different
locations and the catchall phrase allows you to go to 1.34, which is
what you went to anyway, why don't you say 1.34 was what you were
going to provide us in the beginning?
MR. NADEAU: In actuality, Commissioner, the developer at
that time had a specific product that he was looking for in the
rezoning. I was being generous with the native preservation, because
he said he didn't need the land.
He subsequently after zoning changed his building footprint and
the design slightly, and with that the staff found that the changes
following the caveats in Section 2.13 were consistent with the Land
Development Code and the SDP was issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in 2.13 it does not say the
applicant can reduce below the 1.62. It just says, if there's any
changes, they won't go below 1.34. And it doesn't say that if there's
any changes from the 1.62 the applicant doesn't have to go back
through the public process to get there.
So I don't know why staff gave that permission of approval in the
first place. So I'm a little disappointed that this board was presented
something back five years ago, we voted based on what was presented
to us, and a catchall phrase changed it, which looks like it was
changed outside the due process that was supposed to be provided to
the public.
And Cherie', I'll slow down.
But that leads to more of my conclusions, that this thing better
get wrapped up right before we vote on it. Because lacking those
Page 109
February 4,2010
agreements and other things, this document needs to be done much
tighter than it is from what we've seen from the history.
And I certainly am going to go through a lot of issues that I have
with it. That having been one.
In the deviation number two, you're talking about the necessity
use of access easements. Yet you're intending to plat tracts in which
the -- I shouldn't say tracts -- lots in which the units are going to be I
assume sold, fee simple?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you plan to provide platted
access to those lots?
MR. NADEAU: Through the access easements.
MR. GILLESPIE: It's not intended in the -- let me put it this
way: In the original -- our concept of what this community's all about
is to sell them from day one. This is going to be part of a rental
community associated with the services provided by the ALF to serve
independent seniors.
We are platting them for the anticipation that down the road if we
see that there's a market to individually sell those units, that would be
part of the reason for having those platted.
But the intention and the original scope is to be to rent those
units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's fine. Whether you
rent them or sell them, I understand your need.
How are you intending on the plat to designate the roadways?
MR. NADEAU: Via access easements, Commissioner. With
utility easements on the outside, the access easements will allow me to
define my front yards -- define my yards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've done a lot of plats. I've never
done one the way you're suggesting. I'm trying to understand it.
MR. NADEAU: I realize that. I've coordinated extensively with
Mr. Holdsworth, we've got e-mail communications, and he doesn't
Page 110
February 4,2010
find any issue with that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: For the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay, Kay, you're going to
be up here soon enough. If I need Kay's correction or comment for the
record, I'd ask for it.
Has the County Attorney's Office reviewed the proposed plat in
reference to how this is all going to fit together?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, we haven't reviewed the plat. I
think what he's telling you is ifhe does a platted access easement then
he's got a different setback. Because he can put the public utility
easement outside of the access easement.
Is that what you're trying to say?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whereas if you plat it--
MR. NADEAU: A right-of-way tract, it has a tendency to use
more land, which removes the efficiency in the traditional
neighborhood design opportunities that this plan provides for by being
able to plat with access easements.
MS. ASHTON: So you could do a more narrow--
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- easement with the public access
easement and put the public utility easement on the outside and then it
would still be measured from the access easement --
MR. NADEAU: Correct.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- as far as the setback.
MR. NADEAU: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to make the assumption in all
my questioning today that we're preparing for this to come back to us
in a better format. Because if you push the vote today, I can tell you
where mine's going to be, and you can --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And mine.
Page III
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make the assumption.
So under that premise, I would suggest you draft a format of the
plat you intend to use and get it to the County Attorney's Office so that
when it comes back to us we can have a legal knowledge that it's
sufficient and going to be sufficient.
You're asking for a hybrid concept here, one I haven't
particularly seen before. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm certainly not
against these retirement communities, they're needed. But I want to
get us there in a manner that sets a precedent that doesn't disrupt other
parts of other projects that we're going to be seeing as it comes down
the road. And I think it's careful (sic) we tread as carefully as possible
from here on out.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to explore how, using the
easements, how narrow would it be? How narrow a road would you
make it?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, well, it would be a minimum standard
county road, 24 feet. Then there would be curb and gutter on the
outside.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I had this vision
of 86-year-olds driving in a really narrow road.
MR. NADEAU: No, no, no, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your actual PUD you've
addressed the issue of accessory. There's going to be some cleanup
language in that.
On the RA tract, are you going to be using food service,
restaurants and stuff there? Was that RA tract addressed as well, or
not? Did you think about addressing that as far as additional
descriptions go?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, here it is. The RA permitted uses, I had on
the visualizer no change to A-I. It was private clubhouses intended to
provide social and recreation space.
Page 112
February 4, 2010
A-2 kept the same first phraseology, outdoor recreation facilities
such as community, swimming pool and deck --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: -- activity courts and bathroom facilities,
period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I remember it, yeah, you had
both of them up there. That's fine.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your table one, I know you've got
the corrections now for the accessory heights. We talked and Brad
pointed out a change in the zero foot. When you talk to minimum
front yard, you have 16 feet from BOC.
MR. NADEAU: From back of curb, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a standard for 23 feet to front
opening garages. And while that doesn't -- not be the unit, 16 feet to
the unit's fine. But you need to put the clarification or the caveat that I
know you're familiar enough with because we've had it in other PUDs.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that should go in here.
How do you -- your minimum distance between structures are 12
feet. That's between unattached structures. So if you have attached
single-family, that doesn't apply. And your example showed it
between buildings more or less.
MR. NADEAU: Building to building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The parking in the garage, you're
looking at one car garages?
MR. NADEAU: The parking for the cottages was a one car
garage with a 34-foot long driveway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so--
MR. NADEAU: -- for a second car.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you could have two cars there.
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
Page 113
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your relief from the parking that you're
trying to seek is just for the ALF?
MR. NADEAU: Just for the ALF, that's accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit E, your list of
requested deviations from the LDC, your deviation number one you
had previously indicated this was part of the prior PUD. I don't
believe that's accurate. 5.03.02.A.9 I believe is a new reference. It
may be the same language it's referring to, I didn't check this and staff
will probably tell us when they came up. 5.03.02.B was what was
referenced last time, so that's the only change. There's two sections of
that fencing section in the code --
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I can't remember the language
right now but I have them written down here. They are two different
pieces. Was that intentional?
MR. NADEAU: No, we were using the same standards that were
in the prior Land Development Code, using the same citation. But it
did move through the revisions of the LDC.
All this does, Commissioner, is allow us to put a fence on top of
a berm. The current code requires the fence to be measured from
existing grade. This allows us to measure the fence height from the
finished grade of the berm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see where else I have you. You
cleared up a lot of questions that I know staff had forwarded to you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: While he's looking--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at that, Dwight, could I ask you
a question on -- let's see, where is it here. Page 2 of 10 here on your
Exhibit A under RA tract, permitted uses and --
MR. NADEAU : Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- accessory uses.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
Page 114
February 4,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: The very last line says, including
structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage or shelter.
What kind of shelter? I was just curious, because I've never seen
that. I mean, I understand why you need maintenance and storage. I
mean, is it like a bus shelter?
MR. NADEAU: Is this--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just don't know what it is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dog shelter.
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah.
MR. NADEAU: Could you please direct me to where I'm
looking at? I'm in Exhibit --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Your development standards.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it is Tract RA, 4.B.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page 2, last word?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, okay, the stuffIjust changed.
Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to know what shelter
was.
MR. NADEAU: Oh, if it were just to be a pavilion that were
outside, provide shelter from the rain, so you come off the pool deck
and you can stand under the shelter. That's all that is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. No, I just wondered
what that was.
MR. NADEAU: No, it's not a hurricane shelter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any other
questions --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at this time?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and Dwight, since you're
Page 115
February 4, 2010
going to come back, you know, reviewing the platting and stuff, have
somebody check out the code issues on this, okay? Because first of
all, I'm concerned about that one building which does have the rears
touching. That's similar to some, you know, dec. statements that have
come before the fire taco for the Building Commission which I sit on,
and we've denied that to be townhouses. So that really is a -- you
know, going to be a mixed use building -- or I'm sorry, a multi-family
unit, which would take it from R-3 to R-2.
I think you're going to have a tough time making these R-3,
which is what you want. And once you -- if you fail to make them
R-3s, the code requirements on separation and fire resistance and
openings are going to be a tough battle. So kind of take a look at that
to see if -- because you may want to make them R2s, which these
driveways now become courtyards, they're not separation from
building and stuff.
So since you're going to look at code, look at, you know, the
building codes too to see if that alters anything.
MR. NADEAU: Very good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one final thing. The
relationship between the cottages and the ALF, what is that?
MR. NADEAU: The relationship between the cottages and the
ALF are that there will be a menu of services to -- offered from the
ALF facility. It might be a concierge service. There will be
opportunities for monitoring the senior living people in independent
units where if they need to press a button to say I've fallen and I can't
get up or if they haven't taken their meds as required, there's going to
be this multimedia system available to them to interact with the
facilities and the ALF. If they need to have dinner brought to them,
they'll golf cart it over.
So the independent units will have the opportunity to use all of
the facilities of the ALF but there'll be a menu of selections that they
Page 116
February 4,2010
can choose from.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at
that time?
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I take it that this development is based on an
existing development?
MR. NADEAU: The appropriateness of the development?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I take it that this type of development
has already been built by the applicant elsewhere? I mean, going
through his website, this is their business. So my guess is that you've
built substantially similar residential communities like this elsewhere?
MR. GILLESPIE: Of one variation or another, yes. But of this
exact combination with this layout of cottages to the ALF, we haven't
done that. I'm not going to say that that exact configuration's been
done. We have built many independent living cottages, we have been
involved in the construction of ALFs and senior housing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Could you get me an example--
MR. GILLESPIE: Sure.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- actual photos of developments you've
actually put into the ground?
MR. GILLESPIE: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because this is pretty new for me anyway, I
don't know for you guys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's--
MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm thinking that they've done this before
and it would be nice to see what it looks like.
MR. GILLESPIE: I can give you also some examples here in
town of this same kind of independent living cottage configuration
with assisted living facilities. There are some examples that are in the
area that I'll also include.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
Page 117
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions ofthe
applicant before we go to staff presentation.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
with the Zoning section of the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
You have in your information a staff report last revised 1/15/10.
The staff report goes into detail as to who the agent is, who the owner
is, the requested action, the location, a brief description of the project.
Explains both pictorially and in writing the surrounding land uses in
zonings. It has an analysis of the growth management issues that are
applicable to this project. And it goes into PUD findings and rezone
findings in support of staffs recommendation. Also discusses the
deviations and provides staffs recommendation for those deviations.
In summary, staff is recommending approval of all three
deviations, and we are recommending approval of the rezoned PUD
amendment petition.
And I'm available for any questions you might have.
I have looked at the proposed new PUD document, and I don't
have any questions as far as what's proposed, with the exception that I
would ask since it came up that there is going to be a relationship
between the independent living units and the ALF units, I think there
needs to be some reference to that within the Tract ALF permitted
uses.
Because originally we were talking about making some limitation
of commercial uses to only residents of the ALF. And it sounds as
though those might also be available to the independent living unit
residents as well. So I just wanted to make sure that we get something
in there that clarifies that relationship so they don't run into problems
down the road when they try to implement that.
Page 118
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you.
Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the deviation number two -- three
on the parking where that -- it talks about the petitioner has
demonstrated that the element may be waived.
Now, I know that their letter isn't enough demonstration, at least
from my concerns. If you find any further information on examples of
where that's occurred that you know of, would you please make sure
you provide it by the next Planning Commission meeting?
MS. DESELEM: Most certainly. I'll look into it and see what
more I can find.
There is a reference to Lee County regulations and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. DESELEM: -- what they have. And I'll look further to see
what else I can fine as far as county or municipal regulations. And I
assume the applicant's going to be providing something from the
private sector. Is that basically what you're asking me to do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason, if this happens, if this
occurs, it will set a precedent. And as you know, there's going to be
probably a lot of others following in. I don't want us to jump into this
without the thorough research that it hasn't caused a bigger problem
somewhere else if we do that.
MS. DESELEM: I would note that in Lee County's regulation,
although they have a lesser amount per unit, they do have a specific
amount, that 10 percent that they want to set aside, which assumes a
visitor population. So you could go something like that where you
have half of per unit plus some percentage that would address a visitor
population.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree, we should be looking at
Page 119
February 4,2010
conditions. Lee County has other conditions too in the way they
define the unit and how they count them. I think those are all
important considerations and I think that in order to be properly
demonstrated, staff needs to participate in understanding some
language that is used. Now, it won't be part of our code, but just like
the .60 FAR is not part of our code, it becomes part of what
everybody's going to be asking for most likely here on out.
And I have read some books because the issue is becoming
personally relevant to me -- not because of myself, by the way. And
one of them complaints about many of the retirement communities is
that they don't have enough parking. And I don't want us to get into
that trap. So I don't mind moving forward, but we've just got to be
sure that we're moving on the right foot.
MS. DESELEM: I'd be more than happy to look into it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers on this
one?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish to ask for a
continuance before we vote on this today?
Before you speak, I might suggest to you that the parking issue
needs to be resolved. There needs to be a neighborhood agreement
that is now referenced or going to be referenced. The tables need to
be corrected. The proposed plat needs to be seen. And there are some
miscellaneous language changes that would be better done with us
receiving the documents ahead of time rather than doing it on the fly.
With that in mind, do you want to continue this?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And market studies that were
going to be provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, there's a market study that
Page 120
February 4, 2010
Ms. Caron had asked about as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The ALF parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reference -- yeah, that's the parking
Issue.
MR. NADEAU: Oh, the parking study, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, as far as the neighborhood
agreements, I don't really want to see proposed agreements, I'd like to
see some evidence that there's an -- I'd love to see an agreement. But
in the absence of that and seeing testimony from those who represent
the neighborhood coming in indicating that they are very pro for
something that whatever minor matters have to be worked out.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
The Gormans own Gorman's Auto down on Marco Island.
They're working twelve hours a day. Many folks in the neighborhood,
our meetings occurred after 5:00. It may be difficult, but maybe we
can get some other written testimony rather than asking them to come
into the chambers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have to have anybody
stand on their head to get achievement, but I do have to feel
comfortable. And I wondering, who all are the neighborhood? Is
there an association, are there more than one? Who are representing
those folks? Because they're going to live with this for the rest of
time.
MR. NADEAU: That's very true. They don't have -- they are
not organized. They have some neighborhood leaders that are vocal in
issues, most particularly the C.A.T. transfer station. They were all
riled up about that.
But we've been working with that same group in listening to their
problems. They didn't have -- I don't need to go into this, but they
really didn't have --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you do.
Page 121
February 4,2010
MR. NADEAU: -- a problem with the project, they had a
problem with things that were outside of the project that they wanted
our help with. And we were more than happy to help them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but Dwight, if you're
going to come in and you're going to have subject to, subject to,
subject to, you're going to be subject to my no vote. So that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you've demonstrated part of
the frustration or problem we have. If you're striking deals with the
neighborhood, I think it's to your best interest to get the neighborhood
defined. Then come back in with the neighborhood's best I guess
recognition that your -- you and them have worked these matters out.
Because as it stands now, we don't have any way of knowing any
better who the neighborhood is than you are, so --
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
And for the record, not having to jeopardize the project, it's a
valuable project, the petitioner has accepted a continuance. We don't
know how far our advertising's going to carry us. May affect our
board date, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're requesting an indefinite
continuance, is that --
MR. NADEAU: Requesting an indefinite continuance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from the Planning Commission's
perspective, is there a motion to accept their request for an indefinite
continuance?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 122
February 4, 2010
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Let the record reflect that, by the way, Mr. Wolfley left at
noontime.
I think for -- out of -- we should go through the Radio Lane
development. I'm not -- we'll just walk through that one and see
where we stand with that one as we go through it.
MR. NADEAU: Of course. If you'll just bear with me for a
moment, I need to go get those materials.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, remember at lunch you
said you sent something out. Is this what you sent out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, Ray, I had sent an LDC cut
and paste document that I had done in response to the Immokalee area
deviations coming up on the LDC amendments on February 26th.
There's 44 pages on the Phase II request for LDC amendments. And
Bob Mulhere received a copy, as well as Susan and a few others. Bob
was going to distribute that to the Planning Commission members. I
didn't want to do it myself, so I sent it to Bob for distribution.
Would you follow up and find out ifsomeone's going to get that
out to everybody so they can read it? Not now, but I mean sometime
between now and our next meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: Do you want them dropped off today if they're
ready?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have them. But I think Bob was
Page 123
February 4, 2010
going to distribute it, because he's the applicant. So I was trying to not
put the burden on the county staff.
MR. BELLOWS: We'll definitely do that. Ifhe gives them to
us, we'll drop them off.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Oh, and Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, we don't need the
Vanderbilt Beach extension.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, we
absolutely do.
I would worry about you getting into one of these ALF's if you
keep bringing it up all the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Dwight, are you ready?
MR. NADEAU: I am indeed.
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL2009-734, TOFINO RPUD
Again, good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RW A. I'm
representing this petition, Tofino RPUD, which is planning No. 734.
I'm representing Radio Lane LLC.
This particular piece of property lies across the street from Palm
Springs Boulevard. This particular piece of property is owned by a
different entity, which is the Radio Lane LLC, although there's some
crossover between some of the ownership entities that --
MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, I think we need to be sworn in on
this item too.
MR. NADEAU: Oh, probably.
Page 124
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, we should do them
both. I'm sorry. Thank you, Kay, that was a very good point.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm used to dealing with the same crowd
so I didn't -- I completely forgot.
This is Petition PUDZA-PL-2009-734, Radio Lane Development
LLC. That will be known as the Tofino RPUD.
Any Planning Commission members have any disclosures?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I spoke to Dwight about both of
them at the same time, so I can't tell if the discussion overlapped, but
so be it, we'll go forward. Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
Again, this is another 10.75-acre parcel. It was previously
rezoned from C-l to the MAC PUD. It was approved for 86 dwelling
units. Again, this petition is not intending to change the density on the
site, nor change the preserve from what was originally approved.
There was a site development plan issued for the Tofino SDP.
And the impact fees were never paid and picked up. But that process
was completed.
This particular project is going to be very similar to the Sarecino
project in that we're looking to plat, we're looking to use attached
single-family homes, but this is residential. This residential
development plan looks like this. And as you can see, there's yellow
enclaves throughout where the clustering of the buildings will occur.
There is a recreation area tract, and we do have a lake in Tract R.
However, we can make that correction as well, Commissioner Caron.
There was a question about what that little yellow box is down
next to the detention area. That actually is a two-unit building. And
for illustrative purposes, but I don't want to be held to it, I want to
Page 125
February 4, 2010
show you how the actual layout looks from the conceptual site plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good and busy.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, it's a compact design and it provides for
the access easements.
In this instance, though, these are really unique, because the
fronts of the units are actually the rear of the units. So there won't be
any cars parking in the -- near the front door of the units. There's a
green paseo that would be a pedestrian access that would have canopy
vegetation shielded and will provide more of a, you know, a park
feeling between the units.
These also will be articulated so that they'll be a very pleasant
streetscape. And they'll be served by motor courts in the rear of the
units. And you look, they're these areas in here where each unit will
have its own two car garage.
So what we're trying to do we're trying to eliminate the visibility
of vehicles on the road. We do have some guest parking. And if
you're interested, they're going to be very unique kind of Key West
style cottages that are two-story but they're really a mezzanine type of
a two-story where you walk up to your front porch, step up to the
inside, or you can step down to the lower level where the garage is and
there's a living level above. I'll show you a little bit of a -- probably
what I'll do is I'll show you a cross-section and then what the floor
plan kind of looks like.
Again, these are in design stages, and we wouldn't want to be
held to these. But this is the character and what the intent is for the
development.
This is a cross-sectional view of how the houses would be
constructed. As you see, you come in from the front porch, you walk
upstairs into the main living area, or you could walk downstairs to the
mother-in-Iaw's apartment and the garage.
This will give you a perspective from the floor plan view where
up in living room up in here, master bath, and then downstairs are the
Page 126
February 4,2010
two bedrooms, some utilities and the two car garage behind. Those
two car garages occur off of the motor courts.
There were -- I'm going to move on now to some of the changes
to the document. There were some requests for -- or there were some
concerns that were brought up yesterday. And I just wanted to try and
identifY these upfront. Maybe they can alleviate some of those
concerns here today.
Most particularly there was some concern that the provision for
multi-family on this site may not be appropriate because we weren't
identifYing a multi-family tract. So what the developer has agreed to
do, or the petitioner, excuse me, is to go ahead and remove reference
to multi-family from Tract R, permitted uses, as well as to remove the
development standards attendant to the multi-family uses in table two
-- table one, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How did you do that, Ray?
MR. NADEAU: It's still a little dark. I'll play with it later.
So that would be the removal of the multi-family uses.
Also, there was some identification that the recreation
development standards were again -- or the accessory structures were
higher than what was permitted for the clubhouse buildings. Those
have been corrected to be consistent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, Dwight, all the way across
on that.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By all the way across, you're referring
to the fact that it's missed again on the single-family, right?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, sorry.
MR. NADEAU: I can get into the layout, the various layouts of
the building. I've showed you the overall master plan. I've also
included some typical figures within the PUD to show the
definitiveness of how we're proposing to move forward.
This is one of the scenarios where we would have the
Page 127
February 4, 2010
single-family attached units across but not attached in the rear. This
would provide for a front yard off of the alley, side yards off of the
access easement, and these being the rear yards separated from the
paseo.
The common lines would be -- the line running between the units
just six inches off the sidewalk and up to the access easement would
be the defined lot that would be intended for fee simple sale.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dwight, on the paseo, I can't
visualize, but you did describe earlier that there's going to be floral
and perhaps some structure supporting the floral. I think that's what
you said, some --
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, there will be some latticework, and there
may be some canopy vegetation. It's supposed to look like a garden.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who's responsible? Is that
common property, or is that --
MR. NADEAU: That would be common property. It would be
installed by the developer and most likely maintained by the
association, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those are -- are we limiting
it to lattice? In other words, there's no structural consequence? I'm
trying to figure out where the burden begins for a homeowner relative
to where the common property is and what the implications of that
will be in the future.
MR. NADEAU: Of course. I think the only burden to the
property owner is going to be the maintenance cost that would be out
of the association dues. The developer will be installing all of the
floral materials, any bench seating, any latticework, any paving --
paver bricks, the treatment for marketing purposes. And the
association would maintain those common areas.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What level of income are we
Page 128
February 4,2010
shooting for in this particular program?
MR. NADEAU: Well, I think I'd have to defer to my client on
that, which I will be bringing him up. And I can do so right now or
you can continue with your questioning --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, where I'm going with this,
it could be answered later. But as long as we get to it at some point.
And I'm not trying to micromanage this, but certainly I think it's
important.
It could be very nice. But with all the adornment, we also see a
potential future expense. And, you know, we could over-fix
something, and the people who occupy can then end up in some
trouble. So I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going.
It's very busy, very tight, compact operation. And I'd just like to
know more about it before I'm comfortable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Dwight, to start out, what's
the open space on this?
MR. NADEAU: It would be a required 60 percent open space.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to hit that
okay?
MR. NADEAU: And we will hit that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. These alleys are a little
tight. How does the person at the end get out of it? Does he back, can
he turn? He's kind of in a tough spot. But I guess he can go, you
know, up to the garage door on one side and come around. But he's --
MR. NADEAU: Well, the end unit would be able to back out of
the driveway and proceed out in this fashion. And we're going to --
just like anytime you back up in a parking lot, you need to make sure
nobody behind you is doing the same thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I should -- I'm more
worried about the dead-end alley, that one.
MR. NADEAU: The dead-end alley?
Page 129
February 4,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And whatever you do, don't
make that distance greater than 150 feet from the --
MR. NADEAU: Oh, no, we would not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- curb or you will get a wrath
of hell like you didn't believe.
MR. NADEAU: Yeah, it would be difficult to put a cul-de-sac in
here.
So the actual units would be -- because there's a driveway along
here. We would be able to back out --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not worried about him. I'm
worried about the two of you that went straight in. I assume that's
what happens. If I lived on those long units to the far right.
MR. NADEAU: There.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
MR. NADEAU: They are going to have to back out and
probably do a three-point turn to come out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you're right, if
they've ever visited Key West, this will be easy.
One thing, we got to really be careful with the code work on this.
That little slot you have on the side to bring light into the room steeper
in, how wide is that? And is it like --
MR. NADEAU: Well, we were looking at the sidewalk. Maybe
it's five or so feet, six feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've got to get your architect
to look at the Florida versions of the International Building Code.
First of all, we have a default four-hour firewall. I've tried to change
it. The vote last failed six-four. Two more people, we got rid of that.
So there's a massive firewall requirement in Florida that other states
don't have.
The fire protection, if you do prevail keeping these as
independents, which my prediction is you won't. But then there would
be so much rating alongside those walls, all the windows are going to
Page 130
February 4, 2010
have to be protected. I mean, you're going to have a sprinkler system.
You're probably going to have to bring it up to a full 13 to maybe fight
off some of that protection.
But I think before -- if we're going to do the same thing on this
one, you come back, really make sure the architect has seriously
looked at Florida's version of the codes and all the weirdness that
might be in there.
Because I think first of all in Florida any time you have more
than three buildings attached, this is the State Attorney's, you know,
word, it becomes a multi-family building.
MR. NADEAU: I got--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you do -- you're going to
lose R-3 in the building code. Whether we keep zoning -- calling it a
single-family, I don't know.
So just really be careful on that. Or really look into it. Because
I'm not sure you have.
And it is important to keep these as independent properties. All
of these would qualifY as townhouses, but unfortunately in Florida a
townhouse with three units becomes multi-family again.
MR. NADEAU: Indeed. But we have worked with county staff
where we can go through the platting process for these types of uses.
And the commentary that you're referring related to the
construction techniques is being recognized and I'm sure logged in by
the developer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question in terms of
landscaping. Again, this alley, there's no place for a tree or anything
in there. So what kind of landscaping are these things going to have?
I like the look, I like what you're doing, but unfortunately your
drawings show trees. I mean, what is going to happen for vegetation
in that alley? It's your front setback. So I assume that's your porch is
Page 131
February 4, 2010
going to be on that side? Or where would the sitting porch in this unit
be?
MR. NADEAU: The sitting porches would be off of --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The rear?
MR. NADEAU: -- off of the fronts in here. There's opportunities
for landscaping in these little terminal islands that are common
between --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're five feet -- the
landscape code doesn't allow anything that narrow.
MR. NADEAU: The landscape code doesn't require anything--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, we do an island
in a parking lot it's got to be greater than five feet. So, I mean, that's
something staff will review.
In other words, I'm just concerned that that could end up looking
like a pretty -- not as nice as your drawing of the single unit.
MR. GILLESPIE: The -- I might add for clarification, and I'm
going to admit to a lot of the modeling here came from Ole', the way
that the courtyards -- auto courts work there, as well as his description
of the interior courtyard spaces and how the floral and the lattice and
those sorts of things. So I'll be happy to -- we have a whole series of
photography from those areas that I think clearly defines.
That was we actually hired the designer that did that for Stock to
help us create this neo-traditional -- or T &D approach to the layout.
And I'll bring photos for the next meeting of that example.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The people and residents to this facility
are limited to 55 and over?
MR. NADEAU: It's all -- no, I'm sorry, these are not age
restricted.
MR. GILLESPIE: No, these are not age restricted.
Page 132
February 4,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to find out the
price points?
MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes.
MR. GILLESPIE: Price points are going to start in -- the hoped
for price point is going to be in the -- starting in the 230's and go up to
the low 300's.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
We need to provide Cherie' with a break, especially as fast as I've
been talking today. So why don't we take a break till 2:15 and we'll
resume at that time.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Welcome back from the
break. When we left we were off -- we left off on questions of the
applicant. And I think I'd asked everybody if they had any more
questions.
I'll ask one more time, does anybody have questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a couple. One of them
will be of staff, so let's move on from that.
On the table, Dwight, you already acknowledged that
multi-family's coming off. We've got the height corrected. This 16
feet from back of curb. You need to change -- correct that with a
footnote like we typically do for the 23 feet if the garage on the front.
And it's a front opening garage, if you remember that language.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back of curve. Do we know that
all the streets are going to be curbed?
MR. NADEAU: The streets will all be curbed and guttered?
Valley gutter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, usually it's the back of curb or
Page 133
February 4, 2010
edge of pavement. You might want to -- whichever -- ifthere's a curb
present, it's back of curb, if not, it's edge of pavement. You may want
to put some clarification in there so you've got that covered in case
there isn't any curb.
MR. NADEAU: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With these units being part of the --
described as much as they are in the PUD and with the concerns that
Brad Schiffer's got, he is a state licensed Florida architect, he's on
numerous architectural and fire boards, you guys may have a real
serious problem about your design. And if you do, it would be to your
best interest to get that fixed before you put it back in this document.
Otherwise you're going to be coming back to a public process to
change the document.
And I would suggest that whoever you've got working on this
real carefully go over what the concerns were following up to Brad's
expressions, because he certainly has a lot more knowledge of the
building code than any of us up here, I would think.
In the planning stipulations that were in the PUD, the prior PUD
had several paragraphs that required you working -- again, working
with the owners of the Palm Springs neighborhood. None ofthat got
carried over into this new PUD. Do you know why? Did you get--
do you have an agreement then that exists where you've worked that
out with the neighborhood?
MR. NADEAU: Actually, no, we don't have the agreement.
Similar to the Sarecino project we spoke about, the Tofino project is
not one that is going to be initiating development sooner than
Sarecino.
Therefore, through the discussions with the neighborhood, we
took their concerns that were attendant to the MAC PUD and applied
them all to Sarecino so they could be implemented sooner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to get -- because
you're dropping off those references to what you were going to do for
Page 134
February 4,2010
the neighborhood from the prior PUD to this PUD, they become
issues. You need to get those resolved I would think with that
neighborhood the same way you're going to get the first one resolved.
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and that's the only questions I
have. Does anybody else have any others?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report then. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon again. For the record, Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner with the zoning section of Collier County,
Community Development and Environmental Services Division.
Again, you have the staff report with a revised date of 1/15. The
staff report does explain who the property owner and agents are; the
requested action; the geographic location; a brief description of the
purpose and project description. Provides the surrounding land use
and zoning, both in written form and pictorially in the aerial
photograph. Goes into the Growth Management Plan analysis that
includes both the transportation element and the Future Land Use
Element.
The analysis from staff begins on Page 5 with the various staff
members involved in the review of the project included. It does show
the stipulations that have been proposed to address environmental
review's concerns, as well as transportation concerns.
Going over onto Page 6 of the staff report, it continues with the
other staff members' review comments, columating (sic) with -- cornu
-- yeah, ending with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've all got that affliction today, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Thank God there's other words.
-- ending with the zoning review comments and a brief analysis
of this project in relationship to the heights of the surrounding area.
Beginning on Page 7 you have the PUD findings. And going on
you have the rezone findings on Page 8, continuing through the staff
Page 135
February 4, 2010
report. These are made in support of staffs recommendation of
approval.
You do have a deviation discussion in the staff report. And
again, similar to the previous petition, staff is recommending approval
of the deviations and is recommending that the petition be found
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are
recommending approval of the overall PUD rezone amendment
petition.
And I'm available if you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got two. On Page 15 of your
staff report -- actually, maybe three -- the one on top is really going to
be of! guess the county transportation department. But John, don't get
up and hobble up here. Let me see if Kay can answer it first. Or Nick.
Will that carry that far?
Do a test, John.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Test, test.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only answer I'm trying to get is on
the top of Page 15, it says, the project is still under review by the
Collier County Transportation Department and Comprehensive
Planning Department who does the growth management analysis.
Is it still under review?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I've got to tell you, I'm unfamiliar
with the language that you're referring to at the moment.
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, if I may? For the record, Kay
Deselem.
Let me get him the staff report so he can be looking at the same
language and respond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is concerning traffic
congestion on Palm Springs Boulevard.
MR. PODCZER WINSK Y: One moment.
Page 136
February 4, 2010
For the record, John Podczerwinsky.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's too bad Kady's not here
today. I bet someone's having a great time trying to catch you on
camera.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's okay.
Sorry about the delay. For the record, John Podczerwinsky,
Transportation Planning.
This is not under review at the moment, but traffic calming is an
ongoing issue that may still be under review. You know, it's not that
it's under review, that it's something that will be addressed through the
NTMP process that's on-line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it need to be addressed through the
PUD process?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe it does. There's a
separate process for that that can be addressed at the time of SDP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's also a reference here to
working with the county to improve the drainage between 1-75 and
Magnolia Pond Drive. I'm not sure what all that has to do with this
project, but it's in the staff report.
Is that you -- since drainage is under transportation, is that
something you can respond to?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, it is.
I've been working a little bit with the storm water department,
Jerry Kurtz, the director over there -- I'm sorry, manager over there.
And one of the initiatives that we're looking at is improving drainage
for the entire basin that these two PUDs, the one prior to this one and
this PUD both sit within.
Each of these PUDs has offered a proportionate share of drainage
improvements that will benefit the entire basin. And that's essentially
I think $7,500 of contribution from each one. And that's going to
benefit both of those.
It also -- those monies are to be contributed towards a portion of
Page 137
February 4, 2010
the MGG-15 canal, it's called, which is on the north side ofI-75.
Basically it drains the basin all the way over to Davis Boulevard and
951, that corner. It takes drainage all the way from there and takes it
all the way up to Golden Gate main canal, north of the highway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the solution to the statement that
they will be working with the county to improve drainage, that
basically has been worked out?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Very true, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the time this was written,
apparently it hadn't been.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I needed to bother for
hobbling up here with. Thank you. Appreciate it, John.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing I noticed in the
preap., that the fire department wasn't there. I think it would be wise if
the applicant went by the fire department and reviewed it. I think
they've got radiuses okay, but there is the ability to have fire
department access to sides of a building. The ultimate result is what
kind of construction you could build that building.
So again, in the things to do, I think since they weren't at the
preap., and, you know, I would kind of go by and visit them and make
sure everything is happening cool.
MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem.
We do invite the fire department staff to attend the preaps. Most
often in the case of a PUD, they opt not to attend because their
comment is generally that they'll address it at SDP or plat.
But they are invited. But yes, I'll give the applicant the required
information that they need to know who to contact.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think they should visit,a
Page 138
February 4, 2010
in case there's any concerns. Because this -- what you're doing is
really tight and tight. And I really like what you're doing, don't ever
misunderstand that. But really, you've got to be careful because, you
know, you're pushing yourself to the edge, to the edge, to the edge,
and you want to make sure you're comfortable there.
I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, are there any public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is just for
clarification.
On your Page 15, the sentence is confusing me a little bit. It's the
-- well, let's -- from the bottom of one, two, three, fourth one up. And
where in the second sentence Mr. Nadeau quoted from the MAC PUD
ordinance which stated that the development will contribute 50
percent of the construction cost of the fence or construct 50 percent of
the length of the fence.
Which 50 percent are we talking -- I don't understand what that
means exactly.
MS. DESELEM: Since it was Mr. Nadeau's statement, I will let
him try to explain to you. But it does come out of the old PUD
language. And I won't say that it was crystal clear at the time either,
so -- but I'll let him respond, if that's appropriate for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, that is one of the items that
was in that old language I asked them to come back and have that
agreement worked out before they came back to us.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good, so then it's moot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 139
February 4,2010
MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's what I was saying, it's from the old
PUD document --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine, it just didn't make any
sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I need to ask the
applicant how they want to proceed. We're missing three items.
Obviously the example -- the plat, proposed plat as we had talked
about in the previous one; the neighborhood agreement, as we talked
about in the previous one; and there's numerous issues regarding
references to multi-family and other language and table changes that
need to be done to tighten this up.
I would suggest you may request a continuance indefinitely like
you did in the last one until these matters are clarified. Along with I
think for your own benefit to take a closer look at the units you've
designed to see -- to make sure they work.
MR. NADEAU: With regard to the Southern Standard Building
Code, I presume?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With regard to all the issues discussed
here today. I'm not going to --
MR. NADEAU: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- nitpick over code. Brad's much better
than that, and you don't want to go up against him on that issue either.
MR. NADEAU: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: On behalf of the petitioner, we would like to
request an indefinite continuance on this to be able to work out our
specific agreement with the neighbors, to provide a schematic
subdivision plat, as well as to address the changes to the document,
Page 140
February 4,2010
look at the construction methodologies for the proposed buildings to
ensure that they can comply with the matters that were discussed
today. I humbly request that continuance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for a continuance?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
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 VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make one comment,
Dwight. You know, PUDs do creative and new types of development.
I think this is the first time we actually really had something that was
creative, so --
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- don't take our comments to
mean to not --
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We just want it to work for
everybody.
Page 141
February 4,2010
Item #10
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we don't have any old
business scheduled and we have no new business scheduled. Oh, Ms.
Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Under old business,
which I'm pretty confident that Nick isn't prepared, but I just wanted
to remind him --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At all? For anything?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're going to blindside him?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that there were a couple of
issues that got brought up at the last CCPC meeting that he was going
to get back to us on. One was the roadway width of 50 to 60 feet and
the planting requirements in the smaller spaces.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have the roadway width question. It
would be a good discussion to have at the Planning Commission for
five or 10 minutes, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Well, I'm not sure, are we
trying to make a deadline here to get out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't care. We can add it to an
item for the future or we can discuss it at this meeting, it's up to you
all.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's fine either say by me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. On the roadway width, we can
discuss it now.
Mr. Mulhere, I spoke with him on the phone, he's coming down
with those LDC. He should be here shortly. He called about 20
minutes ago, said he was on his way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
Page 142
February 4, 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the right-of-way width. We have a
typical standard that we hold and we say this is kind of like the idea of
what we'd like you to build.
What happens is you can see this PUD was a good example
where they're doing access easements. The idea for us to have a
standard is based on MUTCD AASHTO guidelines, you know, FDOT
guidelines as well too.
Most of the applicants will take a look at that and they become
creative. They put a multi-use pathway on the back of the houses,
we've seen on one development. This one has a paseo and an
easement.
So you have a standard in the LDC. 60,80 percent of the time
when they get creative they change those standards. It is a deviation
that is there all the time. And I think even in one of the PUDs I read
last time it said we encourage you to come up with something more
creative and we will support the deviation if it's there. But we have to
come up with a standard as a kind of go-by, and then that way we
have something to start from.
But that's the reason it's there. And you see that deviation quite a
bit, because part of our goal is to encourage alternative design through
the PUD process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I don't have any problem with
being creative and doing alternative designs. My question related to
just the fact are we just making it rote and for none of those reasons,
that we're just -- we'll take that out because that allows us over our
entire PUD to shove a few more units in because we can get away
without this roadway width.
So that was all. I have no problem if we are genuinely being
creative, if we are genuinely doing something else that helps, like
pathways.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That makes all the sense in the
Page 143
February 4, 2010
world to me. But it's just been sort of a check box, okay, well, it's
supposed to be 60, but we'll deviate to 50 --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- without any explanation really
as to why or what is it that the community is getting a benefit from
from having them do that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of those things too as I looked at
them are also the underground utilities. They have spacing
requirements. And some designs will take those utilities and put them
in the utility easement or tie them together differently.
So that typical design you see in many subdivisions, that 60-foot
standard, when the designer comes in, he says I can move the utilities,
I can put the pathway in the back, I can shrink the roadway width by
doing these things, that's where you get those deviations.
So you will see a number of them. I think it's a good point to ask
them why have you done it, what creative thing have you done, and
maybe it's staffs to -- us to point out to you what's there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's all I'm asking is
obviously there can be reasons, and very creative reasons. And I think
it should be explained to this board what is the public getting for this
gift to these people. Because there should be something, some benefit
to the overall community.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or the neighborhood, whatever.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we will take note to point it out
to you when there is a deviation, what benefit does that deviation
derive, what is the alternative design that's been done to drive that.
And that other one you had wanted to talk to me about was the
landscape or the trees?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I have that down.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Next time.
Page 144
February 4, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other old or new
business?
(No response.)
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment. There's no -- anybody
in the public have a comment? There's very few left.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We are adjourned.
Page 145
February 4,2010
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:39 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 146