CCPC Minutes 05/06/2010 R
May 6, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
May 6, 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
Paul Midney
Bob Murray (Excused)
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti (Excused)
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, CDES Interim Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 6, 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO
HA VE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA
PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 24,2010 (LDC), April 1, 2010 Regular meeting, April 1. 2010 (LDC)
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - April 27, 2010
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: BD-PL2009-918, Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc., represented by David
Turley, requests a Boat Dock Extension that includes expansion of the northern most dock by constructing
two new finger piers with three new slips and constructing a new dock with eight finger piers, with 13 new
slips and the retention of the two existing docks, totaling 40 slips. Subject propcrty is located at 226 Third
Street, part of Lot 6, of Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range
25 East. Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ashley Caserta]
B. LDC Amendment 2.03.07 G -Immokalee Deviation Process [Coordinator: Susan Istenes]
C. LDC Amendment 3.06.06 F -- Regulated Well fields - Orange Tree [Coordinator: Susan Istenes]
1
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SV-PL2009-242I TAC Holdings, L.P., represented by Jeff Riggins, of Riggins Associates, is requesting a
variance from Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 F.1. which requires a
minimum separation of 1,000 lineal feet between ground signs to allow a sign separation of 603 ct feet
between two ground signs. The subject property, American Momentum Center, is located on 8625
Tamiami Trail North in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County. Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach]
B. PUDA-PL2009-I499 Lennar Homes, LLC, represented by David R. Underhill, Jr. of Banks Engineering,
and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, is requesting an amendment to the Heritage Bay
Planned Unit Development (PUD (Ordinance No. 03-40) to add additional development standards for
the AC/R3 designated area on the Master Plan to allow townhouse units, by amending Section 2.24, to add
item F and by adding Table 2A, by allowing deviations from the land Development Code (LDC) Sections
6.06.0 1.B and 6.06.01.0 I (0) regarding standard road section and road width; by allowing a deviation from
LDC Section 4.05.02.F to allow back out parking; and by allowing deviations from LDC Sections
4.05.02.1. and 4.05.03 regarding same-lot parking facilities to allow parking within easements dedicated to
all residents; and by adding Exhibit A-I to show the layout; and by adding Exhibit A-2 to reflect the area
wherein the amendment is effective; and by adding any other stipulations or regulations that may result
from the amendment process pertaining to the 261-acre AC/R3 designated area within the 2,562 acre
Heritage Bay PUD project. The AC/R3 subject property is located in Section 23, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject 2,562ct acres (the entire Heritage Bay PUD) is
located on the north side of Immokalee Road (SR 846) east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Sections
13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay
Deselem]
10. OLD BUSINESS
I I. NEW BUSINESS
A. CIE/AUIR discussion[Coordinator: Mike Bosi]
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
4/1 9/I 0 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
2
May 6, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. You two guys want to
move closer? It's up to you.
Anyway, good morning, welcome to the May 6th meeting of the
Collier County Planning Commission.
If everybody will please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Donna, would you mind doing
the roll call this morning.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr.
Murray is absent.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I believe both the Bobs are
absent for reasons they called in for, so they'll be excused.
Page 2
May 6, 2010
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is addenda
to the agenda. I understood there may be a change to 8.B, which is the
Immokalee deviation process.
Is that a fact, County Attorney's Office?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're asking that be continued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any objections from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll discontinue Item 8.B.
Any other addenda to the agenda?
(No response.)
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences.
The next meeting we have is May 20th. Does anybody know if
they're not going to be here on May 20th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have a quorum that day.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 24,2010 (LDC), APRIL 1,
2010 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 1, 2010 (LDC)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes, March 24th,
LDC minutes. Is there a motion?
Page 3
May 6,2010
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Karen first and Donna second.
So all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
The regular meeting of April 1 st and then an LDC meeting of
April 1 st. Both are the same set of minutes, I believe.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Donna, seconded
by Karen.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Item #6
Page 4
May 6, 2010
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 27, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the recaps on April 27th?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board heard the PUD rezone for the
McMullen PUD. That was continued from an earlier meeting to allow
the applicant to address some of the concerns from Commissioner
Fiala. The petitioner revised some of the -- and made more clear what
uses were prohibited in regards to some group housing issues, and
they approved it on their agenda 5-0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Ray, could you put
that item on the overhead? Let's hope the overhead works.
MR. BELLOWS: It's not turned on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or plugged in.
There we go. That's a new book, and it's by Daniel Mandelker.
If you remember the gentleman here, he was a professor who came
and helped us wade through the changes to the sign ordinance to make
it constitutionally right. He wrote a new book titled, as you see it,
Designing Planned Communities.
And he did actually mention Collier County. He basically
congratulated us for our -- or used our RI~SA standards as one
example of good planning, and the architectural standards in the
regular sections of the LDC. And in doing so he also acknowledged
Susan Istenes and Catherine Fabacher for all the work that they did to
help through the sign process and all that. And I certainly think we
owe all them a thank you and a good job well done. And it's good to
see Collier County being recognized as well. So thank you both.
Page 5
May 6, 2010
Item #8A
PETITION: BD-PL2009-918, HICKORY HARBOUR
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will move right into
our regular items. First item up is the 8.A. It's consent agenda item
Petition BD-PL-2009-918, the Hickory Harbour Condominium
Association.
Any comments from the Planning Commission on the consent
issue?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We had an e-mail on this, I
believe, and I didn't understand it. It said some numbers were
changed. And I could not find, in looking at the attachment to the
e-mail. Did you recall receiving that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I received it. And I think there was a
quantity of boat docks was the issue.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, can you clarify it for us.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta.
On I believe it was the second paragraph from the bottom on the
first sheet, it said that there were 14 slips on the attachment. In the
fifth paragraph from the bottom it now says 16 correctly. It matches
the application submitted by the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, does that clarify your--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue?
Okay, anybody else have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve
Page 6
May 6, 2010
Petition 8.A?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron,
seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Item #8C
LDC AMENDMENT 3.06.06 F - REGULATED WELLFIELDS-
ORANGE TREE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is Petition 8.C, LDC
amendment 3.06.06.F, the regulated wellfields, Orangetree.
I'm not sure what the -- I can't remember offhand why we're
hearing this. Susan, this is just one we missed probably doing final
approval on during the process?
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record.
I'm going by memory here, but I think my recollection was that
there was an illustration that was presented to you on the overhead
that was slightly different from the one in the packet. And the packet
Page 7
May 6, 2010
was the one that had the error. So what we presented and talked about
was correct. And so just in the abundance of caution we just wanted
to bring this back on the consent agenda with the corrected illustration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Is there a motion to recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #9 A
PETITION: SV-PL2009-2421, TAC HOLDINGS, L.P.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us into our regular
advertised public hearings. First one up is SV-PL-2009-2421, TAC
Holdings, LP. It's for a signage at the -- forgot the name of the -- there
it is, the American Monurnentum (sic) Center.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
Page 8
May 6, 2010
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.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the packet I noticed that we did not
have the reference to approval that the applicant had said he had from
the foundation. So I had contacted the Pelican Bay Foundation and
asked them for a copy of their approval. They did forward it to me.
So other than that, that's the only communications I had.
And it's the applicant's show at this point.
MR. RIGGINS: Good morning. My name is Jeff Riggins with
Riggins Associates, here to represent American Momentum Bank.
As you know, our request is to install a non-illuminated
monument sign to be located on Oakrnont Parkway. The property in
question is located on U.S. 41 and Oakrnont Parkway.
U.S. 41 is the primary traveled roadway there, but there is no
entry into the center from U.S. 41. The only entrance to the center is
on Oakrnont Parkway.
The sign we're requesting is to help motorists identify the entry
and guide them into the center. We feel it's essential to have the sign
on Oakrnont, as the road is very heavily landscaped, and the transition
from Oakrnont into the center will be made much easier by this
identification sign.
It's also located on a bend in the road on Oakrnont.
The sign itself will be constructed to match the architecture of the
existing monument sign on U.S. 41. The copy size is minimal, with
the upper case lettering at seven inches and the lower case lettering at
only three-and-a-half inches.
The property will be an office center and will also be home to the
American Momentum Bank. Of course banks rely on drive-up traffic,
and their requested sign will assist in getting customers safely into the
Page 9
May 6, 2010
bank with positive traffic flow by allowing ample time for them to
turn into the center.
As mentioned, the property is located on a curve in the roadway,
adding to the difficulty in identifying the entrance to the bank. In a
word, we call the sign practical.
The intent of our request is not just to have another sign or
over-sign the property but to rather serve as a practical manner in
which to help patrons navigate into the center.
It is presented in a tasteful manner, consistent with the balance of
the signage in Pelican Bay.
To be noted as well, the fact that the center address is a u.s. 41
address, but the entry to the property is on U.s. -- the entry -- there is
no entry on U.s. 41, even though the address is U.S. 41.
We therefore respectfully request your support for our approval
on this project and will be glad to answer any questions you might
have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the
Planning Commission?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, one thing is you go to the
plan you have of the V-shaped sign. You have a note in there that the
angle is to be determined.
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you mind -- I think 90
degrees is the greatest that angle could be.
MR. RIGGINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would you mind putting in
there less than or equal to 90 degrees?
MR. RIGGINS: That is not a problem. It could definitely be less
than.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, let's
go to that sign on the site plan.
Page 10
May 6, 2010
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It seems odd the way you're
orienting it. You're -- essentially the public's going to look into the V.
I'm not sure why that's -- essentially you're providing signage for the
parking lot, not the garage.
MR. RIGGINS: No, I see what you're referring to. And that is --
I can't believe I didn't see that before. The orientation will obviously
be for the Oakrnont direction.
That is incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially if you mirrored
that over 180 so --
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that the flat part, the east-west
stays the same but the north-south is actually to the --
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, can you provide a new site
plan with the reorientation for the record --
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by the time we get to consent?
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, second of all, the site plan that
you provided, do you have it kind of in front of you? Do you have it
handy?
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what the revisions nine
and 10 were?
MR. RIGGINS: Revisions nine and 10.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One was dated 11/3/09, the other one's
Page 11
May 6, 2010
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, I had spoke to Nancy. We had -- actually
on this site plan we had -- there were a couple of interior directional
signs that once they get into the property to identifY them how to get
to the banking center, to get to the drive-through, we actually had
those removed from the plan. That was one of the revisions.
The other revision was to add the dimensions as shown on there
per our conversation, which is 135 feet, the 348 and the 120.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, by adding those dimensions, you
didn't change them, you just were adding them for text to the
document.
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, this was a request from Nancy when I
spoke to her.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is because the
plan you gave to the foundation, which they approved, was up to but
not including those last two revisions. But if the revisions are
insubstantial in any manner, which it seems they are, then it really
doesn't matter.
MR. RIGGINS: That were done strictly for this meeting, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Any other questions of the applicant?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: One of the criteria for variances is
that the variances be the minimum required variance.
MR. RIGGINS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What makes you determine that
this sign is the minimum that you need?
MR. RIGGINS: Well, given the copy size, which was what we
based it on, we have a lower case lettering of three inches, which in
traveling in a roadway to try to determine what your size were (sic),
plus the sizes of the signs themselves were actually dictated by Pelican
Bay, so we worked within their parameters. And the copy sizes, like I
say, were worked all the way down to three inches for the lower case,
May 6,2010
which is quite small for motorists traffic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. RIGGINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning Services.
And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance today,
with one condition of approval, and I would like to change the
language on that just slightly by adding one word. The condition of
approval is that the sign is limited to the Oakmont Parkway, extra
word, and extension entrance.
And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to
answer them today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions?
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the only question
is Nancy, don't you think it would be wise if our sign code allowed
through lots to have two signs on it? I mean, essentially it's on two
roads, two frontages.
MS. GUNDLACH: It sounds wise, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put that on our things to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the same time, though, we
could even let staff make those kind of judgment calls when it's an
identical scenario and one that is -- I shouldn't say the word identical,
but basically lives within the parameters that the signage on 41 would
be existing with.
So that's a laundry list of things that has been kind of hanging out
there that staff could look at as maybe looking at some more
administrative processes instead of public processes and simple things
Page 13
May 6,2010
like that, so -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, this is another one of those
instances where you cannot see -- you won't be able to see this new
sign from any other place. You have to be on Oakmont traveling in
front of it in order to see it. You won't be able to see it also from 41 or
also from Pelican Bay -- I forget --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- whether it's -- Boulevard. You
won't be able to see it from there. You'll have to actually be almost in
front of the place on Oakmont in order to see it. So just doesn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was that last stipulation you had
asked for?
MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, just the correct name of the street. It's
not Oakmont Parkway, it is Oakmont Parkway Extension. And we'll
bring that back to you on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how many public speakers do we
have registered for this?
MR. BELLOWS: None for this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good to hear.
With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made to approve
and seconded. I'm assuming that the following two stipulations are to
go with the motions. I'll need confirmation after they're read.
First one is that the angle will be less than or equal to 90 percent
-- or 90 degrees.
Second one is that they'll reorientate the sign 180 degrees on
Page 14
May 6,2010
Oakmont.
Okay, does the--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion maker and second accept
those?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, except I think we don't
want them to particularly -- well, that works, rotating it works. Same
as mirroring it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's going to come back on
consent, so we can always make sure it gets to the point then.
Okay, motion's been made, seconded and the stipulations have
been added.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Thank you.
MR. RIGGINS: Thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-PL2009-l499, LENNAR HOMES, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is PUDA-PL-2009-1499,
Lennar Homes, LLC. It's for a modification to some standards in the
Page 15
May 6, 2010
Heritage Bay planned unit development Ordinance 03-40.
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 from the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some communication with Bruce
Anderson. I think Bruce was the only one that -- it was just he and I
that spoke concerning the standards we're going to be hearing about
today.
With that, Bruce, it's all yours.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson with the Roetzel and Andress
Law Firm.
With me today are representatives from Lennar, Darin
McMurray, regional vice president, Tony Burdett and Scott Edwards.
Also with me is my project engineer, David Underhill, vice
president of Banks Engineering.
This is a minor PUD amendment. It's only applicable to the 26
acres that are depicted in the dark area. It is partially developed and it
is in the mixed use activity center there. These 26 acres are the
location for a work force housing neighborhood known as The Vistas
at Heritage Bay.
This amendment is to allow the existing housing to be replicated
under a different form of ownership. It would be a change from a
condominium ownership to ownership of a platted lot.
You may ask why. This change in ownership is because of a
more restrictive change in financing requirements for purchasers of
condominium units. This is to facilitate the sale of these dwelling
units.
Because of the change in ownership form to a platted
Page 16
May 6, 2010
single- family lot, Lennar needed to prepare new development
standards and request three deviations from the Land Development
Code for platted single-family lots that will allow the new buildings
and the street layout to match the existing buildings and street layouts.
As you know, the standards in the LDC are different for a
multi-family condominium project than for a platted lot.
The bottom line, these deviations are necessary to maintain the
consistency of appearance in the Vistas' neighborhood. The only
change will be in the form of ownership; otherwise, everything will
look the same and you won't be able to tell the difference except on
the deed to the property.
I'd be glad to try to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you'd have some.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, let's start on the
ordinance itself. You have a statement you're going to add that the
development standards are set forth in table two and/or utilizing the
development standards in table 2-A. Is that so you can mix and
match? Can you go into one and pick a number, go into another and
pick a number?
MR. ANDERSON: No, it's so that we don't make the existing
units nonconforming that have already been built under the other
standard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially F exists
already, so maybe this should have been a strike-through. So are you
adding this total paragraph or are you --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- enhancing the existing
paragraph?
MR. ANDERSON: We are adding the entire new paragraph,
because before this only applied was the development table.
Page 17
May 6, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: So now we're putting this in here to make
sure that we're not going to make the existing units nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if I'm a designer of the new
units, can I go into one table and grab a number and go to the other
table and grab a number and -- or do I start at one table and finish in
one table?
MR. ANDERSON: You would go with either/or. And they
would look the same, depending on whether you were doing it as a
condominium or as a single-family townhouse on a platted wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then let's go to the table
itself.
The minimum area is 600 feet. I mean, isn't that -- that's a really
tiny area. And your drawings show the exact same geometry as the
other table provided. So I guess you're testifying that you're going to
really essentially build the exact same geometry, there's no --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- sleeper thing in here.
MR. ANDERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the 600 is really, really
small for a footprint of a building.
MR. ANDERSON: These are townhouse units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the 13 feet wide is
what you built in the other project?
MR. ANDERSON: On the end -- middle units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The middle units or the -- yeah,
looks like the middle. Not the end unit.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, and that's a product that
you've built and it works. Because it seems really small. I mean, you
want to reduce it on a cul-de-sac. You don't show any cul-de-sacs, so
I'm not sure why you need that. But that would be like a nine-foot
Page 18
May 6, 2010
wide unit. Because essentially your footprint is the actual unit, it's not
-- there's no yard or anything that's going to grow in dimension as it
gets to the unit.
MR. ANDERSON: No in width, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, number one down there
is to measure the front setback as you measured from -- and you list
different places: The back of curb, edge of pavement, right-of-way
line, whichever is least restricted. Which is an odd phrase for us,
because normally we put conditions in and we go for the most
restrictive.
But what is really the intent of -- as right on that lot line you're
going to be able to build a 35-foot high building; is that what you want
to do? I mean--
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, this is going to be a common area. You
see there where the cars are parked, all of that will be a common area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And essentially from the
roadway edge you're going to go 18 feet for the car. I mean, you're --
the back of your parking space is the roadside of the valley gutter,
right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it just seems really
tight. But I guess your comeback is you built these units, this is
nothing new, you're just completing what you already have, and you
want to do it, so --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
So this is what you built. So you really don't have the full height
on that property line, which maybe the piece to the right is, or -- is that
right? I mean, because what this is saying you could do is you could
build, what, 82 feet face-to-face, these buildings, but -- I'll tell you
what, let me fold on that. If you want to do it and you know what
you're doing, that's fine.
Page 19
May 6, 2010
I'm done, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
of the applicant at this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the minimum average site
depth, why does that change if the actual units aren't going to change?
Why does the depth change from 40 feet for these townhouses to 20
feet? How did it suddenly get chopped in half?
MR. UNDERHILL: Hi, Dave Underhill for the record with
Banks Engineering.
The reason that the depth is different is the configuration of the
units. The end units have kind of a courtyard between the buildings,
and the end units are not a typical townhouse that fronts on the street,
if you will, they front on the common area between the buildings.
And those units, the orientation of those units is different, so the depth
is actually 20 feet. They're actually wider than they are deep, which is
why the lot depth had to be revised and reduced.
The picture shows the -- that configuration. There's actually two
units on the end of the building: One in the front towards the street and
one in the back of the building. And those are -- they're just a
different shaped unit. And that's why the land uses had to be changed
and mixed up, to allow the narrow unit for those and the other, the
width to be less for the units that front -- that are more traditional that
face the street, if you will.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But you've been doing this before,
correct?
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, this exact same building has been
constructed. There's about maybe eight of these buildings have been
constructed and sold.
And the difference really comes that if you do it as a
multi-family building and go through the condominium sale process,
there is no right-of-way, there is no setback to the right-of-way. So all
Page 20
May 6, 2010
these land use regulations are really predicated by the creation of the
right-of-way to create the frontage for the lots, if you will, and that's
what causes all the need for the different land use regulations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But in constructing what's already
been constructed as a condominium, you wouldn't have needed the
minimum average site depth to read in the current PUD as 20 feet as
well, because you're doing the exact same exact thing?
MR. UNDERHILL: No, ma'am. The whole 20-acre parcel
becomes your lot --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Gotcha.
MR. UNDERHILL: -- and so it meets all the requirements of the
old table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just as clarification, the previous
way you built these, you were defining the buildings' lot as the
dimensional criteria for the table. Now what you're defining as the
dimensional criteria for the table is the actual footprint on each unit.
So we're not dealing with a lot, really, we're dealing with a footprint of
the outside perimeter of the unit, if I'm not mistaken.
So the numbers that we have here have to match the width and
depth of each unit. So that you've got to go to the smallest unit to get
your minimum width and depth and then work up from there. So
that's probably an easy way of trying to figure out what it is you're
doing.
I have a few questions from your table. First of all, though, the
parcel that you're asking to modifY, you're only showing -- you're not
showing the only AC-R3 parcel. The parcel that you're modifying
continues to the northwest, if I'm not mistaken. If you go to the
original master plan -- or actually you go to Page 3 of the staff report.
If you notice, the next down then goes up along the preserve into a
Page 21
May 6, 2010
large area. And I know on the aerial that you've made that into a lake.
According to the PUD amendment, the amendment area is the
black area which stops where the neck of AC-3 goes to the northwest.
So I'm just making sure that when we get done with this we're locking
you in to the AC-3 area as shown, not to the overall AC-3 area.
Because someone theoretically could come in and fill in that lake and
build something there if they wanted to get away with it somehow.
Is that a true statement, you're only trying to work with the area
that's in black on the AC amendment -- I mean the PUD amendment?
Bruce, you look confused for the first time.
MR. UNDERHILL: That was our intention. I mean, certainly I
guess I wasn't aware that the zoning line continued up to that lake.
But certainly it's our intention to only limit it to the area that we've
shown.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I'm not -- I mean, I
practically don't think you're going to do anything like that, I'm just
concerned about making sure we've got all the T's crossed and I's
dotted in regards to what we're laying out. No one's addressed that
little knob to the north. And I just think before this is over we just
need to make sure that somehow it's clarified that that piece is going to
be -- going to remain to what it is today and it's not going to be part of
this change. So that was my first point.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll be happy to insert a legal description.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work -- well now, you
can't do that. You can't change the zoning of that piece. You can
insert a legal description to limit the amendment to the legal described
area, but you can't take AC-3 and apply it only to the area you're
trying to amend and remove it from the area to the northwest, because
then you'd be changing the zoning, which I think would trigger
probably a different review.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I was thinking an option would be to label the
Page 22
May 6, 2010
master plan as lake area on that tract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to -- see, if they change
zOlllng --
MR. BELLOWS: No, it still would be that same district--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AC/3?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it's just a water retention --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: -- labeled as lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. Anything, as long as
we know -- we get some clarification on it.
On your table four, let's start with -- Brad touched on it,
minimum lot width. You don't need that anymore with the footnote
five. Because these are units you're not going to -- building setbacks
on a cul-de-sac always have to start from the setback area, and the
building has to have a minimum width and size, and it has to move
further back in the cul-de-sac until you get to that. You can't take the
building -- you're not going to chop a building and reduce it by, what
is it, I forgot the percentage -- 29 percent if it's on a cul-de-sac,
because you're building square buildings.
So can we drop that footnote from minimum lot width?
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, those notes, the footnotes are carried
over from the original table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they are, but that means you
guys should have caught it before today's meeting, so now we'll go
through each one and correct the ones that were caught.
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, number five can be dropped.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go down to number three
it says, building heights, see Section 1.6. Is that the right section
reference? I think it's 1.8.
MR. ANDERSON: It's what we have on ours. That's the new
format.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see what -- because I pulled the
Page 23
May 6, 2010
PUD. Only problem is I didn't print the whole thing. County won't
give me a printer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the ordinance it says 1.8, see
Section 1.8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But I think it should be 1.6.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard
just the opposite.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in the version they gave
us, it is 1.8 in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You guys are -- here, okay.
MR. ANDERSON: It is 1.8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is 1.8. Yeah, I've got the page now.
Building height definition is 1.8 on Page 13. So you really want to
change that reference in footprint three; do you not?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The table four I'm looking at that I
thought was provided by you guys shows see Section 1.6. What table
four are you looking at? Because that may solve a lot of our --
MR. ANDERSON: We don't -- we're not doing anything with
the table four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a table titled development
standards for AC/R3 residential district. Is that the table we're working
from?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute. What
Mark's confused with, on County's stationery there is a table four,
which made no sense. And I don't know why that was in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either, but it was in the packet
and that's the packet we're reviewing today, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you loom at the resolution,
the table attached to that I think would be the -- which is a 2-A. All
Page 24
May 6, 2010
those references are to 2-A.
MR. ANDERSON: Are they included?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you are right, it says 1.6 on
that table four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could someone put the table that
-- there's multiple tables in my packet. So could someone put the table
that you're trying to get approved on the screen today in front of us
here.
Okay. So your table says 1.8, mine says 1.6. Let me compare
my notes to yours, then maybe I'll have less questions then.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, put the one that's in the
resolution, because you get the whole table on one sheet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Steve.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Strain, if I could introduce --
your table four that you saw, your source of confusion, was the
original version. We renamed it to 2-A. It has been updated. I have a
new ordinance for you, if you'd like me to distribute it. And then we'll
all be on the same --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. And you asked me before
the meeting started if you could distribute that and I forgot. So why
don't you distribute and we'll just work off of that. That would be
great, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this different from the one in
the packet?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not in substance, only in format. But it does
have clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry I didn't -- I forgot our
discussion.
Okay, then Bruce, we'll just go back and I'll continue with still
the new table that was just passed out. I shouldn't say new, but the
corrected resolution still has some footnotes I want to question on it.
It does have the correct building height reference in the code into
Page 25
May 6, 2010
the PUD. It has a reference under accessory rear yard setback to item
two. That's for a golf course. There is no golf course. Can we for
clarity just drop item two as well?
Is that a yes or no?
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, we can drop the reference to the golf
course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we drop footnote two.
Guys, this is going to be painful if we walk through these and it
takes a while. If you don't have a golf course, you don't need footnote
two. So why don't we drop it. We don't have a --
MR. UNDERHILL: We still need the reference to the lake in
that footnote, but we don't need the reference to the golf course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll drop the -- just the golf
course reference.
We move down to 10, accessory use under 10. Can you explain
how that would work with this building? And number 11, while you're
at it.
MR. UNDERHILL: Ten certainly can be eliminated. There is a
comment, pool building. We would like to main -- it's constructed.
Again, we'd like to keep note 11, only to the extent that we don't make
the existing building nonconforming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't build the existing
building to table 2.A. So this is only table 2.A. You would use table
two.
MR. UNDERHILL: Okay. I'll agree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we can drop 10, and what did
you say about II? Is that --
MR. UNDERHILL: Eleven, I think we can probably drop that
also.
Page 26
May 6, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I'm not trying to mess up
your plan. I'm not against it. I'm just -- when these tables are written
with all these footnotes, it's not -- we shouldn't just carry over the old
notes from another table, we should make sure the notes that we're
carrying and using are specific to the new table that we've created.
That's all I'm trying to correct here today. So that when staff goes in
and they have to find a footnote that applies, nobody's sitting here
doing what I'm trying to do, figure out how it applies to this project. It
simply either does or does not, and we've got it ironed down to the
ones that do.
And the last one on this page is number 12, the common
architectural features such as archways, arbors and courtyard entry
features, aren't those addressed in our LDC as exceptions to the
setback standards? I mean, if they are, then why are we being
redundant here? And how does that redundancy clash possibly with
the LDC?
MR. UNDERHILL: Again, I think that we could just eliminate
that footnote. I don't think it's going to cause us any harm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that would be a
good idea. Because essentially they could build into the right-of-way
area that they're putting if we let that stay there. And again, if you
needed it, you could go back to table two, since you can mix and
match and get it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, how does that apply to this
project? At least the table -- how does it apply to the new product
you're trying to put there? I understand how part of it does, but I'm
worried about the alley. You don't have an alley, so can we clean that
up to be more -- or are you considering some of these alleys in some
manner?
MR. UNDERHILL: No, we don't have any alleys.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come back for consent
Page 27
May 6, 2010
agenda, could you clean up the language in number six to make sure it
applies to the uses and the way you're laying out this project? If you
don't have an alley, then drop that reference and leave it just so it's
what's there.
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's it.
So you're going to clean up two and six, and you're going to drop
five, 10, 11 and 12. You're going to fix the amended area as we
discussed earlier. And I think that's it.
Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the footnotes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On any of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do.
You're referencing the table one. We've never seen a table 1.
What is table I? In Section 3 of the development standards you're
adding a paragraph A and it says tables 1, 2 and 2.A. What was table
one? I mean --
MR. WILLIAMS: In may. Steve Williams.
It is in the general PUD documents. It is the development
standards for R -1 residential district. It's just referencing the general
PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it wasn't in our copy of the
PUD standards, the full Section 1. So that's okay, as long as it doesn't
hurt anything being there, in your opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Staff report, please.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning.
In the newly named growth management division you have
Page 28
May 6, 2010
before you a staff report that's dated last revision of April 19th, 2010.
The staff report goes into detail providing the information such as
location, project description, adjacent zoning, noting that it only
includes the adjacent zoning to the site where the amendment is to be
applicable. It has Growth Management Plan consistency analysis.
Staff is recommending that it be found consistent -- it being the
petition -- be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
You also have the review comments from the various reviewing
entities. And you also have the findings of fact for the PUD and
rezoning sections of the Land Development Code to support our
recommendation of approval.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Kay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the newly named department.
Go ahead, Donna.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The deviation from LDC Section
4.05.02.F, which states no motor vehicle shall have to back onto any
street from an off-street parking facility. So when these were
originally just multi-unit family dwellings, that doesn't apply?
MS. DESELEM: Correct. Because they were designed under
the auspices of one building and they had a parking lot.
Because of the change that they're proposing now, in order to
meet the standards, it kind of creates a lot frontage issue and a road
access issue. So this is just to recognize what's already there and
addresses that particular portion of the code. Because normally if you
had a single-family house or a two-family house, you'd have road
frontage. And the way these are designed, they spill onto a parking
lot, per se.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you're saying, it spills
Page 29
May 6, 2010
onto the parking area. Okay, thanks.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Kay.
Are there public speak -- go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just have one more
question for the engineer from Banks.
If you look at your sheet, the site plan sheet one of one, you have
a note that says, shaded area indicates proposed right-of-way. And
that doesn't make any sense to me. Is that floating or is that -- what is
that telling us? Because the shaded area is actually representing your
-- or at least the hatched area.
MR. UNDERHILL: The hatched area is our proposed
right-of-way, if you will. It includes the parking, utility easements,
grassed areas. But the shape of it's necessary to create frontage on a
street.
It also is bounded by the limits of the existing condominiums,
which is why it's not concentric or consistent where there's existing
buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the right-of-ways is
essentially going to include everything but the building.
MR. UNDERHILL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And around the perimeters
some.
Okay, I do think the note should be moved to where the arrow is,
makes sense, don't you? It kind of floated, slid down, I think.
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when we call it a
right-of-way, it's not a road right-of-way then, because essentially it's
going between buildings and everything else, right?
MR. UNDERHILL: It's kind of that round peg, square hole thing
with trying to meet the rules for -- to create lot frontage on a street and
Page 30
May 6,2010
to map the existing development that -- and to continue the existing
development pattern that's already there and approved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So to get that -- on the
end units that one in the rear to essentially front on a right-of-way.
MR. UNDERHILL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When people come in to buy these, in
the past in the first phase of the project they would have come in and
bought a condominium with certain common area rights. The
condominium is a piece of the building, and in their condo dock that
piece would have been described as a particular unit that they're
buying, up to the common walls and all that.
And now what you're doing, instead of buying into a
condominium, they're buying a fee simple for the footprint area of the
unit that they encompass, with rights to the general right-of-way
surrounding it. Is that --
MR. UNDERHILL: That's very accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how are you combining the
operations of the former phased condominium to the fee simple selling
process? How are these -- are they all going to be one HOA?
MR. UNDERHILL: There will be several HOA's and -- at least
two. I think there's a master and then there may be three. But it's to
maintain the consistency and the rights that -- throughout the
development. The intent is to try to get give the platted lots the same
rights as the condominium lots have and not create any inconsistencies
just due to the ownership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you probably need cross easements
and stuff like that back and forth.
How do you -- I'm kind of curious, because this is kind of like a
really unique animal. You -- the people that own the condominium
have to pay condominium fees and dues based upon proposed
condominium budget that the developer !,ruarantees for a certain period
Page 31
May 6, 2010
of time.
Now when you get into these fee simple, you're going to set up
an HOA, I assume, and use an HOA budget that you're going to have
to back for a certain period of time and then they contribute to the
HOA budget and the HOA board of directors then decides how to
spend the money once they take over. Is that how it's all going to
come together?
MR. UNDERHILL: I think that's appropriate. There is a master
fee? Right, there is a master association that includes both the lots and
the condos.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who gets the benefit, the costs, the
maintenance and the other issues involved in the rec area?
MR. UNDERHILL: That's going to be one for the master.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the overall. The condo, and HOA
are sub to the master.
MR. UNDERHILL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's pretty interesting. Great.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the real thrill is
the sprinkling of the buildings without going through the party walls.
MR. UNDERHILL: There's a number of issues like that with
sidewalks and utilities and fire services. And yes, that will have to be
well documented in the -- all the documents.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is solely to create
something you can market in this economy?
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does all these additional problems to
make this work increase your cost? I mean, I know it does because
you're here today. But let's say -- let's forget that. Say you've been set
up from this way from the beginning. To build the fee simple on the
footprint like it is or the condominium on the parcel like it is, do you
have a difference in cost?
Page 32
May 6,2010
MR. UNDERHILL: It's all the same hard costs. I mean, it's just
the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Legal costs.
MR. UNDERHILL: -- soft costs, the legal and engineering to
create the layers in the associations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's going to set a precedent for
sure. I don't think we've had one like this come through before. But
now that I think we understand it better, we may see more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's going to cost more.
Because you have -- now you have townhouse fire walls between
units. The other units didn't have that. The sprinkler system can't go
through party wall. All the -- none of the utilities can. You'll enjoy it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting to see how you have to meter
it from utilities, water and stuff like that.
MR. UNDERHILL: It's all master metered right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole project is? So how do you
break down to individual meters in the fee simple product?
MR. UNDERHILL: There's not going to be meters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one guy's -- so everybody pays a
percentage of the pro rata share of the budget.
MR. UNDERHILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone uses 10 times more water
than the guy that's up north 10 months of the year, the guy that's down
here for two months of the year, he still pays for all that time the other
guy uses. Wow, that will be interesting. We'll have to keep an eye on
it. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to
speak?
Page 33
May 6,2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public
hearing and entertain a motion.
Before we do, maybe for discussion, we had asked that they
amend the PUD area to include all of the AC/R3 with the designation
of lake for that part that is actually being used as lake in the north.
They're going to have to relocate the right-of-way arrows so that
they do actually go into the shaded areas on the map in front of us.
They're going to drop footnotes five, 10, 11 and 12.
They're going to modify the language in footnote two and six.
I believe that's all we discussed. Is there any more for
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, ifnot, is there a motion with
those stipulations?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. I move we forward
PUDA-PL-2009-1499, Heritage Bay PUD, with a recommendation of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the stipulations that were
noted?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded.
Is there a discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 34
May 6, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Thank you all. It was a learning experience. For that we actually
do enjoy it.
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS - CIE/ AUIR DISCUSSION
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have some new business, but
the next on the agenda is old business. Is there any old business
today?
Okay, new business. Mr. Bosi. The CIE, the AUIR discussion.
That was passed out to us at our last meeting. And of course Mike,
you probably got a word from Nick. I'd like to know what's so high
risk about us. But if he didn't warn you, he should have.
Anyway, go ahead.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, with the Comprehensive Planning
Section of the EECPZ Department. Engineering, Environmental,
Comprehensive Planning, Zoning. Transportation in there as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you throw utilities and parks
and rec in too, just for the heck of it.
MR. BOSI: Bill put a limit on it in terms of his expertise.
And what was distributed at the prior CCPC meeting was the
proposal to combine the AUIR and the CIE. The direction that we had
received was to look at the two processes. There was an apparent
disconnect within the process based upon a number of the comments,
the number of the issues that had arised (sic) over the past couple of
years between the budget process, the AUIR process and the capital
Page 35
May 6,2010
improvement process.
And there's three different phases, three different snapshots in
times. And those snapshots in times have -- were leading to -- I don't
want to say disconnect, but differences within numbers in revenue
streams and projections and costs associated with each one of the
projects associated with the capital improvement programs that were
contained in the AUIR, the capital improvement programs that were
contained in the CIE.
Originally when we tried to do the combination, we were
thinking that we would have the AUIR and the CIE be heard in the
spring because we wanted to -- we wanted a natural progression to the
budget discussions that happen in June.
The problem with that is we would be working upon one
population numbers that were a year old, because the BEBR
populations do not come out till the end of March, and we're obligated
to use the most currents BEBR populations.
To the revenue projections and the costs associated, the impact
fee projections, all the revenue fiscal numbers were going to be almost
a year old, because budget in 0 and B utilizes February, March, April
and May to coalesce all the financial numbers that go into the tentative
budget hearings that go before the Board of County Commissioners in
June.
Based upon that, we did not want to give up on the idea of
combining the two, so we said why not have the CIE track the current
schedule of the AUIR.
And one of the additional benefits that are provided with that is
in 2011 we have to by December 1st adopt a financially feasible CIE.
And the way that we've been adopting our CIE has been in February
and March of the year.
Well, our CIE was lagging a year behind our actual budgetary
process, and the capital improvement programs that have been
associated with the programs within that CIE.
Page 36
May 6, 2010
So with the combination of the CIE and the AUIR being tracked
in the fall, we'll be able to attain that statutory compliance with the
transmittal of the CIE in early November to the Department of
Community Affairs.
And one of the main advantages was cost savings. In terms of
duplication of meetings, duplications of procedure, and there was an
estimation that was done in-house that potentially with the
combination of these two processes we may be able to save 23,700 tax
dollars that could be reallocated to another specific activity.
That's based upon staff hours for the various departments, for
utilities, for transportation, for parks, for all the contributing members
of the CIE, as well as the time associated and the cost associated with
the public hearings, the advertising for the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners.
We've had the internal discussions amongst staff with the County
Attorney's Office. We believe that we will still maintain the integrity
of the codes as specified and be able to a attain the increase in
efficiencies that -- based on this budgetary environment that we find
ourselves in we're all striving to do in terms of look at our process and
look at where we can maybe improve upon those processes in the
terms of efficiency.
With that, I would enjoy any questions that the Planning
Commission may have about the process and some of the cautions that
may be put forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, why do you think we're high
risk?
MR. BOSI: High risk? I don't think the Planning Commission's
high risk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wrote this, the executive
summary?
Page 37
May 6, 2010
MR. BOSI: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wrote the project management
plan?
MR. BOSI: It was myself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you think we're high risk?
Page 7, 10.A.
Nick didn't brief you on this, huh? He always says we're high
risk, but I didn't know it was inherent in the whole department, so --
MR. BOSI: No, sir, I wasn't briefed upon the statement of high
risk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Risk management, 10.A. Project scope
management talks about the Planning Commission and Productivity
Committee. Risk is high. I'd just like to know why these two
committees are so high risk. Just curious. Because maybe we should
get insurance or something. I'm not sure.
MR. BOSI: What that refers to is the documents contained
within the AUIR within the CIE. And the amount of changes that can
be contained or initiated from the CCPC review, based upon valid
concerns, based upon valid analysis that there's traditionally a number
of changes that will happen to that document from what staff puts
together, based upon the required population, against the level of
service standards, the timing of the projects, the location of some of
the specifics of the projects, and the recommendations that have come
from the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee
normally has a tremendous altering effect upon that document.
So when we utilized the term high risk, I guess it's not in the
traditional sense that there's danger associated with it, it's that the
document will be modified substantially from its original base or
form.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of thought that's the
direction you were going, but I kind of -- it was good to hear that you
consider us a high risk because we do our job. So that's not a bad
Page 38
May 6, 2010
thing.
MR. BOSI: In terms of -- I think they're exhaustive in terms of
the job that you -- and one thing that I wanted to mention to the
Planning Commission is there's a high degree of probability that you
will be reviewing the AUIR/CIE this year on a solo capacity, in terms
of my interaction with Ms. Vasey from the Productivity Committee
who usually takes the lead in the AUIR/CIE review, based upon the
lack of projects that will be put forward in the AUIR, the CIE. And
their specific task is fiscal review and fiscal analysis.
Based upon the lack of fiscal outlays that they see, they're
questioning the value of their time spent in that regard. So at their
next meeting I believe they're going to debate whether they want to
have one -- you know, their sub-committee reviewing and
participating.
And I will provide the Planning Commission an update as to
whether you're going to have to shoulder that burden all yourself this
year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I think that's fine. We try to
focus more on the zoning issues to begin with anyway, so -- because
that is what our -- we're supposed to be looking at. I think that would
work fine.
Well, you must be working a lot with Nick, because you've
gained some of his abilities to say the right things at the right time at
public meetings.
MR. BOSI: I try to take my lead from the director, without a
doubt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Watch -- good way to explain the risk is
high. I think that's great. Great job.
MR. BOSI: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions from the
Planning Commission?
Mr. Schiffer?
Page 39
May 6,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what's a good reason that
we had the two of them separated? I mean, I can't think of one.
MR. BOSI: Well, one of the reasons that it was separated -- and
I'm not sure what the motivation was behind it -- was within the code
it says the AUIR should be approved before the CIE. And that does
get into one point that we're going to have to do during these
upcoming meetings. We will have to hear the AUIR, as we
traditionally do. We'll have to hear the AUIR, convene that meeting,
open up the CIE, and on a procedural manner, you know, approve the
individual components of the CIE.
But I'm not sure why -- well, here's my guess as to why it was
separated. Because the Category A facilities are the only ones that are
contained in the CIE, but this county has a strong desire to publicly
vet the level of service standards that are associated with the Category
B facilities, your libraries, your jails, your dependent fire districts,
your government buildings, those aren't traditionally heard in the CIE.
So they wanted a document where we're going to talk about all
the levels of services, Category A and Category B facilities, which is
our AUIR, which is unique to this county. And then we'll have the
statutory required CIE, which only deals with the Category A
facilities, which are the concurrency management component. So I
think that's why we had the two separated.
But I think you can still gain the intent with the culmination of
the two without losing any of the effectiveness of each of those
documents.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So long as you keep the
sequence in that order.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree.
And Mark, I think every document's at risk when it comes before
this board, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he could have said that too. Then it
Page 40
May 6,2010
would have posed more questions.
Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions on this
issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, are you looking for any kind
of comments from us or just you're going to -- now that you've heard it
you can say we listened to it and you're going to take it to the board,
or what would you like?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Consensus, if I could, from the
Planning Commission that you think it's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we accept it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded by
Commissioner Caron. Is all -- discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, we'll continue to bring items like
this forward. The challenge we face is that we're becoming the
change machine. Every time we find something we're trying to fix it.
We can only handle so many changes at one time, so we're trying to
space these out and looking at the best and most productive way to do
our business.
Page 41
May 6, 2010
But you had mentioned today the sign variance, you've
mentioned pool cages in the past. We're working with the County
Attorney's Office. So I think, you know, once a month, once every
two months we'll bring something forward that makes sense and have
you look at it, analyze it with us, and if you agree we'll move forward
to, you know, do things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds good.
Anything else on today's agenda from anybody on the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public's gone. No public comment.
Can't be anymore discussion.
Motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by Ms. Caron.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries 6-0. We're out of here. Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:37 a.m.
Page 42
May 6, 2010
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 43
~
CoIU~r County
...._ ~,..,,~;.J;!'It:~...~"'''.I<~ __",,~'''"'-'=-'.
''''~"..,~ -."....-' ''''b~,.~..--''' ~>m.:';;
Community Development &
Environmental Services Division
Engineering, Environmental,
Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Services
May 27, 2010
Mr. David Turley
PO BOX 111385
Naples, FL 34108
Reference:
BD-PL2009-918, Hickory Harbour Condominium
Dear Mr. Turley:
On Tuesday, May 6, 20 I 0, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No.
BD-PL2009-918. A copy ofCCPC Resolution No. 10-02 is enclosed approving this petition.
Please be advised that Section 10.03.05 B.3 of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to
remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County
Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing
advertising sign(s) inunediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (239) 252-2942.
Sincerely,
J\~~C~~
Ashley Caserta
Senior Planner
Enclosure
CC: Hickory Harbour Condo Inc, 226 3rd Street, Apt 108, Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
MUll tll6<<R~(BI}i1>>SP*PW1
File
~
\1iI
Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Services. 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive. Naples, FL 34104 .239-252-2400
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 10- 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-PL2009-
918 FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING BOAT DOCK TO
INCLUDE TWO NEW FINGER PIERS WITH THREE NEW SLIPS
AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED BOAT DOCK
WITH EIGHT FINGER PIERS TO INCLUDE THIRTEEN NEW
SLIPS, BOTH OVER THE MAXIMUM TWENTY FEET LIMIT
PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06E.l OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COlJNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a l47-foot and 131-
foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.1 to allow for a
167-foot boat dock facility and a 151-foot boat dock facility, respectively, in a Residential
Multifamily (RMF-12) zoning district for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, approval of the extensions will result in an additional sixteen slips for a
combined total offorty slips; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory prOVISIOn and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06;
and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Petition Number BD-PL2009-918, filed on behalf of Hickory Harbour Condominium
Association, Inc. by David Turley, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Hickory Harbour Cando Dock / BD-PL2009-918
REV 4/30/10
] of2
Part of Lot 6 of Block 0, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, as described in
Plat Book 3, Page 79, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida (part of the Hickory Harbour Condominium)
be and the same is hereby approved for a 147- foot and 131- foot extension over the maximum 20-
foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.1 to allow for a I 67-foot boat dock facility and a 151-
foot boat dock facility, respectively, as shown on the attached Proposed Site Plan, Exhibit A, in a
Residential Multifamily (RMF-12) zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the
following conditions:
I. A Site Improvement Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
2. The existing 119-foot dock shall be allowed to remain and will be included
on the Site Improvement Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
lo~
day of
rnf\Y
,2010.
ATTEST:
~ // ~1 5'-/~ -/0
Nick Casalanguii( ~,/ <-
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~~c[~~
Approved for form
and legal sufficiency:
\\ii3~~
JennifeR>!. White
Assistant County Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan
09-CPS-00990136
Hickory Harbour Condo Dock 1 BD-PL2009-918
REV. 4130110
20f2
r.,
- ....
f.,-
",0,
- ....
0,'
:-co
~Ll.i
..g
t:jt::
2c.'l
1'::<
:59
vi
co
"'....lCj
C)c:i.:ll)
". :I:"<
< '" ".
O,>l.Li
1'::3i;:c.'l
U <
~f2~
C>
Exhibit A
_ z
~~
3i-!
f'1
c'
o
I~
..t-
>..
~
I"
~I ~
~"I ~";"
ex '-0:: CD
'" ~~
~..g~
C'il ~::::::'
- ry"oJ\
'O:t _ \l-.o
""'" c -0 c::'
.", c
:0 II -S1 .g
-0.::: Q~
I ::::>
o. \.....
\ ~~
0"::::
<:~
g f-
~ lj
L..:
I."J
-J
t:i
V:l
J
81
15
'"
,
it,
-~ ~
c "
~d
c:::
.0
.:::
tJ
S .~
o 0
-e~
~
~.~
~ .S
.\1 e
:t-g
c:::
~
C)
tn
,00 Doe j
r------
(;
~
~I
1
1
itj
~
~
.~
-~
1j-t
'" ~
'O'~
'(0::
6'
?
-::~t.U
F ,'-i~ \ ~
i ~ .. +) .....,/ ./
').;1. . / o'" Q
." .. //6.. c;:
j+7..~+(+ // ~l \."..""_,
. 7" /1 0... ...-1.....
.'. '~'z 'I:' ~I \
.'.'.';- (I ~ '\'''A
. . -13J:
'/E:J, _"'- 0
/'.---- ....
I ..J:/ /' ./
II 'I' / Y ~/ _- \
II,J ,,is'' IV) o"-- -10----.,. \ \
"I: { { I, (l) { --- ___ \ \ I
I \1'1'1 ----- "' \ \ 1
I 'I'" \ , ''co *~_o" .-"/-- ---..-----....--..... \,' ,
. i' \~ .-' 1/ -- -------' \ \ I
. \ \ .....<.- Q ;/,RI _---- "\ \ \
\\\\ \ \ q..,..P I //- -fr-----&----~ '\\9. J
l \\\0\\\ .......o~--.p~/111 /-::--~------....... '\\\\\ '...... /
I 1\\'1\\ \\ 'iY~'" Iilf {' \ \ \ l>\ \
I .~ \~ \\ ,Ist\, +~: \'-, \ " \ \ \ \ \ \
\ (\11\ ~,\, \ :.,,\,\\
\ \ ",,''1 \\ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ ~
\ 'm" \ ~ \ \ , " \ \ \ \ \
. ~ '\ \ ~ \ b " \ ~ \ \ \ \ t\' \ \
\......- ~\...\,:::, I ,k \ '" \ l \ \ \ \
\ ~ (-~"'~;:-"""\\q. J ,\\ \ \'f\\\\
\ .\ ,cJ ~\\\\.../'/ \\\\ \ \\\ \,*
.. X Lo"./, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '
\./\ \~/_-"'IIi'\ II\~, \. , \\~\\
V ,o" II , o"o",; \ \ \ \ \, I \
~ ~ "\ (..... ~J ,\ \ / _ __ 1 \ \ \ f I I I \
... ~ I \ \~/ /' \ \ \ I I I I I ~
I} I ~ : 1 i \ I I II, '
-q;::;;: .... I '-,' I \ \ I , I t I \
" \......../ I . , I \
::.. 0,
a
0.: is
0.:
'(
I:Q
:::!
::!
....
Q
---~........
"-
"
,
\
,
"-
..,
u ~
~< ~
~.......- :5
~ ,ac",
r....J .. 0....... <:
~ U~~O
~n~ ~ O:ll~~
'" co ~ V) ~ ,;::S
:0 c;> ~ ~~~<
~ ~" ..... ~~;g
_ \'; "" .v< ~~<:
- co "" -v~J:o
'l!,'l!,~<: c'"
~ ~ ~ Oa:~~
cecE ~ V)~~"'O
^ l.Li s:: -.J~~c
lto ~ ';:~cY) CJ
'2 u ~' ::s;::eo:.~
(IJ 1......, co C"!')_
Q:'i';;:< V)"'~'"
.Eo, ~ ;:::; -';0;,,:<<:
""'tl 1i).9- ~ <......... ~ <:
e"< V) :"C
~,?", ~:t:
~~] :s J
<II g ~ ~ II
't~~ ~
~:~ ~
~.".!t ~
-q;,-"... Q.;
'"
ill
C)
$
Q
'So
~
!::!'!2~-'!IB'i:lm.l':f'o.;:-.--.~,...".,~~..........."''''...~~~~m~~'I'A\W:Z..~~.ll~'P-\iffJiJl}W~~''"3kI/!j~!~~~~t!lff~~i.!il;~,~..tj~,'\;'!r:,i1fi,~~~