Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/17/2010 R June 17,2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 17,2010 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 Melissa Ahem Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division 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, JUNE 17,20]0, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM. ADM]NISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. 3301 TAMIAMI TRA]L 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 MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 M]NUTES 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 M]NIMUM 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS If APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DEC]SION 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 ]NCLUDES 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 .. No minutes to approve 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS.. June 8,2010 7, CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. BD-PL2009-1259 Timothy R. McKenzie represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is requesting a 36-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 56-foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is located at 47 South port Cove, Lot 52 of Southport on the Bay, Unit 2 in Section 6. Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP. Principal Planner] 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CU-PL2010-277 Grace Place for Children and Families, Inc., represented by Christopher Thornton, Esquire of Becker and Poliakoff, P.A. and Matthew D. McLean, P,E. of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use to expand the existing provisional use as a church to allow a school in the Residential Single Family (RSF-3) Zoning District, with an ST/W-4 Special Treatment Overlay pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 2.03.02 A.l.c.3. The proposed new Conditional Use will permit expansion of an existing church and school by adding a new 7,200 square-foot building to be used primarily as a school. The 4.01." acre site is located at 4300 21" Street S.W. in Golden Gate, Unit 2. Block 30, Plat Book 5. Page 68, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach. AICP, Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, The North Naples United Methodist Church Inc., represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.. is requesting rezoning from the Rural Agricultural zoning district (A) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum 1,900 seat Church and Church Related Facilities, a maximum 3.100 seat Civic and Cultural Facilities, a maximum 200 student School and a maximum 209 unit Adult Assisted Living Facility to be known as The North Naples United Methodist Church Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). The subject property, consisting of 13.0 acres. is located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road (CR-951) approximately :t1500 feet north of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier Coonty, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] C. PUDZ-A-PL2009-203I Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, LPA and Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently known as the Meridian Village RPUD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of up to 480 beds for adult housing which may include assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities or independent living units and/or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120-unit multi-family residential project and/or to allow development of a combination of residential uses and community facility uses including child care centers and churches. The 11.6H acre subject property is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS II, NEW BUSINESS A. Updates to the Administrative Code [Susan Istenes, AICP, Manager. Special Projects] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 6/8/1 0 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commission Strain -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Strain? Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 Page 2 June 17,2010 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then as far as addenda to the agenda, in an effort to be more entertaining to anybody that watches and to be more interesting to people, we have added a whole pile of things that are not regular to this agenda. After we finish the regular three cases and the one consent item today, we're going to rehear the GMPA amendment CP-2008-4. That's the recycling area down north of! -7 5 next to the county landfill. Also under new business, we're going to be having a presentation by Susan Istenes as to the updates, or actually the conceptual formatting of the administrative code, and a discussion on that. And so we have three different issues that we don't normally deal with at today's meeting that we'll get into. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here at our next regular meeting, which is July 1 st? Is everybody okay with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a meeting scheduled for June 21 st, which was the second day of the adoption hearing, but we're going to finish that up today, so Ray, I don't see any reason for that 21st meeting. I'm assuming it's being canceled, or been canceled. MR. BELLOWS: I'll look into that, but yeah. I also wanted to point out, our July 15th meeting, that will be Page 3 June 17,2010 canceled also. We've moved the one petition to that -- the August -- first meeting in August. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. That's efficient, saves time. That's great. Planning Commission absences, we just did that. Approval of minutes. There have no -- no minutes have been distributed. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JUNE 8, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items presented on the June 8th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. Just one item. I guess we don't always think about our health and the health of our employees, but there are some issues that need to be addressed when they're ignored. So I'd like you to all know Nick Casalanguida has a broken hand. And his reason for not having an x-ray and going to the doctor is he's too busy. So whoever he has afternoon appointments Page 4 June 17,2010 with, if you could please cancel them so he could go to the doctor's. Mr. Murray, do you know anything about broken hands? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know a little bit about broken hands. They're not good to have them, and they certainly need to be looked at because you could end up not being able to use your hands very well sometime in the future. So if you don't need the hand, go right ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I tried to arm wrestle him yesterday, but he was too scared to do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to thank the Chairman for the excessive concern he expresses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, we care about you. Please get that looked at. It's all swollen up; it doesn't look good. Item #8A PETITION: BD-PL2009-1259, TIMOTHY R. MCKENZIE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into our consent agenda. The only item on the consent agenda today is BD-PL2009-1259, Timothy R. MacKenzie, 47 Southport Cove. It was a dock extension. Any comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) Page 5 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #9 A PETITION: CU-PL2010-277, GRACE PLACE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, our first item up today on our regular agenda is the CU-PL-2010-277. It's a conditional use for Grace Place for Children and Families at 4300 21 st Street Southwest in Golden Gate City. 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. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Thornton the other day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As did I. Anybody else? Page 6 June 17,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This particular application has a substantial recommendations -- positive recommendations from the community. I'm not sure if this commission has too much ofa concern with it, so I might suggest to the applicant that in order to save billable hours you try to be short and to the point unless it seems to be needed. MR. KLATZKOW: He may need those billable hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know -- that's why I-- MR. KLATZKOW: Tough times out there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have some more coffee, guys. MR. THORNTON: Good morning. I'm Chris Thornton with Becker & Poliakoff, representing Grace Place for Children and Families, Inc. I have with me the project engineer, Matt McClean, from Agnoli Barber & Brundage; David Wheeler from TR Transportation Consultants; Stephanie Campbell, the executive -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put the -- the mic's not working. Can you pick up the sensitivity on the mic, Ray? MR. THORNTON: Is this better? Yes, I'm Chris Thornton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go, now it's coming. You can probably stand up okay, Chris. MR. THORNTON: I'm Chris Thornton with Becker & Poliakoff, representing Grace Place for Children and Families, Inc. I have with me the project engineer -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ray, excuse me, would you try to get it to work in here? It's not coming across in here, and his tones are too low for my ears. Try again. Sorry about that, sir. MR. THORNTON: Matt McClean is with Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. David Wheeler is the Transportation Engineer with TR Transportation Consultants. And Stephanie Campbell, the Executive Page 7 June 17,2010 Director of Grace Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's worse, guys. You need to turn it down. Sorry, this is going to take a little bit of effort, Chris. MR. THORNTON: And Theo Etzel-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're still not there. Now that's not turned on. MR. THORNTON: Theo Etzel is the President of the Board of Directors for Grace Place. Now the property's at 4300 21st Avenue Southwest. It's about four acres. The property has been operated as a church for about the past 30 years under a provisional use approval that was approved in 1968. Grace Place has been in operation at the site for about the past six years. They are essentially operating as a school. They have classroom activities, they have adult ESL classes. And basically they should have had a conditional use approval when they started, although it's arguable that they were operating under the skirts of the church at the time. They were a mission of the North Naples United Methodist Church. Now they're independent, they're incorporated, and they want to make sure that they can operate there independently and separately from whatever church uses happen there. If you don't have any questions for me -- I think the staff report is favorable. We've got a written recommendation of support from the Golden Gate Civic Association. And if you have questions for us, we'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise I'll keep it short. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions on this particular issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Chris. Is there a staff Page 8 June 17,2010 report? Well, short staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Services. I had to think about that for a moment. It is a short and sweet staff report. Weare recommending approval of the Grace Place petition. And it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, the only concern I have on this is that the layout, as you see, it's going to put a lot of parking along the street there, along 21 st Avenue. And this is a residential neighborhood. They're not really used to a parking lot. So do you think that it's protected enough with the buffers and lighting control that the people that live along that street aren't going to be looking at a parking lot? It will be buffered from that -- MS. GUNDLACH: There's some mature trees already in place there, so I think they'll be okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you don't -- because I'd hate to have them wake up and find a parking lot that they don't like and didn't understand. So you think it's protected? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this issue? (No response.) Page 9 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Thornton, do you want to rebut anything? MR. THORNTON: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion for recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem seconded. I'm assuming the motion maker and the second accepted the recommendations of the county staff? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem, did you? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, recommend (sic) by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Page 10 June 17,2010 Thank you. Chris, that was probably the simplest one you've ever been through. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe all of us too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. But not everything is so simple. And so now we'll get to the ones that aren't. Item #9B PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, THE NORTH NAPLES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the normal cast of characters is now approaching. The next one up is PUDZ-2008-AR-13375, the North Naples United Methodist Church, Inc. It's on Goodlette-Frank Road, approximately 1,500 feet north of Pine Ridge Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to both Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Hancock. Okay, with that we will move right into it. One of you gentlemen, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this working now? Page 11 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For you short people it works fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm trying to set you up as best as possible with the comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're doing a good job, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure it will get worse. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner this morning. With me is Don Barber, who is a member ofthe governing board of the church, and Tim Hancock who's here in three different roles: One as the professional planner on behalf of Davidson Engineering; he's also a member of the church and also a member of their governing board; as well as a resident in the nearby community. So he has -- he's wearing several hats this morning and can answer any questions you may have regarding any of those three roles. As the Chairman introduced this is a request for a MPUD on a 13-acre parcel which is located on the east side of Goodlette- Frank Road, about a half a mile north of Pine Ridge Road. As you can see on the visualizer, the property is outlined in red. Our neighbor to the north is the North Naples United Methodist Church campus. The neighbor to the south is a commercial PUD known as the Pine Ridge Commons. You can see immediately to the south are the office buildings that are -- some of the office buildings that are in that commercial PUD. And as you go further south, you can see the Sweet Bay anchored shopping center. So we're adjacent to an active church to the north and an active commercial PUD to the south. To the east is the athletic fields for Pine Ridge Middle School. And to the west is the Pine Ridge subdivision. This is a request for an MPUD, as I said. And the requested permitted uses include churches, church related uses, child care, school, civic and cultural facilities, an assisted living facility, CCRC, Page 12 June 17,2010 and independent living facilities. All of those are requested permitted uses. As we were going through the process, we provided a traffic impact statement that analyzed an assisted living facility, along with the school, because we believe that would probably be the most intense use that could occur on the site from a traffic standpoint. And that resulted in 128 peak hour p.m. trips. And as we were going through the process, we were requested to basically create an equivalency for some of the other uses for those 128 p.m. peak hour trips. And in creating those equivalencies, you see some numbers in the PUD related to church seats and related to the number of seats for a civic and cultural facility. In particular, the civic and cultural facility, the equivalency would be 3,100 seats, based upon a conversion of the p.m. peak hour trips. We've had conversations with some of the members of the Planning Commission, and it seems like that 3,100 seats may be of concern for some of the members of the Planning Commission. We don't really envision building a 3,100-seat civic facility on that particular piece of property. However, we do believe that the 1,900-seat worship center is a potential reality for that site. And so what we would propose doing is make those two numbers the same. We would have a 1 ,900-seat worship center maximum, and a maximum 1,900-seat civic facility. And in reality is, if you look at the existing church campus and you look at several other church campuses, you'll probably know that they frequently have band concerts and similar type of civic uses that occur in their facilities that could be argued to be not church-related. And so to avoid any potential ambiguity in the future we are requesting the civic facility use, because civic activities do occur on the campus that could be argued to be not church-related. So we don't want to have to worry about code issues in the future. That's why we have both of those uses in there. Page 13 June 17,2010 And we hope that the clarification that the worship center 1,900-seat limitation and the civic facility seat number being the same will address a lot of the concerns regarding the specific uses. I'll take you briefly through the master plan. As you can see from the master plan, there are basically two tracts. There's the Tract A, which is the actual development area. And that's about 7.69 acres. Then you have Tract B, which is the preserve and lake area, which is 3.15 acres. And then we have other easements that you can see on the master plan that equate to roughly 2.16 acres, which is the total 13 acres. The PUD building setback, as you can see on the master plan, is 120 feet from the property line. As you can see from the master plan, the property line does in fact extend into Goodlette-Frank Road. So what we wanted to -- from a practical standpoint, the setback from the existing travel lanes on the six-lane portion of Goodlette-Frank Road is 90 feet, okay. So even though we say it's 120, the reality is it's not -- any buildings will be at least 90 feet from the travel lanes. And I can't imagine that those travel lanes will ever get any closer to the property, since it's already six lanes in that area. The requested height for the PUD is 50 feet zoned, 57 feet actual. And then with the steeple we can get to 75 feet. We believe based upon the distance from Goodlette-Frank Road and the heights that are already allowed in the commercial PUD to our south and the church portion of the PUD to the north, which are also both 50 feet, our request for 50 feet is compatible with what surrounds us as far as potential development goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, before you go too far, I notice that master plan is different than the one we have. Can you give us a copy of that one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it shouldn't be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got two deviations on this one; the current one we have has one. Page 14 June 17,2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've been asked -- since our -- and we'll give you a copy of it, Mr. Strain, you're right. We were asked to put both deviations on the master plan. So in anticipation of doing that, we have done that. I was just, as a matter of fact, about to talk about the two deviations during my presentation. The first is a request -- is a deviation to the landscaping requirements for our access road off of Goodlette- Frank Road. If the property is in fact developed as church or church-related uses, we are requesting that there be no required buffer, since we have a church to the north and church uses on our property would make no sense to have a required buffer. However, if we did any other uses other than church-related uses, we would install the LDC required buffer along that road. And the second deviation that we're requesting pertains to the parking requirements for, I'll call it the community facilities for the senior housing. When you're developing a project that's not senior housing, your code requires that the pool area, tennis courts, whatever other types of community facility uses you would have in that development have certain parking requirements to be met. It usually applies to bigger communities, because most people unfortunately don't walk to those facilities, they may drive to those facilities. We believe our situation is different. We'll be a senior community. People will not be driving to their community facilities, so we believe that there should be a reduced parking requirement for the community-related facilities. We will obviously meet the code-required parking for the units themselves and the beds themselves, but we're asking for a deviation from the parking requirements for the community-related facilities. We believe that the project is compatible with the surrounding community. Your staff is recommending approval of our project with the changes I've described. Weare requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval as well. Page 15 June 17,2010 This is a brief overview of everything we have. We can obviously get into much more specifics if necessary. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have from the petitioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, could you put the aerial photo back up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question I have, on the neighboring properties, could you point to where it's called the Naples easement? Which essentially is the road easement; is that right? I mean, the property line is essentially the center of Goodlette-Frank. All the roads were constructed on an easement, correct? So take the property to the south and point to where that easement is on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The property to the south? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're talking about the City of Naples easement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Which would be the furthest on -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which is here. And my understanding is is there's actually parking in the City of Naples easement, correct? So when you're looking -- you probably need to zoom in a little bit more. But if you're looking, you'll see this parking area right here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is actually part of the City of Naples easement. So it is furthest away from the street, if that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me jump to my concern. My concern is that if the edge of that parking is the edge of the easement, then that setback would be at that point and the buildings Page 16 June 17,2010 would be much closer than the other buildings on that road. So could we find out for sure that that's the case? Because it looks to me by the dimensions that I think the parking, the edge of the parking is the edge of the easement. But you're saying that some of that parking or all of that parking or -- to obtain the same setbacks you want, all of that parking and the edge of that building would be at the edge of the Naples easement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let us look at that briefly. But we have again -- yes, our request is to be 90 feet from the edge of the roadway minimum for our building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is 120 feet from the property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which 30 feet of that property line is Goodlette-Frank Road. We just want -- you know, making sure everybody understands the real world is why I brought that point up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask it this way then: Could you build a building closer to Goodlette-Frank than the one to the south? Well, this might help. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is going to be -- yeah, you'll be able to see much better. You got it? There you go. This is the easement you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which -- there's two yellow lines there, one on the edge of it, one in the drive aisle. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can see that the drive aisle is within this easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, pan in a little bit north on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might -- by the way, on their site plan they locate the Naples City's easement and they show it coinciding with the setback of 120 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so it is the furthest Page 17 June 17,2010 eastern line on this and is in the drive aisle. So essentially you could build a building closer to the street than that building is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then do me a favor, go back to the -- your aerial and zoom back out. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, if! may, Tim Hancock. I'd like to point out that yes, if we were at the very edge of the City of Naples easement, we would be closer to the travel lane than the buildings shown on this aerial. However, the PUD that that building is located within has a setback that is 20 feet closer. In other words, they can build to the edge of the FPL easement in their PUD. And there are two vacant parcels within that PUD fronting Goodlette-Frank Road. So they actually are less restrictive in their building setbacks to Goodlette-Frank Road than what we're proposing by 20 feet. So while that particular building has a drive aisle and parking in between it and the easement further to the south, the vacant parcels that exist there can build right up to the FPL easement in accordance with their PUD, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the FPL easement is further west than the Naples easement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The FPL easement extends just beyond the sidewalk which is adjacent to the roadway. It stops there. And then the 20-foot City of Naples easement is immediately adjacent to the east. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is their setback is 20 feet from the FPL, which essentially puts it on the Naples easement; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. Actually, their setback allows buildings within the City of Naples easement. Their setback is limited to the edge of the FPL easement in their PUD. Page 18 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about the PUD to the north? MR. HANCOCK: The PUD to the north is the actual PUD for the church. It has multi-family setbacks. The front yard setback in that is only 50 feet. So technically you could put it in the FPL easement if you could get permission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I'm still -- the concern I have is that I wouldn't want to see buildings built closer to Goodlette-Frank than the existing building is. MR. HANCOCK: Again, we looked at that from a comfort level. The building you're referencing closest to the property is actually further from the travel lanes than the building on the comer at Pine Ridge and Goodlette-Frank. The building on the comer is actually 20 feet closer than the one that you're referencing here. I think the difference we're talking about here is something in the area of 25 or 30 feet, which, when you're talking about a physical separation of 90 feet, is probably not very discernible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my question, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. The change in the civic and cultural facilities to 1,900 seats is certainly heading in the right direction. I think if you made it 1,900 in association with the church or school activities, then that would be -- that's what should happen. I mean, that's what you want it for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, our concern, as I expressed, is if we have Gulf Coast band wants to do a concert series there, you know, is that a church-related activity? I don't want to get into splitting hairs and arguing over whether or not that's a church-related activity. It's an important public function. We have concerts there now. Is it or is it not -- Page 19 June 17, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, precisely. And that's not an issue now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, but as people change, things become issues that you don't think are issues. So the simplest thing to do is to go ahead and call it what it is, which would be civic-related facilities. We're capping it at the 1,900 seats. Why not allow that as an additional use from a church worship center which also could be there at 1,900 seats? So we thought that to address the concern, and most of the concerns was regarding the size, not the type of activity that would occur within the structure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Well, still, at 1,900 seats you're still larger than the Philharmonic. So I mean, on less land -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's look at it. I don't really want to compare ourselves to the Civic, but if you want to -- the Philharmonic. We're on a six-lane road, we have more than enough capacity on that road. From a peak hour, peak trip we're fine from a traffic standpoint. We've agreed to provide additional-- if transportation says to us you need to have security out there to help direct traffic, we've agreed to those conditions. So we believe we've adequately addressed any impact that this civic facility may have on the roadway, and it probably is a perfect location for it, putting it on a six-lane road that can clearly handle the traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make sure Ms. Caron is finished first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I thought she was. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm not, because I want to move down to six, which is the individual and family social services. Which I -- again, I think, and we've done this with other church facilities is to associate them with church activities. We just did that in the latest GMP round, that it must be not for profit and associated Page 20 June 17,2010 with church activities. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't understand the objections to these types of uses -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not objecting to the use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in this location. Then the ownership-- ifthere's not objection to the use, the type of ownership should be -- should not matter. Whether it's -- whether it's operated under the auspices of North Naples United Methodist Church or it's operated under the auspices of some other entity, why does the who operates it matter if the use -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It definitely changes the character of what's there now and what you told me was anticipated to be there. This is supposed to be related to the Methodist Church, not supposed to be a profit, suddenly becoming a day care center for some profit-making association; supposed to all be related to the church, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think I said that all of this was going to be related to the church. The original goal when we started this process was to have some athletic fields and other uses related to the church. That's in the PUD next door. We were -- hang on, hang on -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So let's keep everything associated to the church is all I'm saying. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, as we were -- and that is the anticipation. But, you know, things change. And if things were to change, the types of uses that we're asking for, it is not a change in the character, whether it's North Naples United Methodist Church operates a senior facility or it's some other group. Whether it's profit or not for profit, these types of uses are appropriate and compatible with our neighbors, whether they're operated from the church or from some other group that wants to provide it. I don't know what the difference between a day care operated by Page 21 June 17,2010 the church or a day care operated by XYZ corporation is. It's a day care. It's a day care, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not going to go through all the differences between for profit and not for profit and church-related facilities and the rest of the world. The -- you mentioned the height of the buildings on your PUD currently. And what is that height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 50 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the zoned height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zoned height is 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: For right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You and I spoke when we talked about that 3,100. That's a huge number. And you indicated it was a calculation. So it's creation. And so you determined now that 1,900 is an acceptable creation as well. I don't know if it's the right number or not. You don't either. But I guess in the evaluation of it, has it ever been concluded or reasoned that you would ever fill those seats entirely, 1,900 for a civic activity? And I'm not trying to have you have a crystal ball, I'm trying to get to something real. I mean, is there anything that is envisioned that may draw 1,900 people? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I imagine that under the -- the answer to that question is probably yes. You could have a concert or a performer that comes there that may be a draw that would fill all the seats of 1,900. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So 1,900 could in fact be 2,000, and that might be an appropriate number. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. It could be a much larger number. But we figured let's make it consistent with the worship Page 22 June 17,2010 center that we know 1,900 would work for the worship center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going to the other matter, I know that in other hearings that we've had, issues have been raised regarding church uses. So I applaud the idea that you're separating out the concept of civic activities. I do think I understand, and maybe -- I don't mean to be presumptuous of Commissioner Caron, but I guess in her mind she might be saying it, and it certainly occurred in my mind when she was talking, that we're talking about a commercial activity as opposed to a church activity. And I guess that's the crux of that question. I don't have a particular problem with it, but I do want to root it out a bit more. The -- I guess even if it were a commercial activity, any rent would be payable presumably to the church, would it not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the benefit would enure to the church. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If there were a rent charged to use the facilities, it would go to the church. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So ultimately the entire property, the benefit would enure to the church. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I think that's fine. And I don't -- I think by stating that you want the civic activity, it takes away all the potential questions that have been raised in the past. I don't have a particular problem with it. But I do wonder whether 1,900 is a good number for you. I don't think you should come down, necessarily. Maybe you should go up. But if you're comfortable with 1,900, that's fine for me. And I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just as a note for Mr. Murray, the Page 23 June 17,2010 objection is that this property can be sold. So it doesn't have to be related to the church. It can be sold. And that was -- so then it would become a commercial activity, or potentially could become a commercial activity. MS. MURRAY: We could stipulate something then, I would assume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Because I do. Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: These are -- okay, I have to address the commercial aspect of this. These are all community facility type uses as defined in your code, okay. They're not retail commercial type uses, okay. So the uses we're talking about, regardless of ownership, we believe -- and I think Commissioner Caron is correct, you have to analyze these uses as if the church decides to sell the parcel to someone else to provide a civic facility. It's our position that if that were to occur, every one of these uses are in fact compatible with our neighbors and -- or not an inappropriate use on this parcel of property, regardless of who owns and operates these types of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, I have some questions. First of all, I thought we were looking at this and I thought staff looked at it as both, potential accessory use to a church on the site or the church to the north but also a standalone parcel utilizing the uses you're asking for, if it was sold and it could be sold by the parcel itself. So based on that, that's how I'll concept or go forward with my review. On Exhibit A, let's start on Page 1 of Exhibit A. If you turn to A-2, churches and places of worship, group 8661. Rather than getting into A and B, you're going to be dictated by your SDP requirements for parking and other -- water management and other restrictions on the site. So I think it's kind of irrelevant to mix. Page 24 June 17,2010 Why don't we just say churches and places of worship not to exceed 1,900 seats. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that just saves a lot of conversion, discussion and all the other stuff. Because you've got to put parking on the site and you can only fit so much on there regardless. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're capped on our TIS as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, under civic and cultural facilities, based on what you had offered previously, you would be changing the 3,100 seats to 1,900; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 2, two things I'd like to make clear. Thanks to the discussion I had with you guys, you told me what a columbarium is. Would you mind refreshing everyone -- for those that may not know that, could you tell us all what that is? I know now. Tim was good at the explanation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tim was our expert on that, and I'll let him explain it. MR. HANCOCK: Again, Tim Hancock for the record. And yes, the first time I had to look it up too. A columbarium is a place for the internment of ashes only. The difference between a columbarium and say a mausoleum, for example, is a mausoleum allows for the internment of corpses. So these are simply ashes that are inert, and under state law they can be basically interred on private property, with the property owner's permission, anywhere. And sometime over break I'll share with you some of the more interesting disposal locations that I learned in my research. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure we really want to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's go to B, accessory uses in the Page 25 June 17,2010 paragraph. And that paragraph led to some confusion on my part, and maybe it certainly probably contributed to Ms. Caron's comments. Because what I think you're doing in that first introductory paragraph is saying that the church to the north and any uses that would be allowed on that site, if we want to use this new property to put accessory uses of that church on to the north, that's okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing, and I think I mentioned this to you, I want to make sure is, what then development standards would they use on the south if it's listed as a primary use, but because it's used to the church to the north it now becomes an accessory use? It would seem to me that would be a way of minimizing your development standards, and in particular your setbacks. There's only a couple that apply. Would you be willing to stipulate that any principal use that could be allowed in the south, if it is used as an accessory use to the north, you would stick to the principal use standards? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would solve any problems that you get into by calling something accessory just because it happens to be for the church to the north. So somehow if you would make that note and then we'll get that straightened out on consent. Item number nine on Page 3, it talks about -- and this is an interesting one, because it's coming up an awful lot lately. The retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products grown primarily, which that's an interesting term too, on the property and subject to review of traffic circulation, parking and safety concerns, pursuant to a site improvement plan. And it's group 5431, vegetable markets and stands only. Now, based on being group 5431, you could make a giant, like an Page 26 June 17,2010 Oaks Market there, vegetable stand and say it's an accessory use to the church to the north or to another facility you have there, and you basically would have a retail operation going on in a CF center. I understand a lot of churches do these -- now these markets on the weekends. But this isn't that limited, and it's a little concerning from that perspective. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As we talked about, we don't have an issue with limiting the uses to the weekends or a Saturday, if you need to be that specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think weekends is fine, because if you want to mix it up with the church people or something, that's up to you. But I think that would avoid the larger standalone structures that would have to go in that would need seven day a week operations. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And it's consistent with what the church already does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had thought -- I had thought that the statement that it was vegetable markets and stands only kind of covered that, but I'm glad to have it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, grown primarily on-site. I mean, to -- I remember, I -- that could be a catchy one for you to have to deal with. Because I don't -- I mean, the times I've been into them, and they have great vegetables there so I go buy them a lot, those guys selling the Chinese vegetables aren't growing them on-site. And I'm just wondering, do you really want to say growing primarily? Because we just got done with a nasty little case called Stevie Tomatoes, and that means 51 percent. So you really think that you want to limit yourself like that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We'll be happy to say retail sale of fresh and unprocessed agricultural products. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that will actually serve everyone Page 27 June 17,2010 better, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What do you mean by non-processed? Not washed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, how about retail sale of fresh agricultural products. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How fresh is fresh? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not in a can, how about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 6 on your development standards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I make -- I'm sorry, on Page 4. And we've caught this on other ones, but I missed it this item. Item number seven under operational standards. Can we make that simply say each unit shall be equipped to notify and get rid of the pull cords. Mr. Schiffer's brought that up in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I missed that in the edit this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a good idea. I didn't know people even used pull cords anymore. On your development standards table, and as we talked about, I had that one conflicting issue from the footnote three by the word lake, second up from the bottom on the table, that allows you to go to zero feet on your side setback, but it says -- yeah, side yards -- but it says you're going to be 20 feet back from the lake. You could go to zero. But then you have number three footnote which says lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. And I think from our discussions, your intention is that for Page 28 June 17, 2010 portions of the lake where you would be allowed to, you would actually build a structure right on a parti -- maybe on a seawall or an embankment at the edge of the control elevation of the lake; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it would only be to the extent that Water Management District or anybody else would allow. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's probably worth explaining to everybody. I certainly hadn't -- never heard of it. You, Mr. Y ovanovich, said you weren't aware of when it came up. So just good for everybody's edification. MR. HANCOCK: Again, for the record, Tim Hancock. The South Florida Water Management District does permit you to put buildings directly on a water body used for water management and water retention, but it's very limited to a minimal percentage of the lake. And you then have to make up for those side slopes elsewhere. The practical application of this is something we came across with the Avow Hospice project, where they built a new building and they wanted to extend out a walkway with a small structure right on the lake edge. So we wrote into that one that that setback could be reduced to zero for buildings, and that was the intent and purpose. You're limited as to how much of it you can do by the District, which -- and I'm probably going to misstate the percentage, but it's something along the lines of 10 percent or less. So it's a very limited application and it's generally for a specific feature of architecture for the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's an example. The Galleria shopping center, to the west of that there's a restaurant on a lake that is Page 29 June 17,2010 sitting right on the edge of the water for a small piece of lake. And that was one I think was permitted under the same standards. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. The one you don't see is the Nordstrom's in Waterside Shops. It also has a wall of the building actually on the water retention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have of you right now. I do have of staff. Anybody else have any questions before we go on to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, could we have a staff report, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this PUD. It is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And it's my pleasure to answer any questions you might have this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I like your straight and to the point. Anybody have any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, let me ask you this, maybe Nick can even help. Why isn't this a dedicated right-of-way in front of it? Why do we have a situation here where the property line is in the center of Goodlette? MS. GUNDLACH: We can certainly ask our transportation experts that question. MR. HANCOCK: Again, Tim Hancock. Mr. Schiffer, the property was owned by Barron Collier prior to the church owning it. And when Goodlette Road right-of-way came in, they granted an easement to the county rather than deeding the property over. So as a result, when we purchased the property, we Page 30 June 17,2010 purchased it with an existing right-of-way easement for Goodlette-Frank. That's why the property line remains out in Goodlette-Frank Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The confusion is it makes it really difficult. All the areas and everything like that are based on the gross site. Other communities where you work like this you have a gross and a net site. The net site would be less the easement. MR. HANCOCK: To give you a practical impact of that, this is called a 13-acre site. By the time we exclude the easements, the water management and the preserve, we're down to between eight and nine acres of actually usable land on this property. But yes, we knew that would cause some confusion, but it was a preexisting condition and we just let it stand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why didn't you dedicate it to the county then? MR. HANCOCK: One, they didn't ask. And two, we actually do get some benefit because the FPL easement provides open space. Turns out our lake and our preserve meets our open space requirement anyway. But it's just something we haven't decided to go through the expense and issue of doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. And Nancy, one other question. I still have a concern about buildings, if they are built exactly that 120 feet from the center line of Goodlette, or the 90 feet from a paved edge could put it up closer than these other buildings. Did you ever have conversation to establish a setback from the easement, treating the easement like it is a right-of-way? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not sure about your question, but I did compare this particular PUD with the setbacks in the adjacent PUDs to make sure at least there was some consistency. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the PUD to the north could build on the edge of the easement? Page 31 June 17,2010 MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, the PUD to the south can build to the edge of the easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The PUD to the north? MS. GUNDLACH: I have it with me. We can double check that real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know, maybe we can resolve all this. If the applicant doesn't intend to build that close to the easement with a structure anyway, why don't you just agree to a 150- foot setback, and that accomplishes the goal. Does that harm you guys at all, or are we beating up something that we don't need to get into? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not in a position today that I can tell you we can live with that setback. If we could, we obviously would have done that. That's usually how this cast of characters, as you called us, operates. We try to get rid of -- we only bring issues that we really can't resolve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just trying to get a quick resolution to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then Nancy, see if you could sometime find what the setback from Goodlette is on the north, okay? MS. GUNDLACH: On the north PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't the applicant already tell us that that setback was 50 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Fifty feet for the front setback if they were to use residential there, which they could. And the only other restrictive thing they would have would be the two easements, both FPL and Naples, which they couldn't have 50 feet for those two reasons. Isn't that what you said, Tim? MS. GUNDLACH: I think that's right -- Page 32 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're saying the setbacks is -- all the setbacks are within the easement anyway on the north? So there isn't a setback from the easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tim was testifying on the property to the south. The property to the south could go up to the FP &L easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He talked about the north too. It was specifically asked. MR. HANCOCK: Ordinance 9680, which addresses the Goodlette-Frank Road 300-acre PUD to the north, churches are limited to the development standards which are contained within the multi-family standards in the development standards table. And actually, I misspoke, the front yard setback, which would be from Goodlette-Frank Road, is only 25 feet. So the physical church itself could have a setback of 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From -- and that is measured from? MR. HANCOCK: Well, this is an old PUD, and it's measured to the property line. There is nothing -- actually, and I will tell you that it's been staffs interpretation that it's typically measured to the edge of a right-of-way easement. You can't go to the property line if it's in the easement. So that would be 25 feet from the right-of-way easement, which, as I mentioned earlier, technically puts it in the FPL easement and the City of Naples easement. So from a practical standpoint the church could build a building right now on its existing campus to the north right on the edge of that 20-foot City of Naples easement and even into it, if given permission by the city. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) Page 33 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I've got a few. John, four of them involve transportation. They're only one issue. But Nancy, I'll hit yours first. We talked about changing under the PUD findings, number seven. Did you get corrective language for that? Because it really doesn't respond to the question, it just makes another statement. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I remember that question about future expansion on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you read the correction into the record? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I'd be happy to. The correction for-- and this is on Page 13 of 16 of the staff report and it's question number seven. It says: The ability of subject property in surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. And what I wanted to share with you this morning is that there is an existing 24- inch water main and a 16- inch force main to carry water -- the 24- inch water main for the water and the force main for sewer water. And then also we have a level of service B on Goodlette-Frank to accommodate the additional traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On the deviation that the petitioner is asking for, is that going to be limited to the ALF -- the deviation is for a reduction in parking. And it's going to be for -- the ALF is going to be private; is that a fair statement? How is your understanding of that deviation as it applies in comparison to a clubhouse at a community center, say? MS. GUNDLACH: My understanding is that that deviation applies to a swimming pool facility for an adult congregate living facility. We can certainly confirm that with -- they're shaking their heads yes, that it will only apply in that situation. Page 34 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then I got John is my last-- John, there are two instances in your staff report that say, and it's on Page 7 and on Page 8, both of which say -- actually, Page 7 says there's going to be no mitigation required. And it's on Page 8 that it says you're going to have a significant peak event. And then it's on Page 10 that it says you're incorporating appropriate mitigation into the project for transportation. Could you clarify for the record what you're actually doing in regards to mitigation on this project? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe the Page 10 comment may actually be a typo, because we have not requested specific mitigation from this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I heard Mr. Yovanovich say that you were going to have the required traffic control and other things when they have some of the events that require it. So did you or did you not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Thank you for correcting me. Yes, we actually did require the peak even traffic to be managed by a qualified person that's able to control traffic at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is mitigation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the other statements are wrong. So you do have appropriate mitigation on the project. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Typically when we refer to mitigation, we usually look at actual land donations, that sort of thing. So that was my typo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure the staff -- and I'm assuming all this stuff will get cleaned up when it goes to the BCC, so when they adopt it it's got the right everything with it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. Page 35 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to go back to -- and I don't need you for this, John, I need Nancy for this. I just want to go back to the height of this. And they have down here zoned height of 50 and an actual of 57 with four stories. If they put parking under those buildings, does that parking count? Or is that additional actual height that will happen? MS. GUNDLACH: That's a good question. I'm going to consult with my manager as to how we typically apply that scenario. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Land Development Code has a provision for how do you measure building height. And underground parking would not be counted towards the actual building height. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they could have a couple of stories of parking under this building and be another 20 feet on top -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, we wouldn't count those as stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you said actual building height. You meant zoned -- MR. BELLOWS: Zoned, excuse me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Zoned, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So actual can't-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So actual-- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, actual is what it is. Thank you, I meant zoned. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actual cannot be corrupted by any additional -- MR. BELLOWS: That is correct-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- parking or anything else you might put under, or around or about -- MR. BELLOWS: That is correct, because we're looking at the Page 36 June 17,2010 total height. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to confirm. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was actually the intent of bringing in the actual as a definition, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, it was, but I've had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, any other questions of anyone, of staff or the applicant before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you don't want to get up here and object to Richard's position or anything? No? Okay. I just had to stir it up a little bit for you, Rich. Rich, do you have any rebuttals, any comments that you want to make before we close? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but we can answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any remaining questions from -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern still is the setback from the easement, that putting a building up that close to the road would not be comfortable. The church has a beautiful campus layout, everything is set back fine. The office building seems in a proper position, but it's about 30 feet off that easement, based upon what I think I saw today. So I just don't like the idea of a church, an amphitheatre or Page 37 June 17,2010 something sitting that close to the road. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know why they can't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, as we said, we don't have the design. But how about if we said we would establish it as -- right now it's at 90. We would go to 100 feet, which would be a two-to-one ratio of height to setback, which we think ought to be more than appropriate and more than you're getting, frankly, in any other PUDs that are coming through the process. It would still give us enough flexibility to do something in the future and hopefully address the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you said 100 but you really -- 90, but I think you really mean 130 from the property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. I meant -- I was talking the practical number. But you're right, instead of the 120, it would be 130. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just figuring out how to fit it into the PUD table. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm still 25 feet from the easement in my mind. Every 10 feet is better than nothing, but -- and see, I'm not -- again, it's going to be something 57 feet high from the centerline of the road, and, you know -- anyway, it just -- none of the developers to the north or south came that close. I would just hate to see buildings come this close. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, the building on the comer of Pine Ridge and Airport is 133 feet from the travel lanes. So what we just offered you is exactly what a multi-story office building on the comer of a major intersection is. It's the exact same height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you give us 130 feet from the travel lane, that's more than I'm asking for. MR. HANCOCK: No, no. I'm sorry, let me rephrase. No, it is Page 38 June 17,2010 130 feet from the travel lane. We're offering 100. I misspoke, I apologize. But the point being, please understand, there are two vacant parcels down there that have a far less restrictive distance that what we have. And to ask us to be more restrictive than existing zoning to the south that is commercial versus community facility, I would hope that that can be considered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think you see what happened is the building to the south didn't take advantage of what they -- their opportunity there. They built their building, they studied their site and they put a full parking lot in between it, and therefore they're about 30 feet off that easement. So that's what I'm saying, is what that proves is that you can build a building efficiently 30 feet off the easement. So all's I was looking for is 25 feet off the easement. But it's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And then just to compare it to that building, Mr. Hancock, on the comer of Pine Ridge and Goodlette is not really a fair comparison. I mean, that is the intersection. As you transition down the road, that's what's supposed to happen, you're supposed to transition. Because you're transitioning down into neighborhoods, into homes. So it's not meant to be the same thing as what you find at the comer of Goodlette and Pine Ridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments before we close the public meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll -- oh, Mr. Casalanguida. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioners, on Page 11 of the PUD document under Exhibit F, section four, transportation, last line. Instead of the transportation administrator, it should be county Page 39 June 17,2010 manager or designee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're making sure your former department doesn't get any benefit on these PUD's. I don't blame you. Now you know what Joe was trying to fight all the time. Okay, with that in mind, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a recommendation for approval with the changes we had discussed. And Mark, you have a list we can go over? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't make a list because there were more specific changes to the terminology in the actual PUD. They were going to change the principal use references under churches, change the 3,100 feet to 1,900 feet. There were going to put a restriction on the farmers market. They were going to drop the use of wood pull cords on Page 4. And I think that's most of them. I think -- and Nick just mentioned one right now. And there may be a few others, but I'm sure on consent they are minor. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think we want to correct the setback in regards to accessory structures, if they're built on-site in regards to the church -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was another one, too, accessory structures for the north would be retained as principal standards on this site. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And they didn't have to grow their own vegetables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, they're going to rework the-- take out grown primarily and the reference to processing and just clean that paragraph up for weekend use only. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And we went to 1,900 seats instead of 3,100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So with all those changes that we Page 40 June 17,2010 discussed, assuming they're incorporated into the draft that's going to come back to us on consent, is that what your motion is based on? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'd like that. Nick, what would the right-of-way be on Goodlette-Frank? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In terms of the width, sir? It could vary, I mean, between easements and actual county owned right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the typical right-of-way on that road, what would you -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Six-lane facility, it could run from 160 feet to 200 feet. And it varies significantly depending on constraints. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then half of that would be 80 to 100. So essentially, in other words, what -- I'm trying to get away from the easement concept here. If you were running a right-of-way past this site, you would have a right-of-way let's say at the most of 100 feet. And then they would be somewhere between 80 and 100, and they would be measuring setbacks off of that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would. And it varies significantly between urban and rural and it varies significantly based on what type of design we have. So I wouldn't lock it in. Would the county ideally like to own the right-of-way? Typically we do. But we have many cases where we have right-of-way easements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern is -- I mean, I'm in favor of this thing except for the building being so close. And I hate to vote against it just for that. But essentially even with the Page 41 June 17,2010 right-of-ways you're giving me, this building would still be closer than would normally be allowed in a typical right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We hold our setbacks, both in the Zoning Department and we do in Transportation, from the easement line or right-of-way line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But in this case, you know, alls they have is an easement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to support the motion. And Brad, just some thoughts on your issue. I don't know of anything in the code that would require us to make them build further in, because all the other neighbors did it when they didn't have to. And if the other neighbors ever wanted to redesign, they could build right up to the 20 as well. And on a six-lane corridor surrounded by nonresidential, and especially by like a noisy playground and a few of the other facilities, I can't see on a wide corridor like that what it's hurting to have that building, if they were to do it. And I honestly don't think they would. But even if they were, with all the distances they already have, 90 feet, that's a substantial setback, more than we get out of most people. In fact, think of the Target on U.S. 41 in East Naples, that thing was right on top of the roadway. So I'm really not -- I don't have a problem with that. I understand your reasoning, but I just -- I'm not going -- I can't go there. So I'm going to be supporting the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me respond. Nick is saying that 80 feet would be the minimum right-of-way they would have on a road system like that. And this thing, 90 feet would mean that would be a 30-foot right-of-way. So in other words, this thing is close to the road. This is not a Page 42 June 17,2010 wide right-of-way going through that area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think for clarification, this is a typical right-of-way we acquire for a six-lane facility in an urban or rural area. But we've necked right-of-way down for six-lane roads to 130 feet. It's really dependent. And we always hold that setback line from the acquisition line, whether it be easement. I don't think the right-of-way is an issue in terms of setback for us, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Nick, the right-of-ways you're given are greater. I mean, they're -- they're coming 120 feet, a half of -- I mean, so you're -- I mean, you feel like you're comfortable with this position of this building based on the right-of-way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very much so, based on the testimony I've heard. I think it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll go with Nick, I'll support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all for your efforts today. Item #9C Page 43 June 17,2010 PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL2009-2031, ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now, last item up is PUDZ-A-PL-2009-2031, Rock Creek Holdings, LLC. It's for the Meridian Village MPUD at the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue. 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: Thank you. Disclosures? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had discussions with Mr. Hancock and Mr. Anderson. And this will be entertaining. Go ahead, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: Before I start, Commissioner, Ms. Deselem has got -- when we were going through the process, this project started with Ms. Zone. She indicated a strike-through underline would not be required because the format was changing dramatically. During the review process, members of the Planning Commission asked for a document that allowed them to make a comparison between the two, and apparently our e-mail to the county didn't come out. But Ms. Deselem is passing those out to you now. And I do apologize for the lateness of this happening. I think we had a couple of glitches in getting them to you electronically. It's my pleasure to present this petition, along with my co-agent, Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress. Also here is Mike Metcalf, the client, and managing member, Rock Creek, LLC. The transportation issues, if they are any, Mr. Davidson with Davidson Engineering is also here to address those matters. The application before you is a request to rezone an existing Page 44 June 17,2010 120-unit residential PUD with an affordable housing component to a mixed use PUD which would allow for residential development to occur or permit a list oflimited CF type uses on the property. Stop me if you've heard this before. Please note that the project would be required to develop as either a residential project or a CF type project, but cannot be a mix of the two. The property totals 11.68 acres and is bordered on the north by TTRVC zoning, travel trailer/recreational vehicle/campground, which is the long-established Rock Creek Ccampground. To the west is RMF-6 zoning, which has both some developed single-family lots as well as a multi-family project, Oak Forest Villas. To the south is Estey Avenue. And just across Estey is some developed C-4 zoning, a used car sales facility. Next to that is the Salvation Army service center. To the east of the project across busy Airport Road is developed C-4 zoning, including commercial retail, along with a 7-Eleven gas and convenience store. A bit further to the north is the Naples Airport, which is a primary source of ambient noise due to the proximity of runway 32, which is just north of the Rock Creek Campground, as they reminded us in our neighborhood information meeting. We have met with the Airport Authority; we have addressed their concerns. And I'm pleased to say we do have their support going forward with the project, with the limitations and conditions contained therein. The existing zoning was approved in 1996. And I'll do my best to give a quick history on how we got to this point, only because I think it's germane. The property was originally and prior the 1996 rezoned a mix of C-4 and RMF-6 zoning. That was deemed consistent with the Compo Plan through the zoning reevaluation ordinance in 1990. It was in fact Page 45 June 17,2010 the first project I worked on in Collier County. The property at that time consisted of just less than five acres of C-4 zoning, ranging in depth from 125 to almost 300 feet along the entire frontage. The rear portion of the property was RMF -6, identical in zoning to the properties that lie immediately adjacent to the west. In 1996, as our community was racing toward the edge of the residential cliff fall, this property was rezoned to allow for 120 units, a density of 10.27 units per acre through the conversion of commercial zoning provision in the Growth Management Plan. During the hearing process, an affordable housing component was also agreed upon that required 20 percent of the units to be reserved for affordable housing. Shortly after the zoning approval, the residential market began to weaken. And as you all are keenly aware, there is little market for a new multi-family project at this time and almost no market viability for an affordable housing project. In short, my client is sitting on and paying taxes on a piece of property that has little or no value under its current zoning, and has been doing so for four plus years now. This rezone began with the simple idea of adding assisted living facility and CCRC, which is continuing care retirement community uses to the existing PUD. We're in a little bit of a transition where ALF is what we used to call everything from nursing homes to continuing care. CCRC is a more current definable term in state statutes. And you'll see in the PUD a leaning toward using CCRC more commonly than ALF. Nonetheless, both terms are still in play. My client came to understand the cost and time associated with rezoning the property, and has chosen to add uses we feel are compatible and appropriate for the given location, in the event that an ALF market does not continue under its current demand. They do not wish to pigeonhole themselves into one or two limited uses as they did Page 46 June 17,2010 in 1996 and have to come back through this wonderful process any time soon. We have therefore developed a limited list of CF uses for the site and placed building limitations on them consistent with the project's maximum allowable p.m. peak hour trip generation that's contained in our TIS. To hopefully simplify our discussion, let me discuss the residential component first. Originally it was the applicant's desire to remove the affordable housing requirement from the PUD. Quite simply, there's no market for it now or in the foreseeable future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Tim, could you slow down a little bit. Cherie's having a hard time. MR. HANCOCK: I almost stopped to ask Cherie' if! was going too fast. I apologize. THE COURT REPORTER: You read faster than you speak. MR. HANCOCK: Well, when I have to think, I'm much slower. We did want to remove the affordable housing component from the PUD. Staff requested that we keep the affordable housing requirement in the PUD so we did add it back in at their request. But its presence still gives the applicant concern about its viability. If required to construct 20 percent of this residential project as affordable units, the viability of any residential development is questionable at best. It remains our desire to eliminate this requirement. Nearly all of our discussions with the neighbors of the project have echoed this sentiment tenfold. All other elements of the residential portion of the rezone remain the same, with one exception. On Page 15 of 18, the last item, number two, omits a sentence that previously provided for a 12-foot-wide gate at the end of Steeves A venue with a lockbox for emergency access. Again, that exists in the current PUD from 1996. Due to the access on Airport Road for this project, which was not Page 47 June 17,2010 permitted in the prior zoning, this connection is no longer deemed necessary for us. In 1996 the only access was off of Estey, so a secondary access for emergency purposes at the end of Steeves was created. We don't need that anymore, therefore we have removed that condition. The condition that a turnaround is provided at the end of Steeves at our property line still remains in the document. There are some inadvertent omissions in this section, which I'll review a little bit later, that a member of the Planning Commission was kind enough to point out to us that were clearly my fault in lifting the language from one document and placing it into this one. The biggest change for the project really is the inclusion of the CF uses in the PUD. We've had a similar discussion not too long ago. CF, or community facility uses, are permitted within the urban residential designated areas of Collier County, and as such are allowed on this property. The LDC currently lists nine permitted CF uses and 10 conditional uses in the CF district. This MPUD is requesting approval of six of those permitted uses. In the PUD the first three are variations of one use in the CF district. It just adds a little bit more detail. So as you can see, we've culled it to some degree already. We're not requesting any of the conditional uses that are allowed in the CF district. Some uses such as child care and churches have been limited to make sure that the traffic generation stays at or below the proposed p.m. peak hour trips in the TIS, which is 137 trips. Some of these limitations were simply backed into, as we discussed on the previous project, by analyzing their p.m. peak hour trip impacts in what can only be recognized as the worst case build-out scenario. We initially culled the list of CF uses in the filing of our application. That list was further culled at the request of neighbors who attended the NIM and asked that public parks, swimming pools Page 48 June 17,2010 and public tennis facilities not be permitted in this location due to a degree of existing vagrancy in the area and potential for loitering. Most of you know that this property has a long history of vagrants and homeless using it for camping purposes. And to that end the property owner has gone to great lengths, and continues to go to ongoing expenses to keep the property mowed and cleaned to discourage such use. Regardless, the folks, and most of the folks that expressed this concern were in the Rock Creek Campground. They were concerned that a public park, for example, may promote loitering and maybe make the situation a little bit worse. Seeing that the county's coffers are a little on the thin side, we had no problem taking public parks out since they were not a suitor waiting at the door. Let me also try and make your job a little bit easier. We've heard some concerns from members of the Planning Commission with regard to use number six, cultural facilities, including symphonic, theatrical, orchestral and so forth. Based on the input we've received, combined with the very low likelihood that such a use would be attractive in this location, we are removing use number six from the PUD. We do feel, however, that the balance of uses, given their limitations, combined with the site development standards present a list of compatible land uses with the surrounding properties. We have worked with staff to increase the buffer requirement to include a wall for uses such as civic, social or fraternal organization to further improve land use compatibility. Please remember that just four years ago this same land had C-4 zoning along the entire frontage. And what is being proposed here today is a mere shadow of the intensity when compared with what existed on that property for decades. There are some additional changes that have come about based Page 49 June 17,2010 on our meetings or discussions with members of this body. And I'd like to identify for modification some of these to come back for the Planning Commission at consent. And they are as follows: On the master concept plan before you, that little jut of property -- I've conveniently misplaced my pen -- that's a lot on Steeves Avenue that is restricted and cannot be used for anything other than residential or passive type use. The PUD in your packet had a thin line inside of that that was intended to show a buffer line. It gave the appearance of a driveway or street. And we were asked to remove that. I want to thank Commissioner Strain for keeping us from getting ourselves in trouble with that. So we will be removing that from the master concept plan. With regard to child day care and the potential for noise incompatibility, I have suggested that, or will suggest that the wall requirement that we've agreed to for certain CF uses be expanded to include day care. In other words, if a day care is built on the site, a wall would be required adjacent to residential development. Also, on Page 4 of 18, use A-5, which is sales and administrative offices, should have been listed under accessory uses. I would suggest that that become a new Item B-4. Also on that same page, guardhouses and gate houses were not listed under accessory uses but are listed later in that section, and I would ask that we add that as Item B-5. On Page 14 of 18, a line from the approved PUD was omitted by me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I don't mean to interrupt your train of thought, but you just said you were going to move those to accessory uses. But then you said B-4 and B-5. I think you meant temporary uses, because your temporary uses are under Band accessory uses are under C. MR. HANCOCK: You're correct. Actually, the guardhouses and gate houses should be accessory under C. Page 50 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the other one should be temporary under B. So you would be a C-5 but a B-4. MR. HANCOCK: You're correct, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: On Page 14 of 18 in that first paragraph, a single line was omitted making reference to the metropolitan statistical area as a reference point, and that line will be added back into the PUD as it comes back to you for consent. Somehow I omitted that when I lifted the language. On Page 15 of 18, item eight is a new item. It was added at Mr. Anderson's request, and is intended solely to address the final disposition of affordable housing units, should they not have sufficient buyers. And obviously if the affordable housing commitment remains, we would like to see number 8 in the PUD. Ifit does not remain, then it's a moot point. Lastly, transportation representatives have asked that the following language be added to the MPUD under Exhibit F, transportation, which I'll read into the record. A new item four will state the maximum trip generation allowed by any combination of the proposed uses, both primary and ancillary, may not exceed 137 p.m. peak hour two-way trips, as analyzed by the traffic study associated with this project. Item six, which is also highlighted on the visualizer, states that for services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation as determined by Collier County staff, the property owners shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement-approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing in locations as directed by the Collier County transportation administrator or his designee. I would anticipate this to come to bear more on some of the CF type uses, but with the civic and cultural facilities being eliminated, that was one concern. The other may be if the property were to be Page 51 June 17,2010 developed as a church site, for example, this may come to bear also. MR. BELLOWS: Tim, before you proceed, on number six, like the last petition, that should be county administrator, not transportation administrator, on the last sentence. MR. HANCOCK: Can you tell where we got the language from? And thank you, Mr. Bellows. With that, Mr. Anderson, do you have anything to add or correct at this point? MR. ANDERSON: No, you were factual. MR. HANCOCK: He threatened me for making him do the heavy lifting on Tuesday that I would have to do today's presentation, so that's why I'm up here instead of him -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into questions, since you're at the end of your presentation, why don't we take a break until ten after 10:00, and then we'll resume at that point with our questions. Thank you. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break everyone. During break, Mr. Hancock asked if he could come up and basically make a retraction on everything he just said, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Start over? MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not quite that bad, but I repeatedly made a reference to the rezone of this property in 1996. And I was only offby 10 years. It's 2006. So I want to correct that. I apologize. Plus or minus 10 years, 100,000 square feet, you know, we're ballpark here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure we'll get into all those details here in a minute. With that in mind, when Tim had finished his presentation, we took the break, we were going to come back and start with our questioning of the applicant before we go to the staff report. So are there any questions from members of the Planning Page 52 June 17,2010 Commission at this time of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Tim, you mentioned. You're going to put a turnaround on your property at the end of the road there. So essentially what you're going to do is, people will come into that road, there will be a turnaround that will be probably fenced off? I mean, a turnaround is kind of big. I'm just wondering why we don't see it in the site plan then -- MR. HANCOCK: It's because the actual physical turnaround is not on our property, it's the end of Steeves Avenue adjacent to our property . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is enough land there to build that? You're building it on somebody else's property? MR. HANCOCK: It's platted right-of-way. Steeves Avenue is a platted road up to the property line -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the width ofthat? MR. HANCOCK: I'll be honest, I don't know. It will be a -- it's a 60-foot right-of-way. The bottom line is they have nothing right now. And it will be a modified turnaround. You can't get a 100-foot cul-de-sac without eating into people's yards. But as an agreement in the rezoning in 2006, they agreed to at least install a turnaround there so that people's driveways weren't being used. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you're not going to pull it into your property and do a perfectly to code turnaround. You're going to go out there and help pave in the right-of-way to -- MR. HANCOCK: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fire department's happy with that? MR. HANCOCK: I don't know if they're happy, but they're okay with it. Page 53 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, you know that lot that keeps -- that little lot that sticks in there? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why isn't it you just haven't cut that off and built a house on it and brought it into -- MR. HANCOCK: We've discussed that as Mr. Well's retirement home. But it's just been a part of the PUD. The truth is we could have some benefit or use of it, whether it be toward open space calculations, or a minimal area of dry detention. But it's just been part of the project. And we've agreed to not use it for any land use other than residential so that the neighbors know a home may be built on it at some point in the future, but there's no reason not for include it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is like if you just let it grow over or something, it could be a nuisance more than an asset to the street, that's all. MR. HANCOCK: Much like the rest of the property, it has been maintained. And actually probably the best thing that could happen would be for it to be folded in some way, shape and form into a plan of development so it's maintained in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is a beautiful site. One of the sad things about the hearing is that the thought of developing that beautiful site with beautiful trees and everything on it, but ___ MR. HANCOCK: I really believe the county needs to step up and just buy it with a lot of money. But, you know-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for the looks. MR. HANCOCK: But apparently that's not going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question to you. This is on major bus routes and stuff like that. Is there any provision to put a bus stop or anything like that on this property? MR. HANCOCK: Not internal to the site, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'll ask transportation and Page 54 June 17,2010 staff about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. (Telephone interruption.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, what an example you set. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER CARON: To that little parcel that Mr. Schiffer was just talking about, one of the things that you could use it for, as you mentioned, is dry detention. And I just -- can we put some sort of provision, if it's used for dry detention, that it is somehow fenced? We have an example on the Germain Auto property, and they own a piece -- they back up to a residential street, much as this project would. And they bought a single-family lot that they use for dry detention. But it's pretty dangerous when those things fill up or -- with water when they're not bermed and/or fenced, because children in the neighborhood don't pay attention to that. So just you might want to stipulate or we might want to stipulate that. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, if that's something this body would like to see, we don't have a particular objection to it. The only reason that it may fall into a different line of concern, Commissioner, is because of the narrowness of it, and you're required to have four to one slopes. It's not going to get to any point where there's going to be standing water in it for more than a day or two during peak rainy seasons. So it will be a gentle slope and it would only be a couple of feet deep at the most. And the only concern I have is the neighbors may not want a fence on the property. They may rather have it as open Page 55 June 17,2010 space. I haven't polled them on that question so I'd hate to speak for them on it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, I have seen the standing water, and I've seen the danger, and I have seen kids playing around these areas, and I don't know that it needs to be a fence, maybe it just needs to be -- have a landscape buffer around it so that children avoid these areas at that time. You know, I'm not trying to __ MR. HANCOCK: We don't have a significant objection to that, if it's the body's desire to include that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your plan shows a 15- foot landscape buffer around that. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, it does, which leaves even less area for use. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 9 of 18 on your residential standards. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're adding to the actual height? This was a pretty big issue back when this property was rezoned. And the chairman, Mr. Strain, had a very, very lengthy discussion with Mr. Tyson at the time about height and about what height was wanted in that, and it was 45 feet of actual height, not 45 feet of zoned height. And I will read it into the record so that you know. Mr. Tyson __ what we want is exactly in the PUD and I believe you approved. It's three stories and 45 feet actual height. And this went -- this discussion went on for at least two pages. So it was confirmed at the end by the chairman, does the motion maker and the second then accept the statement that this will be actual height of 45 feet as written in the table in the PUD? And both the second -- I believe the first was Mr. Adelstein, who's no longer with us, Mr. Murray was the second, agreed. So I just want to know why this is changing.i Page 56 June 17,2010 MR. HANCOCK: The primary reason is I'm not Mr. Tyson, and I didn't have that experience. Because the actual approved PUD document states that the maximum of 45 feet is actually zoned height. That's what's in the PUD. I'm just looking at the development standards table on Table 1. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why I'm asking the question. MR. HANCOCK: There's no reference to actual height in the table, so I didn't have that background, so I apologize. I don't believe with respect to the residential side, there's any objection to making the 45 an actual building height. So we can stipulate to that, yes, ma'am. I was just transferring standards, so I apologize for the omission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just comment. All's that does is guarantee a flat roof on the building, probably. What you had before is a zoned of 45 and an actual of 57. It looks like 52 was maybe what made it through. You sure you want -- I mean, what's going to happen if they're having trouble getting the building to get the three stories, they're just going to make the roof flat. MR. HANCOCK: That is one possibility. The other is that these are not going to be II-foot ceilings, if it were to go residential, particularly in the market that we have now. So we may be able to accomplish it in 45 feet. I appreciate the concern, but I think the product would accommodate a roof line other than flat within that 45 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just quickly, let me go back. The site Donna's aware of, I'm aware of too. That's really ugly, it's even ugly with a fence. Page 57 June 17,2010 So try to come up something in your master plan where that actually is a residential kind of thing, maybe a caretaker's cottage or something that scales to the neighborhood. You don't put walls on the front property line, stuff like that, to chop it out. Make it, you know __ because it's a cute little area down there, and keep the building to scale of that. And I think the drainage or chain link fence to keep the kids out of the drainage is not a good idea. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? I think they're having a sidebar. Mr. Anderson doesn't feel comfortable not saying something here today. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Hancock, on Exhibit A, on Page 1, under principal uses, number three -- MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Under principal uses, number three on Exhibit A, with the group care facilities, Category 1, could you exclude persons recovering from alcohol and/or drug abuse? MR. HANCOCK: I believe those are Category 2, a more __ COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, they're not. MR. HANCOCK: Am I incorrect on that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. It is not our intent to have an alcohol or rehab treatment facility in this location. So yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, I've got a few of them. I'm going to start with a statement to kind of set of context. This project came through to request a conversion from originally being commercial, which is, according to the zoning Page 58 June 17,2010 re-evaluation ordinance, you were inconsistent with the GMP, but that qualified you to request a density bonus to go from commercial to residential. So when you came in, your density bonus was supported for numbers of reasons. Number one, it took out the commercial that the -- it was inconsistent with the GMP. And you also, I guess, strengthened the argument by saying you would do a certain percentage of affordable housing. I know it wasn't you at the time, but let's just say you in the shoes of your applicant. So you come in, you convert from commercial because it's inconsistent to multi-family and you get a density bonus for it. And you're here today converting back with the density bonus intact to more commercial type uses. Now, I don't have a problem with the CCRC and the ALF being kind of a semi-residential use. But you're going into more uses in the CF area that are broader than typical residential uses. Child care is a very noisy use. Well needed but very noisy. You said you weren't going to do parks, but you have parks in here now. Fire stations and sirens from police station and things like that are problematic I think, and especially they're not residential. Now, we have an agreement that was signed in 1990 by the Board of County Commissioners that's a resolution. It's pretty strong on why you got the right to vacate the roads that were there. You came in and said we want all these roads, we want to vacate them, they're public roads, how do we get to vacate them? Commission comes back, Board of County Commissioners comes back and says you can vacate them, but we have some stipulations. You're not to use lot 22C for a connection road, you're supposed to build a turnaround at the end of Steeves. It's supposed to be retained for residential purposes only. And this will run with the land. The real estate located on the multi-family project will not be rezoned to commercial or industrial orc Page 59 June 17,2010 any other nonresidential uses. That was signed by Max Haas back on January 27th, 1990. I know your attorney's position on this. Can't rezone by resolution, therefore it's worthless. I talked to the county attorney's office and they said, oh, yeah, you can't do that by rezone, it never meant anything. Well, that's real disappointing when the public has concerns and people get a vacation, they're granted development rights based on commitments that were made by resolution that the county attorney at the time apparently knew was worthless and couldn't be enforced. And so here we were today saying, well, that's a nice document, but it doesn't mean anything. And you come back in with -- not you, again, but they come back in and get a density conversion bonus to go to residential. 120 units. And now you want to go back to more nonresidential units, which is exactly why you got bonuses to get out of in the first place. So the whole thing's kind of mixed up and convoluted, and this back and forth stuff of picking up benefits and dropping benefits and picking up things, I don't think it's quite fair. If the intention of your applicant is to want to expand to some CCRC ALF uses, I think those are good things, those are good uses. I don't have any objection to that. But to lump it in with a bunch of other ambiguous uses that we're not sure what could come out of it, I'm very concerned about. I'm also concerned about the total dismissal of that prior document because well, you can't legally do it that way and the attorneys at the time probably knew it or may have known it, I don't know. But that's not fair. So I want to get this back on board and focused on what your applicant really needs. And they have an opportunity to make a nice facility, they have an opportunity to do some residential mixed with ALF, I think that's fine, it would be a nice attractor for the area. It Page 60 June 17,2010 wouldn't be highly negative. You doubled, over doubled the intensity of traffic on the road by what you're asking for here today based on the 137 count, because I was told yesterday that your real current traffic impacts peak hour is about 60. So I don't see where we're gaining anything by where this all started. It seems to be going backwards. And again, I think it's positive with the CCRC ALF but I don't know why we need to be getting into all this other stuff you guys want to get into. I see Bruce jumping for the mike, so -- and I'm not doing this to be argumentative, guys, I just don't see how it's fair. MR. HANCOCK: And your point is well taken. As a matter of fact, when we started this process, the primary concern we had was the path that we're choosing to go down, how would it be received by our neighbors. They were the ones who were standing here in 1990 negotiating on that plat issue. They were the ones in 2006 standing here, and they've been very, very active, very involved as we've gone through the process. The only, from a, strictly from a land use standpoint, the comfort that I can offer the Planning Commission is reflected really in the fact that we have had no letters of objection at the neighborhood information meeting. The concerns that were raised were not about a church or a civic facility or a day care. And the reason is that the neighbors that we have spoken to and that have taken the time bye-mail and phone to communicate with us as we've reached out to them have all communicated that we would rather see what you're proposing than what you already have. And while that may not address the totality of your issues, I think it speaks loudly and clearly to what is and is not acceptable to those very same people that have been protected each step of the way with these approvals. On the more technical side, let me turn that over to Mr. Page 61 June 17,2010 Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go there, though, I think, first of all, these conversations that you had with these people, were they at the neighborhood informational meeting? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, with the exception of two telephone conversations that I asked them to put their thoughts in writing and convey them to staff through e-mail, which they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of the concern of the neighborhood may be from the affordable housing segment that you guys were required or asked to provide in order to get the consensus you needed to get this rezoned in the first place. And I know you're going to claim you got the density bonus for commercial. But without the affordable housing component at the time, you may not have gotten the votes needed for any kind of density bonus, period. So I'm sure the neighborhood would have rather see some these uses over affordable housing. But I'm trying to understand where the wisdom is in allowing you to add all these use, the ALF, and retain 120 units of residential. It just seems like we're stacking it on top of another one of them after another after we had already gotten it back and gave you the density not to have it there. And we're back in the soup again. MR. HANCOCK: Well, the affordable housing is always a lightning rod when dealing with adjacent property owners. Several, and I can think of specifically three, and I think the neighborhood information meeting was attended by seven or eight people, which is a far cry from 2006 when this item was last before this body. It wasn't just affordable housing, but two phone calls I had and people at the meeting also said they don't want to see a multi-family project there. And as I explained to them, well, that's already approved. And they said, well, if it's going to be, we don't want the affordable housing. Page 62 June 17,2010 So the objection was not just the affordable housing, it was to a multi-family project also. And so just to give you by way of my interaction with them, I heard that on, that I can specially cite, from three of those people specially that multi-family was their primary objection. Affordable housing was also raised by a few more people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Bruce, you want to jump in? MR. ANDERSON: Well, not if you're convinced. I don't want to talk you out of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I'm not convinced. In fact, I've got a lot more to go through. So Tim's going to be back up there in a few minutes. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I just want to point out that some of these uses that are being requested were permitted on the property, would have been permitted as conditional uses back when the plat was vacated. Specifically churches, owner-occupied day care, civic and cultural facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, in 1990 all that went away when you took the streets and made them yours. And they were vacated and given up from public rights to your owner. And you did that on a stipulated basis. And the stipulation is what I'm going through, is the last recorded document that I think is a fair agreement between the public and the private, so -- MR. ANDERSON: And folks have noticed about it being terminated today. It was in the title. That's a lot more notice than there was when this stipulation was originally placed on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's back to fairness, Bruce. And first of all, I'm real disappointed that a document, when it's done in resolution, and it was done in a public meeting with the county attorney at the time, who is not of course here today, present, apparently knowing that this document wasn't -- didn't carry the validity in a zoning matter that it should. Because I'm hearing from Page 63 ---..-.<-- --._,-- June 17,2010 you and from Heidi that the document can't be used for a zoning document. So I'm a little disappointed that that was done publicly and accepted when in reality it meant nothing. Why didn't we just tell the public that's the wrong thing to do it by and proceed with the proper process. MR. ANDERSON: I wasn't there for the hearing, but I can imagine how it happened. It was one of those on the fly things, and the attorney didn't have a chance to look into it at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just disappointing, because I think we've got a lot of documents that may be record that may not be as strong as the public thinks they are. Okay, I'm going to go through my normal questions, and I'm sure we're going to get into some of the results of the discussion we just had here as we go through it. First of all, I -- on the affordable housing issue, I think there's enough affordable housing in the county right now. And I know the staff looks at this as restricted affordable housing, therefore it's different. But I think the county's going to be restricted for quite a long time. And to force a developer to produce density to create affordable housing I don't think is a good thing to be doing right now. Likewise, I don't think you should get the density by putting the units on sale for six months and if they don't sell as affordable housing, you get to sell them at market rate. That's just giving you more density as a freebie. So if the affordable housing element stays in, and I don't believe that that paragraph, although I understand why you're doing it and I think it's, from your perspective a good thing to do, I don't think the density should stay in. But once you build them I don't know how you're going to undo the density. So I have a real problem with that scenano. If we get into your -- getting into your PUD document itself, Page 64 June 17,2010 Tim, when you said you weren't going to do public parks, if you look at number nine, it has public parks in it. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a discrepancy there. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I took it out of one other reference point based on the neighbors' concerns and I inadvertently left it in here. We will strike public parks and public libraries from number mne. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody said something against libraries? MR. HANCOCK: There was a healthy distrust of county run facilities by the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. But my overall problem with your Exhibit A permitted uses, Tract A, is everything after number three. So -- and again, I think what you guys I understand are trying to do is a CCRC ALF adult facility. That's good. The county needs more of those. This is a nice quiet little piece of property for something like that to happen, it would be harmless for the neighborhood. And if that's what you wanted, I'm not sure why you just didn't just amend your previous PUD to add that as a new use. You're going through a whole litany of items here that they could have mixed impacts. Your civic, social and fraternal associations. Well, Elks Lodges are nice, they're a good gathering of people, great people. But they have outdoor activities. They congregate. They have a lot of traffic, they have events. Those aren't going to be quiet necessarily all the time. Child care centers with 150 students next to a neighborhood. That could be problematic in the campground to the north. Most child care centers have playgrounds outside and the kids go out and just scream and yell constantly. We need child care centers. But do we need this in this neighborhood on top of what they already perceive as Page 65 June 17,2010 being allowed next door to them when they gave up the vacation of those streets? I think not. And that's where my concern is with that. You made the changes on Page 4, which moves principal uses to temporary and adds an accessory use. That works. The guardhouse and gate houses now are allowed on the site. That's consistent. The development standards table, Ms. Caron, that was a good catch on that, that's corrected. Page 11, the Exhibit C master concept plan that we had in our document is illegible. So I'm assuming when the document is prepared for recordation, someone will get the properly detailed document to staff so that can be used correctly. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I do apologize. I wasn't made aware of that until just a day ago, and I'm not sure how it happened. But we'll make sure that upon consent, each of your packets has a fully legible MCP. Again, my apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's no problem, Tim. I want to make sure we got everything. I think those are my issues. I would like the county attorney to tell us for the record the value of a resolution in regard to the zoning matters on this project. And I understand it's being changed by a reference in the new ordinance that says the resolution is null and void, basically. But I don't particularly like the way it all came about. I think it was -- and I know, Heidi, you had nothing to do with it. And I know Mr. Klatzkow had nothing to do with it. It was long before you guys got here. But I just think it's kind of alarming to know that that document could be created in the public eyes, being offered to the public as a solution, finding out that doesn't carry that much validity, because it's the wrong kind of document for what is was used for. Do you mind elaborating? MS. ASHTON: Sure. The resolution you're referring to is the 90-116, 101-16. Page 66 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON: And that was a vacation of the roadways, as you mentioned, but also vacation of, I believe, the entire plat. And the condition you're referring to I've told you is not legally enforceable against future boards because you can't essentially contract away the regulatory powers of a future board. I think today if you replat it essentially, all you need to do is essentially replat to remove the prior plat. That's my recollection of the process today. I don't believe that process existed back then, I think it was changed sometime in the mid-'90's. I can't really speak for the prior county attorney. It's possible that they contemplated that some sort of rezoning was going to be forthcoming and that that board that adopted the resolution would be the one that would be honoring the commitment that they made. I don't know. I mean, they certainly can't eliminate their own regulatory powers either, but that might have played a factor if it had gone forward earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. No, that's all. I just kind of wanted a verification that this can't be that -- is not that enforceable. And when it says these stipulations shall run with the land, I guess they really can't. So, with that in mind, I think that's all the statements I have of the applicant from -- I need of the applicant at this point. Does anybody else have any questions they further want to ask of the applicant before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report, please. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner in Zoning. You have the staff report that was submitted to you. It is dated 6/8/1 O. And I won't belabor the meeting other than to say that staff is Page 67 June 17,2010 recommending approval. We do believe that it should be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan, based on the proposed document. This particular project does have an unusual twist with the affordable housing in that it's not a bonus density issue because there wasn't an agreement with it. And David Weeks would like to speak to that point as part of the staff presentation. So if I may, I'd like to let David Weeks speak now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's by fluke he's even here today because -- Michelle was supposed to be here today, I believe. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks ofthe Comprehensive Planning Section. Commissioners, this is one of several projects over the last few years where the county commission approved a rezoning with some commitment, some requirement for affordable housing but it was outside of the affordable housing density bonus process that is established in the Comprehensive Plan. As has already been stated on the record by the chairman, and I concur with that opinion, that the conversion of commercial density bonus provision in the Future Land Use Element which was applied for this project to obtain it's past rezoning was likely influenced by the, either commitment received at the board hearing at the board's, I'll say, insistence or request, or either offered up by the applicant. But either way, that the affordable housing commitment was made as part of that rezoning process granting the higher density. The conversion of commercial density bonus to my knowledge has only been approved at the maximum density two times since its existence since 1989. That does not necessarily mean that the board would not have approved the conversion without the affordable housing, but my observations of the board of the last few years of how they've treated the affordable housing, most particularly in these circumstances where Page 68 June 17,2010 they have approved it outside of the density bonus process, I do think it was part of their consideration in granting the full density. Economic conditions now are certainly different than they were in 2006, and as a result the amount of affordable housing in the community is much greater in existence than it was at that time. However, it's purely a result of market conditions, not regulatory conditions. Which means that all of those so-called affordable units in our community are not restricted in any way. Which means that when the economy does improve and the house values increase, then of course their affordability decreases, because there is no regulatory restriction imposed upon those dwelling units to keep them at that affordable level. It's for that reason that the staff position of Comprehensive Planning Section that the affordable housing commitment should remain as it is approved in 2006. We have an affordable housing need identified in the county by the Shimberg Center at the University of Florida. And it continues to show in future years projections a continued need for more affordable housing. I think it's also important to keep in mind that, of the regulatory affordable housing units that are approved by the county, those have a time limit on them. Typically it's about 15 years. Which means even if we didn't have a single need for an additional affordable housing unit because of new persons coming into our community, the need would continue to rise because the inventory is going to drop as time goes by. As the 15-year or whatever that time limit is for the various projects occurs, those units then are no longer required to be maintained at an affordable level. That is, they can become market rate housing. So again, over time there's going to be a natural attrition and reduction of the regulatory affordable housing units. Succinctly put, the staff position is remove that paragraph that is Page 69 June 17,2010 being proposed, or in the alternative, remove the 24 dwelling units that were granted under that affordable housing guise. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, thank you. There's going to be a series of questions. Yes, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know if you know the answer to it, but what happens to these restricted affordable housing units when they're sold and in a few years under the 15 years they're foreclosed on? MR. WEEKS: That, I don't know. My presumption, because the regulations run with the property, I don't think it matters who owns it, that there's still that requirement for that time period. Or did I miss your question? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So the bank gets it back and can't sell it unless the county tells them who they can sell it to? MR. WEEKS: Well, sort of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It remains in the-- MR. WEEKS: -- I mean, I don't know if the county tells them who they can sell it to, but whoever that owner is, they must maintain the affordable dwelling units. They're still limited in the amount of money they can charge for rent or sale until that time period has expired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you were -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: David, in our Growth Management Plan, we still have a commitment as the county to affordable housing; isn't that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: You mentioned something about 20 units. I'm not sure I understand the conversion. It would be 20 Page 70 June 17,2010 percent, right? MR. WEEKS: I may have mistated. Twenty percent, which would be 24 dwelling units. Because they're approved for a total of 120. COMMISSIONER CARON: That are affordable. But they got additional density based on the conversion, right? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. WEEKS: I believe the total number of units in the project is 120, which would mean not all of that came from the conversion bonus. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but it was just for the four acres that was actually commercial. MR. WEEKS: Correct, a little over four acres. COMMISSIONER CARON: How do we handle those conversions now? MR. WEEKS: The same provision applies. So if someone came in today with a qualifying commercial property, they could request up to 16 dwelling units per acre, and it's at the board's discretion as to what density to grant. COMMISSIONER CARON: That didn't change for the coastal high hazard area? It was supposed to back then. I mean, that was -- MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, so that never changed, that's -- MR. WEEKS: I don't believe so. I think it was one of those proposals with the last EAR-based amendments approved in 2007. Staff had -- the county had proposed several changes to the density rating system. I believe that was one of those, and several of those did not get adopted. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of David before we go back? Page 71 June 17,2010 Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing, Mark. We'll discuss the affordable housing later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a whole pile of discussion's going to happen, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Donna, remember, the conversion of this C-4, I mean, across the street is all commercial. Everything is commercial around it at the time. That was debated, why is this an isolated commercial, it's sitting in the middle of commercial. I'm done, thanks, Mark. MR. WEEKS: If you're referring to that conversion bonus provision, it's not just for isolated commercial. It also was to get rid of strip commercial. In short, it's properties that did not meet locational criteria. If you're not an activity center, not a specific subdistrict that authorizes commercial development, then you are, you might say, nonconforming. And it would be those properties that would be eligible for the conversion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this whole street was commercial, isn't it -- don't you agree? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. To the south it goes on for quite a distance, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And across the street? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have -- since you are -- you're here in place of Michelle, right? MR. WEEKS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure. So that means the Growth Management Plan consistency section of the staff report is your baby today. Page 72 June 17,2010 MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5. The last sentence on that page, can you tell me how you concluded that? The proposed project is located in an area where the lowest number of affordable work force units has been approved since 1999, 120 units. What study did you rely upon in Collier County to come up to that conclusion? And if that study -- whatever it is, I would like a copy of it. So you have a study apparently that has classified the affordable work force housing by category throughout the county. And then you know that each certain areas have low or high values of those. I thought Nick was working on something like that based on what I heard at one of the meetings. So ifhe has it done, I'd sure like a copy of it. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've got a map by district. We've got a map by zoning district and planning community that documents where the affordable housing that's been deed restricted is located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you supply that to the Planning Commission? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does this sentence coincide with the results that that map will show us? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I don't know either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't know if that statement is valid or not. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had the same questions on that last sentence, because I was concerned over what the area is. What is Page 73 June 17,2010 the area? MR. WEEKS: I believe it's-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And if it's approved since 1999, work force housing approved since 1999, most of that home area including Lakewood -- I don't know what area you're talking about, but those houses were built in the '70's, some in the '50's and '60's off of Estey down further. And Lakewood and Glades and all those places were build in the '70's and '80's. They're built out. They're all affordable. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, the clarification is deed restricted, as in market priced. There's a difference. In other words, what the market produced versus what -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Deed restricted by the county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Deed restricted by zoning, yes. MR. WEEKS: The regulatory affordable housing is not dictated by the market alone. And I believe the area reading earlier in that paragraph, there's reference to commission district four, so I have to assume that that is the geographic area being referred to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, I remember that came out, because they were saying that most of the deed restricted affordable was out in district five, and I think it was by Collier County commission district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the report then I would -- please send that to each of us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a follow-up, which is going in front of the board, the board asked staff to do a market rate study as well, too, a snapshot in time. That's coming up on this Board of County Commissioner agenda. So the board has said, well, let's look at what is deed restricted and let's look at what is market and compare those two. So we do have the deed restricted right now on a map and then we're going to do Page 74 June 17,2010 a market in the fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd appreciate it. David? MR. WEEKS: Just want to mention again, the paragraph that makes reference to commission district four, and keep in mind, that's Commissioner Coyle's district. That's primarily the City of Naples and then the immediate environs. Most of the affordable housing, I agree with Mr. Midney, I think the number one commission district will be district five. Behind that will be district one, I think Commissioner Fiala's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course it all depends on what you base your study on. MR. WEEKS: It certainly does. It depends on what mechanism, when we talk about regulatory, are we talking about density bonuses that have been granted, or perhaps other types of affordable housing outside of a density bonus process. Secondly, what time period you're referring to. And then -- well, I think that covers it. Because, like, this specifically refers to the area being commission district four, and secondly refers to approvals, which I'm sure means rezoning approvals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And of course located in the area with the lowest number of affordable work force housing units has been since 1999. If you base it on commission district instead of incorporated area of Collier County -- or the unincorporated area of Collier County, you're going to really get a skewed number. City of Naples has probably virtually very little affordable housing. But if you really look at Collier County's portion of district four and how much they have in that, that may be a better way to look at it. But I'll wait and see what your report says. Okay, I think we can finish with Kay. Kay, did you finish your discussion before you brought David up, or do you have more presentation? Page 75 June 17,2010 MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem. I just wanted to note that we have provided PUD findings and rezone findings in support of our recommendation of approval. And other than that, I'm available to answer any questions that I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any staff questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Podczerwinsky, do you have a moment, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while he's coming up, I have a question for him also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to ask yours first, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's about buses. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning Section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, what was the highest peak hour of the old PUD? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Of the old PUD, which was the 120 units, we showed -- I believe it was 70 trips, p.m. peak hour trips. That was shown in the second revision of the traffic study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean the old PUD, the one that's in effect for the zoning today having only multi-family. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Only multi-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The current PUD, not the one -- you've seen a couple renditions. In fact, up until yesterday you didn't have the most current one. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's forget the current PUD. But the existing enforced PUD today with 120 multi-family units. Do you remember what the peak hour -- what the highest peak hour was? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, the highest p.m. peeks hour is Page 76 June 17,2010 70 trips two-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The new PUD, based on the combination that's been presented, you're looking at 137. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the new PUD was limited to a mix of multi-family and CCRC combination, ALF or whatever you want to call it, with a conversion ratio in the CCRC so that for every bed in the CCRC you would drop one density unit of residential, just those two uses, would it have as dramatic an impact on the traffic as the current uses do? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The combined use, you're asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say they built a CCRC of200 beds. That means they would have 25 less residential units -- or 50, I'm sorry, if they go to a four to one conversion. So that means instead of 120 residential, they come down to 70. So they have 70 residential and 200 CCRE. In your experience, is that a less impact an on the road system than 120 multi-family residential? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It might be roughly equivalent. I'd have to take a more specific look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be a lot closer to the 70 than the 137 is that they have today. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's something we have to look specifically at. We'd try to look at the maximum there, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That intersection is not good. I mean, you go down Airport Road and all of a sudden that right lane disappears and people have to move back over into two lanes and fan back out into three again. This isn't going to help that scenario. And I'm trying to think of how to get to what the developer's trying to get to, which I believe is Page 77 June 17,2010 more of an ALF CCRC operation mixed with residential, over all the uses they're asking for in CF. And I see a lot of heads shaking no, so maybe I'll get clarification when they get back up here. Brad, did you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, a question. This thing is on a pretty good bus route system, Airport? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the future, do me a favor in these reports, not what the bus situation, how close the bus route is and everything. Is there anything we should be doing on this property for making it easier to pick up the bus? Bus stop kind of thing? Or would a turn lane that they do work? Or what would work best to -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We can certainly look into it and I can find out from the CAT area manager and find out where our nearest stop is and see if it's a recommended location that's on our CAT system improvements in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then note like near stops, walking distance, stuff like that -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the future. Thanks. Anybody else of John? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John, appreciate it. The shaking heeds heads, one of you want to tell us what -- respond to my comments then? MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, thank you. Tim Hancock. No, the PUD is actually written as an either/or. In other words, if we build one residential unit, the entirety of the project has to be residential. Ifwe build one CF use, the entirety of the project has to Page 78 June 17,2010 beCF. Therein lies part of the reason why we want to have some, or feel the need to have some additional viable CF uses. For example, if the first phase ideally were to be 90 to 100 ALF beds, well, that doesn't consume the entirety of the property. There's going to be some land left over. If the ALF market is not there for a phase two, for example, what can that property be used for. And when you start parsing the property into smaller pieces, when you end up with four net acres to try and do a residential development on four net acres that have a multi capacity, it doesn't work. So that's why some additional reasonable CF uses are a little more important than maybe otherwise it is being viewed. Because we did choose to go either/or instead of trying to do a hybrid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what youjust described, if you do ALF -- ACLF or ALF with a fire station or a fraternal organization, you've still got a hybrid. Why wouldn't you look at a combination like we have in other sites, residential and ALF? I mean, that's a more compatible combination. You've got the site, your back side of the site you could put it at the end of Steeves Road, which by the way, your site plan doesn't show the turnaround area that you said you'd put in. At the end of Steeves Road you could put in more homes back there and run the CCRC closer to the roadway. And you got a compatible district that way. I don't understand why in your reasoning or your client's reasoning the ALF has to be only combined with CF uses and you don't use the residential. I'm a little surprised, because we've seen just the opposite in other places. So -- okay. Well, anybody else have any questions? Any questions at all of anybody? Page 79 June 17,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to talk about this item? Nobody's getting up. Okay, we're at discussion before we vote. Does anybody have any general discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been quiet because I'm trying to reason out what appears to be a dart throwing opportunity. And I'm concerned with that, that whatever we would -- if we agree to this as it is presented, there's no telling what would be built on there. I mean, there is telling within the issues that you are seeking, but it seems to me that part of our responsibility is to make a decision about not only the desirability of controlled growth, but what is appropriate to the area as well. And it just strikes me that this is more of a turkey shoot in some respects. I recognize the developer has the right to try to do something with the property. But it does have to be, I think, compatible with the area. And I recognize that there are commercial activities surrounding it to some degree, but there are also some homes in the back there. And I think it's good that you may hopefully in the near future, if you get the opportunity to develop to do so and take care of the homeless problem. But I am concerned with the mixture that seems to be your choices here. I would think, as the chair has indicated, that we should have compatibility to the greatest degree possible. And in that sense, if it's workable, and it seems like it could be, there should be, if you're going to do ALF, you ought to do residential. It ought to be something that makes sense in that area. I was trying to figure what the implications are with a CF -- what Page 80 June 17,2010 would you be helping the people in the ALF? First of all, we have airplanes flying over. Nobody's talked about soundproofing, okay. And we had that discussion when we went through this the last time in 2006. But the question I have is what will it ultimately turn out to be? And I'm not keen on just granting open shots at this thing. I don't know how to say it more carefully or effectively. But I wish you would know what you want to do. Because I just think it's an opportunity to get a zoning and then sell the parcel and say, here, look at all these shots you've got. I would rather see us building more effectively, that's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any general comments? Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Tim, you mentioned that you would like to take the affordable housing aspect out it. Are you okay with understanding that it would reduce the total units allowed or were you basing that on assuming you would be able to maintain the 120? MR. HANCOCK: Far be it from me not to at least ask to have my cake and eat it too. But we do understand that if we're asking the affordable housing restriction to be removed that if the unit reduction had a commensurate 20 percent within the project, that's something we could live with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this thing is twelve units an acre, taking out, you know, down to ten units an acre, I mean, that's still a large density. And I feel, based on the time in which this went through, that affordable housing was a major part of that conversation and a major part of the gift of that density. So I think it should stay in. I think the illusion that we're out of affordable housing, David hit it right. This is a marketplace reduction, Page 81 June 17,2010 which means it could go back up in no time. This is, what, four years ago, it's a big issue? Four years from now it might be another big issue. This is a great site for affordable housing. It's on bus routes, it's within walkable from training programs down at the school. So this is exactly the kind of site that should have affordable housing on it. MR. HANCOCK: If the reduction were to occur as Ms. Ahem as suggested, we would be going from 10.27 units per acre down to about 8.3 units per acre. We are adjacent to RMF-6 developed multi-family and single-family zoning. We are in a flight path for Naples airport. This is not -- you know, we're at the intersection of Airport and Estey with a convenience store gas station across the street. So when you look at a transitional land use standpoint where you have developed multi-family on one side, an airport, a campground and a 7-Eleven, going from six units per acre allowed to 8.3 units per acre I don't think is really that big of a jump from a compatibility standpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is a great location for people that need -- have affordable housing needs. Access to transportation, access to training. This is the great location. MR. HANCOCK: And if there were any market for that, we wouldn't be here today. That's our concern. For four years there's been no market. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because of bonuses and stuff, there'll probably never be a market for affordable housing. But today the reason there's a lot of opportunities and maybe -- and everybody's not getting those opportunities, and they're nowhere near the regulated affordable housing that this would have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments before? And I -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that the market that's Page 82 June 17,2010 not out there is for your multi-family. It has nothing to do with the 24 units of affordable housing, or 20 units of affordable housing, whatever it is. It has everything to do with there is not a multi-family market out there right now. I was one ofthe people who voted against this project the first time around because I didn't think that the conversion should happen. I still have those issues. But I certainly would not be willing to take away the affordable housing that was committed to. That was the only reason I am sure that you got by the commission the first time around. Now, if you want to give up the residential and just go to, you know, rezone to ALF-- MR. HANCOCK: What we learned in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then, you know. MR. HANCOCK: What we learned in 2006, to use Mr. Murray's reference, is when you leave yourself one dart, you can get yourself in trouble. And in 2006 when multi-family with affordable housing at 20 percent was the only thing we could do, and the market faltered, there's nothing left. And so yes, we do want some flexibility. We have limited it beyond what the LDC permits for CF. There may be particular uses that we can address with further limitations at the discretion of this body, but we're just trying to avoid having one use that would be appropriate here and throwing it out only to find out two years later that, you know, that it would make sense. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- the affordable housing, I mean, Brad's right, I think it's a good location for affordable housing and all that. I don't really have a dog in the fight on this particular location for affordable housing. So if it stays in or goes out, that's not my Issue. My issue is the process that got us here today and the back and Page 83 June 17,2010 forth between converting it from commercial to something else and back again and the agreement that is not an agreement after and all these things that have transpired. I voted against this the first time around because it was a greater intensity on the road system primarily than I thought we should be looking at in that area. I didn't think 120 units was the right number. Well, now you're doubling the intensity on the road system, what you're proposing here today potentially. So I think my position is worse than better at this particular point. If you were to come in with a master plan that wasn't a bubble plan, that was -- showed us some layouts that could potentially be what you're intending to do, with the CCRC, ALF and whatever uses those dictate and/or a mix of residential, I think it would be a lot easier sell. But if you're dead set on going into broader uses than just those, I'm not in support of that for this location because of the lack of, I guess, concurrency issues -- not true concurrency but in a sense the traffic is already backed up real bad there. I don't see any gain to the public by doing it, so -- and I've got a litany of reasons that I could recite, but we'll see what happens when we get into the motion. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, if I may, I understand the position you're in. And obviously on our side and our client's behalf, you never want to paint yourself in a comer. But we tried carefully not to throw everything at you. The primary thrust of this rezone was in fact to add the ALF. I hear from Commissioner Murray and Commissioner Strain and others that you have concerns about some of the other CF uses. And quite candidly, I think probably the one that nobody would have an issue with on this site would probably churches and place of worship. It's a non-peak p.m. generator, it fits into communities, it's a more integral part of our social and communal fabric. If it were to assist the Planning Commission in their deliberations Page 84 June 17,2010 that we retain principal uses one, two, three and five and remove the other principal uses for Tract A; that we retain the affordable housing requirement but we do ask consideration to retain as presented to you today the item number eight because of the current difficult market conditions, that's something that I think narrows the scope dramatically over what you're considering. And it is something that at least gives us more than that one bullet in the gun that we need moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that makes it a lot better, Tim. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think though, that we need to take out eight, because as we saw with this project initially, it's four years later, and we're back claiming market conditions. We don't know what's going to happen four years from now. There may be a crying need again. And so, you know, I would definitely not be in favor of taking eight out. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We have to have eight in there if we're going to be retaining the affordable housing. This is not a new type of paragraph. It has been used, I understand from Ms. Deselem, in Ave Maria. And I know for a fact from my own experience, because I took the language from it, this is in the Heritage Bay document for their affordable housing. It needs to be in there, because right now people are having trouble qualifying with all the new increased scrutiny. So the county has the right to step in and buy these at the reduced rate. This -- you know, if the affordable housing is going to stay in, absolutely we have to have paragraph eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, as a compromise, would you consider extending the time frame in item A.8? Because here's what could happen right now. If I was your applicant and I could get the Page 85 June 17,2010 loan in today's market, I'd run out and build this project right now with the affordable housing, because you know there ain't nobody's going to come walk in and buy it right now. So you would get a green light to increase the density without having to do the affordable housing, because in essence nobody would touch it in this marketplace. So I don't think approaching it, paragraph eight today in today's marketplace is really fair to ask. Now, I think it's fair to ask that you have some relief somewhere down the road. But you and I know that in today's marketplace, affordable housing is selling -- I mean, Habitat is, I'm understanding having problems getting rid of housing because there's so many foreclosures that are selling cheaper. You can go in Golden Gate Estates and buy a foreclosed home cheaper than you can buy a Habitat house. So eight just doesn't work with the marketplace the way it is today. And I think that's probably a big concern. And I don't know what you got in mind, but if that's where you're -- if you're going to stay on eight the way it's written, I think I have to agree, it's an issue for this board. MR. ANDERSON: Frankly we'd prefer, still prefer to not have the affordable housing component and take the 20 percent density cut. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't mind that a bit, but I don't think you'll -- doesn't seem to carry the day here. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, look at eight, it's six months from the building permit and then 30 days after the CO -- I mean, the building won't be built in six months. So there's going to be a gap between the six months there and then the -- I think the state has a law, actually think Mike Davis put it in, where you have six months after it goes on sale where if you can come back and say you're having trouble. Page 86 June 17,2010 But I think eight should be rewritten where it's six months from the -- or in this case let's take the 30, seven months from the Certificate of Occupancy, you know, which is when the unit would be available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying, if they do residential, whatever percentage is affordable, if it doesn't sell within seven months from the CO of that affordable unit, it can be converted to a regular market rate facility without the restrictions of affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't like that, but I mean CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd rather, I mean, kill it. If you can't kill it then let's make it six months [rom the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This board can make any recommendation it wants, but we ought to make a reasonable recommendation. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then take it out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know if my recommendation would be construed as reasonable, but given that this project wouldn't go forward regardless, for quite some time, I think Brad is onto something. I would add to that that instead of six or seven months, why not make it two years. If that's too long, then let's find a time probable. If we're going to exercise an opportunity, I believe this is the same thing that Ava Maria had, where if they didn't sell it in a certain time it reverted to standard market. Now, they ran into a big issue out there. I presume all of those could be sold as standard market at this time. But I understand they are intending to sell them as affordable. That's their intent. I don't -- can't speak beyond that. And I think that intent is nice, but how -- you know, it doesn't-- Page 87 June 17,2010 like that resolution, it doesn't have any weight. I would say if you're going to go into that world, take a time frame that makes more sense, to me anyway. Couple of years, maybe a year, but certainly seven months, you won't even get started and seven months will be finished. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, one of the practical applications and problems with that is if you look at 24 units constructed with bank loans being paid for two years beyond the date of CO, it is a financial encumbrance that borders on the unreasonable. And that's the concern. The concern is not whether the applicant -- I mean, once you agree to build them, they're going to be built as affordable, they're going to be offered as affordable. But if, as Mr. Anderson said, if there are no qualified buyers, to sit on that inventory and pay interest for two years, I think is unreasonable. And I would ask for your consideration. I know that it is rarely this body's concern about the pocket of the developer, but in reality, if this were to sit three months after CO for an affordable unit, it would be unusual. If it's going to sit three months it's going to sit -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question, then. I know in some that we've looked at and talked about and perhaps stipulated, that the affordable units had to be built first. And I don't know if that is the case here. I don't remember whether that was part of the requirement. But I would have assumed that you would build your market rate first and your affordable later. Maybe two years is excessive. I wasn't trying to be excessive, I was trying to come to some kind of conclusion that makes sense. I think seven months is too quick. That's from Certificate of Occupancy, right? When it goes on sale? Or are we going to do pre sale? MR. HANCOCK: There's $3 million of inventory being paid, Page 88 June 17, 2010 bank financing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Know, I understand. Lookit, I see RV units sitting out there at these places, and every one of them have to pay the bank for their bulk loans that they have. I understand, that's the cost of doing business. And there are good times, really good times and there are terrible times. We're in a terrible time. But one would hope that we'd have some kind of recovery by the time you get going. Perhaps it would be a year before you get going and then another time frame. I'm just trying to offer an opportunity for conversation and maybe find a good answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? You know what we might want to consider, and when we finally can give some direction to this applicant, most everything in this PUD document is not going to be the same as what we started with today. You may want a continuance to work out the issues that we're talking about and come back with a document that is reflective of whatever might pass this board based on our ending conversation today. But I'll leave that up to you as you go forward. MR. ANDERSON: On the affordable housing timeline, how about six months after CO? I think that's very reasonable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, you know, to have a limit like that, it does make sense, sadly. Because if you can't sell them, you can't sell them. And if you can't sell them it's going to really hurt you down the road. So the goal is that you're going to give the community half a year window to put people in it is fair. So I think killing the thing is a problem. But -- and obviously the county is aware of it by that time, we have a department that will jump on that and hopefully fill those units. If they can't do it, they can't do it. Page 89 June 17,2010 I do know on Ave Maria, because I sit on the affordable housing advisory board, they did go out and build an awful lot of affordable housing up front that they did convert in the six months state law process, because they couldn't sell them and because there's no jobs out there for the people who live at that time. So that won't be the case here. If you built these first, you built them last, they would have the same opportunity. So I think six months, if you can't sell them. Now, the scary thing is you do have a little bit of control with that. You could make it difficult to buy or -- not that you would, but you maybe don't promote it properly. But I do think we have a department in the county that will hop on this, and it's their responsibility to make sure we take advantage of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so, Mr. Murray? Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think that's unreasonable, because there are balancing acts we have to do here. I would like to see perhaps a little more time, but six months is probably -- based on what Commissioner Schiffer has said, yeah, our government, if it has the responsibility in that, should be on top of that, and we're going to go forward presumably on that basis. I could probably live with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In the original presentation of this project, I don't think it would have been a factor of what got built first or what didn't get built first. It was stated then that this project was to be as inclusionary as possible so that it would be built all together at once and one would be not be aware of which units were affordable and which units were not, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's --let me walk through where I think we're at and we can make a decision how you want to proceed so everybody is working from a page we understand. Page 90 June 17,2010 Ifwe start on Page 1 of the PUD. It would be Exhibit A, Page 1 of 18, the applicant has agreed to -- for the only remaining numbers under eight remain, A-I, two, three and five. The rest will be dropped. On Page 4, under principal uses, water management facilities and related -- I mean, sales and administrative offices will go to temporary uses. And under accessory uses, they'll add guard houses and gate houses. The page that Ms. Caron was discussing, the actual versus zoned height, that's on Page 9, 45 feet becomes the actual height. There's missing language in various parts of the document from the prior document that has to be brought over. Mr. Hancock described all that in the beginning. That needs to be addressed. The graphic needs to be modified in regards to the lot that appears to be a connection to Steeves Road. The paragraph eight on Page 15 needs to reference six months from the CO. Page 16, which had some changes introduced by transportation is fine except the changes will now have to change in regards to the peak hour by the time we get to consent, because they'll have a new peak hour that's going to have to be inserted based on the reduction of the uses that they're asking for. And I would like -- that needs to be done by consent as well, I would assume, for us to review. And I think that is all the changes that I can recall. Tim, did you have -- did I miss any? MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe that you missed one, sir, but I did notice -- my client noticed that gate houses and guard houses also should be an accessory under the community facility for an ALF, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: So that is one addition. The second one, bear with me a moment as I -- on Page 3 of 18, Page 91 June 17,2010 the pull cords, the famous ALF pull cords are in there. We'd like to revise that in the same manner that we did for North Naples Methodist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And you need to change transportation director to county manager in the reference that transportation added as well. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Bruce, did you have anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that-- MR. ANDERSON: There was just one other item on use number three on Page 1 of 18. We were going to put in language that excludes alcohol rehabilitation and treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment, right. Now, if that survives a motion from this board, can you all get that done by consent or would you rather a continuance to rediscuss? How do you want to proceed? MR. ANDERSON: We would like to proceed. We'd like to come back and see you in two weeks on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAm: On consent, okay. So with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move with the modifications that we made, we forward PUDZ-A-PL-2009-2031, Meridian Lakes, with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be voting in favor this time for the Page 92 June 17,2010 project, only because it's already zoned greater than what I believe is going to be the intensity if we had the ALF. So it's a losing proposition either way, but I'm still going to support it at this point. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. I cannot believe we got there, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Hancock, but thank you. It was an interesting discussion, to say the least. Cherie' -- and I'll ask the Planning Commission as well. We have two items to finish up, one is a discussion on a GMP A that we basically discussed quite a bit of it a few days ago. We need to finish up a reference to a new paragraph today. And we got a concept discussion the administrative code. We can take a break for 15 minutes right now and come back and finish up and work through lunch or we can decide to take a lunch. What's the feelings of the board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we see how long the time that Ms. Istenes will take, if she can estimate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't going to take very long. It depends how much you want to delve into -- she's presenting a Page 93 June 17,2010 concept of the administrative code. It's going to take some discussion to understand the depth of what that is, but I don't think we're going to get into nitpicking language. It's mostly is this language better that what we have now, and if we like it, is it a good thing to yes to the BCC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it then remains with how much time he wants to take with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we left off on Tuesday, there is one paragraph left for discussion. We already discussed most of the other. There may be a public speakers that we'll be listening to, and I can see Nancy's here for a reason, and it sure wouldn't probably be the administrative code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be in favor of holding off lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the rest of you, is that okay with everyone? Let's take a break though to give Cherie' a break. It's been another hour and a half. So we'll come back here at 11 :45 and we'll finish and wrap up starting at that point. So-- (Recess.) Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS: GMP-A-CP A-2008-4 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray made it. Okay, thank you, Ray. Welcome back from break. As we announced before the break, we're going to go through the next two items and kind of delay lunch. So with that, we have an old business item that we started on Page 94 June 17,2010 Tuesday. It's GMP-A-CP A-2008-4, and it's the -- let me get into more specifics. It's in the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands, redesignation to neutral lands. Growth Management Plan amendment. Mr. Nadeau, at that time we had discussed some of the issues and we were left with a new paragraph that kind of changed the dynamics of the whole situation. You guys wanted to chew on it a little bit and get with staff and get back to us. We've gotten a correction, actually some additional language added to the paragraph the other day, six or seven words. And so why don't we take it from there. Go ahead. MR. NADEAU: Do I need to be sworn? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. If you haven't been sworn in we'll start all that -- anybody wishing to testify on this, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, Dwight. MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager for RW A. When we last left, a full description of the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment had been provided to this body and there was -- as a result of some conversations with DCA staff, with Collier County staff, it was determined that a map change, that would not be appropriate and therefore language would be inserted as a conditional use exception within the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands portion of the Land Development Code. Language was presented. I asked a direct question of Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, and I have received an affirmative response that the proposed language does accomplish the Page 95 June 17,2010 construction and demolition debris land uses that are proposed to be added to the existing land use. I've stated into the record previously that there would be no further expansion of the property beyond its 29-acre boundary and that there would be no encroachment into the conservation areas, as has been permitted by the Water Management District and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The language presented by staff and forwarded to the Planning Commission is acceptable to the petitioner, and I request that we move forward with a recommendation of adopt to the Board of County Commissioners, utilizing the language provided by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're going to be hearing from staff and public speakers, I guess. Unless there's some question from the Planning Commission right now, we'll move into staff comments. David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. And I first want to ask, have all Commissioners seen the staff language? Because it was e-mailed to you I think yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody not seen it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have not seen it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have not seen it. But I went to the machine last night and didn't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Tuesday the language was passed out, but they added one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- eight words in the last line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's not much here. I remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David. Page 96 '--.'-' ...._-_.,~,--- June 17,2010 MR. WEEKS: This is the staff recommended language, but I just want to jump right ahead and say that you have a registered speaker, Nancy Payton. She's provided some edits to the staff language, and I like her edits. But I don't want to steal her thunder so I'll just stop and let her present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Payton. MR. NADEAU: If! may, I'll make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. You're going to make one afterwards anyway, but go ahead now. MR. NADEAU: The introduction of any textural edits, as this commission appreciates, occurred at a very late date. I just received the proposed language at 9:37 this morning. I think it's procedurally improper to allow any outside or sideline text editing when there hasn't been any evidence of any concern through any of the transmittal hearings, all of which received unanimous recommendation, as well as through the public hearings up to and through this past Tuesday's meeting with this body. So any language changes proposed that you have not seen, I would caution it and request that you consider staffs language that has been presented to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, we are here to listen to the public. If they want to bring suggested text languages, if they want to stand and dance for five minutes, they're more than welcome to. We will listen to everything they have to say. And if we decide that we want to recommend it will or not be included, we'll certainly consider your comments. But we are definitely going to listen to anybody in the public that wants to speak on this matter. MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Payton? MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Page 97 June 17,2010 The Federation spoke at the transmittal hearing before the Collier County Commission, which does lend to our standing. We sent a detailed, detailed letter to DCA when they were doing their ORC. We adopted DCA's ORC, and again reiterated our concerns. We're involved in this process, and technically the clock doesn't start ticking on public involvement from the DCA perspective until the transmittal hearing. We did engage. I'm sorry he doesn't like the fact that we engaged later than he would have liked, but we did it, it was legal, and we're entitled to come forward. This is why there's a hearing, to take public comment. I think you did receive a copy of our letter where we adopted DCA's ORC and outlined a lot of our concerns, which DCA adopted many of them and staff has now come to the same conclusion. I was not able to be here. I did watch the replay and asked for a copy of the proposed changes. It's long known that the Federation has had an interest in this. We weren't given this ahead of time. We asked for it. So I'm going to comment on it and make some suggestions. Our goal was to make sure that the conservation lands are protected and that the integrity of the sending lands continues to be honored. The proposal that was put forward by staff, we find too weak. It's not measurable. Minimize is a word that means different things to probably the 20 people or so that are in this room. The idea is that the conservation land should be avoided, those 11.73 acres that have a conservation easement through the state permitting process and through the federal permitting process. And we want to make sure that it's not just expanding uses that are currently there but also new uses that are prohibited from expanding into those conservation areas. So we took what the staff had done and made it stronger, and replaced minimize with avoid. That is a term that's used in permitting. It's very clear, you stay away. Page 98 June 17,2010 And then we wanted to make sure that the conservation areas, new and expanding uses, we added new to that, to make sure that the integrity of those conservation lands are forever protected. And we ask that you consider our amendment because it's stronger, it's clearer and it gets to the intent of what we're supposed to be doing today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what's staffs position on the suggested language? MR. WEEKS: Well, we support the language that Ms. Payton has submitted with a two-word addition. And that will be under the FWF recommended revisions, the third line down ends with the word utilized. I would insert the words so as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as to avoid impacts. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one, two, three, four -- it's six lines down, but anyway -- at least on the one that's on the overhead. So as to avoid impacts. Okay. So staff is fine with it. It accomplishes what staff is trying to achieve? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. And unrelated, in may put something on the record, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we routinely for these types of plan amendment hearings announce on the record that there is a sign-up sheet out in the hallway for persons wishing to register to receive that courtesy notice from the Department of Community Affairs. And I just want to put that on the record that anyone is willing to do so, except that I forgot to bring the sign-up sheet. So if they would see me personally, we'll make it happen. Thank you. Page 99 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to say that I don't see that this new language is in any way inconsistent with what we've heard from the petitioner, so I think the new language is good. It's always a good idea to make things stronger and clearer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, in your discussion -- Mr. Nadeau, would you mind coming to the microphone. In your discussion that was previous to Ms. Payton's, you indicated you wanted to stay with the staffs language. What is your objection to the language that Ms. Payton offers? MR. NADEAU: My objection is only procedural. I don't find that the language proposed by the Federation dissolves or diminishes the opportunity for my client to pursue their C and D operations on their 29-acre property. The record is clear that we would not be encroaching into any conservation easements, would not be opening up the environmental resource permit or the Army Corps of Engineers permit. So my objection is merely procedural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, people do things for mileage. What's the point of picking a fight when there's no need to? It doesn't hurt anything. I don't get it. Where do you think you're going to get anything by this? Fine, Dwight, we understand your concern. Anybody have any questions or comments of anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would recommend that we approve this with the purpose of having it adopted with the modified Page 100 June 17,2010 language as is seen in the document titled FWF Recommended Revisions in green, and changed to, in the fifth line down, to say disturbed areas so as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disturbed areas are utilized such as to avoid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was so as. MR. NADEAU: I thought it was so as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, so as? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as to avoid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Such as wouldn't work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it comes after utilized, I believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So as to avoid, yes. You delete are and utilize and too. So that would be my recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, I don't believe you delete those two words, at least I -- is that right or wrong? MR. WEEKS: No deletion, only insert the word so as after utilized, so that it would read: Disturbed areas are utilized so as to avoid impacts to native habitats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, is that okay with your motion? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I guess. I would have seen are utilized as being superfluous there then. But that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- Ms. Homiak seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. Page 10 1 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS: UPDATES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is Susan's discussion on the administrative code. And this isn't, I believe, necessarily to get into the nuances of the particular paragraphs, but just as conceptual discussion. And I guess Susan, you're looking for a recommendation for us to accept the concept so that you can take it to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Susan Istenes, for the record. Yes, that is correct. And just for the benefit of some of the commissioners who maybe weren't on the commission when our consultant, Mark White out of Kansas City, Missouri came and made a brief presentation to you and gave you a conceptual idea of what administrative code was. It is largely comprised of the contents of Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code, which is really the processes and procedures for doing almost anything and everything, including getting approval for a Page 102 June 17,2010 Site Development Plan, getting approval for conditional use, getting approval for a rezoning. For example, in the case of a Site Development Plan, it tells you how many copies of certain documents you need, et cetera, et cetera. So it is the processes and procedures of getting land development approval. And it's not just in Chapter 10, there are areas in other -- there are other procedural areas in the LDC. But largely it's comprised of Chapter 10. And what we are looking to do is remove those processes and procedures from the Land Development Code, put them in their own document, which we're calling the administrative code, in a user-friendly format. The two goals were user-friendly format and easily changed. Because as part of the LDC they have to go through the entire LDC amendment process, which mayor may not be good, but that's really a discussion for a later time. I'm just reiterating what the goal was in producing this document. So by pulling them out, then they are easily amendable and can be more responsive to changes in processes and procedures in zoning and the group over here rather than having to wait nine months and go through this very extensive LDC amendment process. So those were the two goals. There were some other work associated with the contract. I won't get into that now because right now the focus is really on getting the administrative code adopted. And the goal is to get that done by calendar year end of this year. And to do that, the suggestion that staff is coming up with is to do a phased process whereby the first phase would be simply a transfer into the format. And our consultant has already produced that document, by the way, and staff is in the process of checking it. So that document is produced. We're in the process of checking it for accuracy, and that would be essentially the first phase of the project, Page 103 June 17,2010 which is what we would adopt, and that would be that transfer. The second phase may be and could be the actual looking at the content of the process and procedures. So the suggestion is not to do all of that at once in the first phase, because you're looking at a good year or more to do that with a lot of input. The suggestion is simply to make that transfer first and then look at content and decide if you want to do -- to amend the content of the actual processes and procedures later. And that would involve other players such as Development Services Advisory Committee members, CBIA folks, people in the industry perhaps that would have a vested interest in that, as well as any member of the public that might have an interest as well. So what I'm looking for today is an okay from you all on the format that we have. And when the format came out and the consultant produced the document, people freaked out because it happens to be 400 single-sided pages long. The reason for that is actually the style of the document. There is a lot of white space. Again, the goal being user-friendly, meaning anybody could pick it up, whereby it's somebody in the industry or a member of the public. Theoretically a member of the public should be able to walk through and get a variance and understand how to do it and submit all the correct forms. And I don't know that we've really met that goal in the way we've established our processes and procedures. So that is part of the user- friendly goal here. By creating all that white space, you create more pages. There isn't more regulation, there's just a different format. There's flow charts, there's reorganization of paragraphs, there's numeric __ numbering of sentences versus just putting them all in one paragraph. All that creates more space. So that's why it's 400 pages. So not to panic over that. So I'm looking for your okay on the format and I'm also looking Page 1 04 June 17,2010 for your okay on the suggested two-phase adoption cycle. I will tell you that the board has an executive summary, and I'll be making a presentation to them next Tuesday and I'll be carrying forward your recommendation verbally. So they're currently not in their executive summary. But their packet contains a little bit different scenano. And I discussed this with Nick the other day. And I think the issue we're having, or the concern we're having is there is another group out there that I understand that wants to make some amendments to the LDC. And I don't know what they are. Maybe Nick does and maybe that's a discussion for another time. But part of this recommendation that I'm carrying forward to the board is that LDC amendments are frozen until the administrative code is adopted. Because you're removing text from the LDC and you're putting it in another document. And I can tell you massive confusion will ensue if you try to amend the LDC at the same time, other than doing that task, that one task, which is the creation of the administrative code, so to speak. So that's another part of the recommendation. But there is another group out there that I know wants to do some amendments to the LDC. And the color document that I e-mailed to you and then I did put on your thing indicates that -- Ray, to focus in on A and B up there in the orange. If you could just kind of go in on A and these two areas up here. Shows the phase process being the transfer -- I'm sorry, I apologize. This document shows the phase process being the transfer and then the review of the text as Phase II, which would have its own cycle, amendment cycle. The executive summary that went to the board suggests the transfer and then a review of the content of the LDC for whatever this group wants to do. That -- I'm not sure I can recommend that. But I have no idea what this group wants to do. And in deference to this Page 105 June 17,2010 group we actually are meeting with two members this afternoon, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: This afternoon, that's correct. MS. ISTENES: So Nick will be able to find out more. So I just wanted to let you know that that's out there as well and something to consider. But I didn't want you -- if you read the executive summary to the board, I didn't want you to see that difference and not understand why it's written that way. And that's up to -- I'll carry forward whatever your recommendations are. I don't have a preference. My recommendation would be you stick with the administrative code, but there may be other priorities that the board has that I'm not aware of. I gave you -- and again I didn't realize until today the before scenario was left out of your document. But if you compare the before and after -- and the before is simply just the LDC test as it exists now. So it's nothing new. The new part is after actually the after scenario, which you got. And what I did was I pulled out this as an example, only because it's pretty concise and the transfer is really easy to follow. It got transferred into -- from its own section to its own section in the administrative code, where some other sections were broken up. But I don't need to get in there. So that's why I use this as an example. So if you look at this 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures in the before scenario, this is how it's listed in the LDC. When the administrative code is adopted, if the format is acceptable, the after scenario that you got in your packet is how it will look in the administrative code. So I wanted to provide that so you had an idea of what the draft looks like. It's not necessary to read the entire administrative code. If you want to, I have the draft. Happy to share it. It is in rough draft form, meaning there's mistakes and things that the staff is checking. Page 106 June 17,2010 But I'd be happy to send anybody a link to the document and you can open it up and look at it if you want in greater detail. Just let me know. Your memo describes the functions of the administrative code on Page 1, starting on one through four. And underneath that it talks about how it's been designed to be suitable for use by citizens, contractors, county officials. And so I think the memo pretty much outlines the format. And then I also gave you a copy of the table of contents and the introductory chapter which also explains it. So at this point I'm happy to answer questions and take any recommendations forward you want to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to make a couple of statements for the board as well. This is one method we can get to a change, create administrative code. In order to get there, though, I think it's critical that the Board of County Commissioners in any recommendation from us contains a cost analysis from beginning to end. And Susan, last night what I did is I took your items A through H along the left column, and along the top I put what I thought may be cost issues; not each one would apply to every category A through H. But if we were to use those and any others that staff would know about and plug them into a matrix like this with the totals across and down, so that when the presentation is made to the BCC, instead of saying, well, you know, to do the admin. code we need this much, and then come back -- I hate to see us come back a year later and say, well, you know, we also have to do this, and that's going to be an additional this. I'd rather they see the entire broad picture with the budget items and problems we have today. And this kind of matrix would give it to them. It's just one idea. MS. ISTENES: Okay. And I meant to mention that I did not Page 107 June 17,2010 provide a cost breakdown for you all. But discussions with Nick, we'll certainly be doing that for the board. I can tell you, just keep in mind that -- and this is -- can I make a little speech, since I'm leaving, and this is the last time I'm able to talk to you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. In fact, I was going to let everybody know about your departure, but go ahead. MS. ISTENES: You know, think about your LDC and your administrative code and your code of laws and ordinances as software. Software changes, software needs to be updated, software gets improved. Software has mistakes in it that need to be corrected. You know, we keep a whole team onT professionals here to work on our software and hardware so we can keep in business. That is what your LDC is. And I would hope that my legacy when I leave here is not that Susan said we could adopt the administrative code by the end of the year and it didn't happen. You've got to have the commitment to have the staff there to maintain these documents. They're living, breathing documents. They change. When the community changes, they have to change. When your Compo Plan changes, they have to change by state law. So please, I would ask you to keep that in mind. Because part of the cost is approximately one-and-a-half FTE who are tasked with doing this as their full and half-time job. And that was Catherine and then John Kelly, of course. So there are set costs for keeping those staffs. And you're looking at approximately 120,000 a year just to keep that staff, that full-time FTE. That doesn't include the attorney staff. Our consultant cost us about -- I believe our contract was 163,000. We have 67,000 left. He is an awesome consultant, one of the best I've worked with. And you can decide, and Nick can decide how he wants to use the rest of that money. Because there are some costs that you could keep Page 108 June 17,2010 in-house and some work that you could do in-house that may reduce the cost of your consultant. But obviously it will increase the cost of your FTE. So I would just ask you to keep that in mind when you're looking at costs and looking at processes and procedures like this. If you don't make the commitment to have the staff and keep the staff on task -- because one of the reasons this dragged out so long is we got pulled off and did the sign code and then we got pulled off because LDC cycles went longer than we expected and we got pulled off to do other tasks. So if you don't keep people on task and you're not committed to it, it's just not going to happen. There's way too much work out there for other things. It's just my word of advice, because otherwise it won't happen on the schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go off subject, I want to take a moment to first of all let everybody know that Susan is going to a new position far away from here in a new state. I think this is the last meeting we will see her at. You're leaving at the end of the month. And I want to thank you on -- not only personally but on behalf of this board for the dedication you've shown to this county and the help you've provided getting through some really tough times. You were the person that took the flack for all the troubled times when the growth was at its worst in this county, and we want to thank you for all your efforts. And you did a great job. And hopefully that new town is going to have a heck of a benefit. So, with that, we appreciate it very much. MS. ISTENES: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. It was a pleasure to work with you all. In the interview I told them what a great Planning Commission I had and how involved they were and how committed they were as well. And that makes our job a lot easier as well. It's not -- to work together as a team. And I have a great appreciation for all your Page 109 June 17,2010 efforts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the group from Miami you were talking to, now, because after Tuesday I don't think Miami likes us very well. MS. ISTENES: It was not them. So thank you on the cost. And thank you for doing that. I will definitely take that, and we'll have that detailed information for the board as well. I'm sure they'll ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some alternatives to this but I know, Mr. Murray, you've been patiently waiting to speak. So go right ahead. And then I'll want to at least offer up the fact that there are alternatives to this process. They may not be as good but it's something that we also should consider. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question may not be completely answerable, but the purpose of this I assumed was to make it easier for folks, just plain folks, to be able to go and put in a fence or add an addition and so forth. And of course we could put something in book form, and it's up to Nick and his groups to make sure that those people are welcomed or made comfortable. But to what level, and that's why I say it may not be answerable. To what level does this administrative code give guidance to a reasonably smart person who might want to do their own addition of a bedroom or a modification or certainly a fence? To what extent do we go? Certainly I wouldn't think it would be a developer coming in without a staff, and I would think that that would be a usual event for a developer to know and be expected to know everything. But I think when the rubber meets the road here, just how welcoming is this document as an entree into permitting is the key question, if I could __ MS. ISTENES: I could give you -- well, first of all, don't forget we're talking land use things here. So as far as you mentioned an Page 110 June 17,2010 addition to a house, single-family and all that doesn't go through SDP, and that's largely going to be a building permitting issue, and that's a separate department, separate rules and regulations. But for example, I personally thought -- this is just land use stuff, rezonings, variances, things like that. I personally thought when I first read the format -- and in words, in reality, because we had looked at the format ahead of time so it wasn't like it was a shock. But when the words filled in in the page, I thought it was very Mickey Mouse, very simple. And I was concerned maybe DSAC would have that same OpInIOn. They didn't have a problem with it. Personally, the simpler the better. Because I think any, you know, homeowner should be able to pick it up and at least understand the process and what's required. And let's say they are doing -- somebody's doing a rezoning or a variance and they're not comfortable doing it. I think they could at least pick it up and figure out what's going to happen when, at least in what order. And if they have to hire a consultant, I think they're at least going to be able to read it and understand what the consultant is going to be required to do per county rules and regulations. I don't know if that answers your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does in part, and that's good to hear. Because I do remember questions had come up from time to time at our hearings. And one time, Joe Schmitt indicated yeah, pretty much you have to have a professional no matter what you're doing. And that seemed to be excessive in some instances, I don't have any illustrations to give you or examples. But the key here is that people, if they are able to do the work, some people are quite good at doing things, they should be able to come in, be welcomed, have an opportunity to sit down and get qualified, get help from staff and be able to go forward instead of what had been asserted. MS. ISTENES: For example, a conditional use and a variance, I Page 111 "'-'~-"'" - - __.M_...__. ...._-.'-^"H~.._fi__.__ June 17,2010 would say, you -- those would be two areas where you would not require a consultant, in my opinion. Now, anything that requires engineered drawings, architectural drawings, all that obviously has to be done by licensed professionals. So it's not to say that everybody's going to just walk right in and do anything per the requirements of the code. But some of the basic stuff COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: A fence. MS. ISTENES: Fence, for example-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Line drawing, correct? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. And again, that's more building permitting, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess I think you've answered my question, and I don't wish to go on. But I think it's important for people in the community to know that our government is welcoming and there to help. And an intelligent person will make a judgment about how far they think they can go. And a person who may not be as educated as they would like to be for a particular item will be guided by staff in a not negative way, if that's good English. So that's what I was getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick. Susan, for the public to access this, they'll obviously go to MuniCode. But your software analogy is great. Will they be able to find small little snippets of what they really need to do based on smaller tasks? In other words, it's a daunting thing to hit a huge volume when if you do want to do something small it would be nice if it was much like a software module, able to be pulled out. MS. ISTENES: Yes, it will be separated physically. Although we may keep it with the Land Development Code just for hard copy purposes so we don't have three or four books we're looking through. Page 112 June 17,2010 But we actually may, and that's a decision that Nick's going to have to make as he gets through the project. We actually could -- the consultant has suggested that we could maintain it. And a simple Word document is his suggestion. And if that's the case, we could make changes very quickly, we could put it online and we could do search elements, anything that's associated with Word. So far we seem to like that idea, but that remains to be seen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that idea. Everybody is smart enough to go to the county. They don't have to go to MuniCode and find the county. I agree. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The item before us involves changes that are exceptions to the county's budget. Because once this table is filled out, added to, changed, the costs get totaled up and the county commission has to figure out how to pay for it in order for this to happen. And I think they need to figure out the whole enchilada and not do a piece of it. Because the last time we tried a piece of it we got the current LDC and all the mess we're dealing with on that, which we don't want to have to repeat. So I was hoping that if this board makes a recommendation, it's all or nothing. Now, the alternative to all or nothing is that if we don't do this admin. code as being presented right now, we have to continue with the process we've always had, which is our LDC amendments. Some may pertain to Chapter 10, some may not. I'm sure that the group that's working on trying to come up with revisions, I've been told by those of that group I've talked to that they actually are not focusing as much on Chapter 10 as they are on the other sections of the code to begin with, so there's going to be LDC amendments regardless. This isn't going to stop LDC amendments. But I think what the board has to weigh is whether they want to Page 113 June 17,2010 jump into this now with the budget situations they have and say, okay, we want to make this, we're going to put the money, we're going to dedicate everything to it. Or do we want to keep going and minimize our costs and just continue with the LDC amendments until we find better times. And I don't know what that answer will be. And that's something I think that they need to be pretty much aware of. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I think our organization is primarily revenue-centric. So, I mean, we deal with budgets every year. I think Phase I is funded with what we have. And with Susan leaving, her position is funded in the current budget as proposed. So I can complete Phase I. And I would say even Phase II, where we talk about working with groups, I think operationally I can fund that as well as too. We can document what it costs to advertise this and have a court reporter at these meetings, as well, too. I'll have a discussion with Jeff in terms of his staff and his time and ifthere's any costs associated there. I think, you know, we talked about being proactive and reactive. We have an opportunity right now to be proactive. This is a good time to do it. I can see what will happen now, when I did an autopsy of what Joe had done over the past eight years. If growth picks up and your budget is done on an annual basis based on a forecast, you respond slowly. There's no better time to do it right now. I think they can fund the first and second phase. We get into another budget year when you talk about the third and fourth phase. So I can identify the costs and say, subject to what our business is in the next year or 12 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you seeing the phases break down then? You would finish up with the move from the LDC to the admin. code as Phase I? Or would you still go back and -- because the LDC would have Page 114 June 17,2010 to be cleaned up in order for the admin. code to be effective; otherwise we're dealing with two different codes. And that's almost what we have now with 91-102 and 04-41. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd do the transfer -- I don't know what to call it -- above the yellow. I don't have a good name for the orange. The yellow, and then get into the green. I think getting into the green, that's where -- can I fund it? It depends on business and what things look like in 2012. But I think we can get into the first two sections there. The transfer and approval -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Meaning orange and yellow here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And then I'll base it on how much time Jeffs office has to spend on this with us and what they can dedicate to this. We've been talking to Jeff and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Nick, and there's -- by the way, I'm not against this. I like the format. I like the concept. It's much simpler. The white space is what creates the additional pages, for the most part. Fine, we can live with that. But I'm worried about how it gets done in regards to what we've already learned we shouldn't be doing. Right now if you stick to the orange and the yellow, you're basically creating the admin. code but you're not going back and fixing the other codes that would in essence still be in effect. And one of the big problems with that is the other codes require, like the LDC requires this board's review, but the admin. code, from what I can see so far doesn't. And I guess that's going to be a big issue is who changes the admin. code. And from what I hear, it might just be the county manager. And that is something you really need the public to weigh in on. Because the process that brings the public into everything is spelled out in the admin. code. And if the admin. code can be changed, that means you can unilaterally maybe cut the public out. Whereas Page 115 June 17,2010 before, if that happens, it would have to be through an LDC amendment that comes through this panel. And I can tell you, with our focus on just those kind of issues, we get to fare it into the public than other boards might. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's certainly the intent of this staff to bring this -- any changes to the admin. code through a public process. So it wouldn't be just a county manager. We would have a Planning Commission review. It's my intent to do that. Just not the same as the LDC cycle requiring multiple public hearings. But we'd go through Planning Commission, go through advisory committee review. I know our board is against just bringing anything to them without having that kind of public input. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't go that far, because they just removed a bunch of stuff from the LDC that are zoning-related and moved them into other codes that we don't have any ability to be part of. So I'm not sure the board is in that mindset on all the issues. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to ask a naughty question. This was a contract for I think $167,000 of consultant. There must have been an outline at minimum as to what the achievement was intended and there must have been an authority to go forward with this. Was this a directive of the county commissioners? MS. ISTENES: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners approved the contract in a public hearing, including the terms of the contract. Now, I will suggest to you, back to your discussion when you were talking about not having the public involved and your concern. I would like to carry that forward on Tuesday if that's the consensus of the board. And then also consider this, you can certainly address that during the public hearings when you're adopting this or, and/or, if that's kind Page 116 June 17,2010 of the consensus and the board's wishes as well, I can certainly talk to our consultant and have him draft some suggestions of amendments that could be a hybrid of a shortened review and approval process to change things but not cut the public input that you're concerned about out. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Susan, what was -- MS. ISTENES: Whatever. That's an option. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was the scope of the program? Was it to go from red to purple, or-- MS. ISTENES: Yes. Well-- and let me -- and it's been a little while since I read the contract, because I've been focused on this one part of it, so I didn't brush up on it before I came here. But I don't know that it contemplated correcting the 04-41 change. But the rest, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's pretty -- that scope's fairly large. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it troubled me a bit, although I did realize when you said that you have staff checking things. And it's inevitable that even the best person can make errors and so forth. And there are things that come to mind as you're reviewing. So I really don't have a major problem with that. But is that within the scope of -- I would have thought that that would also have been in the scope of the contract for the consultant to check all of those things, thereby saving staff time and money. But I'm not going to -- you can answer that, if you'd like. (Whereupon, Commissioner Vigliotti exits the boardroom.) MS. ISTENES: It is. But we're --lessons learned from 04-41. And this is a different contract altogether, totally not the same. And I wrote some stipulations in the contract that was in hopes of precluding some of the issues we had with the last contractor. But we're not going to just simply take his word for it. Page 117 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in -- MS. ISTENES: That's why we're checking. And it's a team effort, too, because it's -- he made some suggestions and we're not agreeing with some of the places he relocated things, for example, in context of it being user-friendly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you're maintaining control over what you understand is right. And I see the administrative code, although it's called a code, almost as a how to do book. And that's fine in that sense, as long as it doesn't get beyond how to do. And that's a question. But I guess what I was trying to establish, and I have no problem with the matrix, because that would be helpful to the commissioners, helpful to everyone, actually, but I would have thought that the scope, since you've said that the scope was there and the Board of County Commissioners authorized it, was it not that they expected this to be complete? MS. ISTENES: I'm guess I'm not following-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is to say, you hire somebody to do a job, you pay them, you expect them to complete the job. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they did have an expectation, whether it's a team effort or not, that this would be a completed function. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I guess where I'm getting a little bit, not confused, but a little questioning is to what extent do we want to now say no? You're offering us the opportunity to approve or not, and I'm -- it's one of those things. Are we -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is our public involvement part of it with the Planning Commission -- Page 118 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I always wonder in these types of things whether it's more courtesy or whether it's a legitimate requirement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think it's providing an example for you to review and to look at. It's to understand that this is much more complicated than just one contract, that it's going to take multi years, but to have you agree and concur that it's the right thing and to go forward. MS. ISTENES: We haven't been in front of you in a while. I mean, the consultant was, and as time's gone on and bodies have changed, and, you know -- so it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, from my point of view alone, I can see seemingly it's a good thing to do. And yes, there are issues that will inevitably arise when you -- even the best scope of work needs to be modified from time to time. But I see it as a worthwhile venture, sure. But I'm a little scared now, listening to -- because you're asking us to say go or no go on the basis of it's -- I think you are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an update and it's to say as we're going does this meet your understanding of what we're doing. It's not really a go or no go. If you -- we'd like you to pull the brake light if you saw something that stuck out at you as the wrong process. That's what we're asking, is just to -- we're heading in that direction, there's some funding issues going into the next fiscal year. Right now I would look at Susan's position as funded in the next budget year, which takes us into calendar year 2011. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, it's been committed to, it was ordered by the BCC. I -- from what I understand, and I'm intentionally minimizing it, because A, we will not be reviewing it, or you've said will. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if we will, then we need to Page 119 June 17,2010 be hard into it, then. Okay. So then it's a legitimate thing. Fine. I'll stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just listening to the discussion. Ijust want to make sure I have a basic understanding on the foundation of what we're doing. Are we talking about an administrative code or an administrative manual? And they're two different things, okay? A code is a collection of ordinances so that if staff would want to put these together, it would be through an ordinance procedure, okay. A manual is something very different. A manual typically the board can do by resolution. It's much easier to amend, does not require public notice. So as a basic question, do you want to see this as a code or do you want to see this as a manual? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, that was where I was trying to get to. Just how easy is it that you think you want to make this? Because I would have the same problem that Mr. Strain alluded to as well in that we don't want to cut out the public. I'm not sure that some of the hoops we make people go through on LDC amendments aren't important. Important to the process, important to everybody thinking about things, and planning for the future. So -- and for Mr. Klatzkow to say that if we make this a manual we essentially can change it on a daily, hourly, weekly basis without anybody knowing the difference. If we make it a code, then obviously it's a little stronger, but I don't know. How many degrees less than the LDC is this admin. code going to be in terms of making changes to it and make -- I mean, when the consultant was in, what I heard was let's make it readable and easy. And everybody bought into that 100 percent. I don't rememberi Page 120 June 17,2010 a long discussion on this will make it so easy to do LDC changes that, you know, it will be like nothing. MS. ISTENES: I don't know that we really delved into it that much. But the general concern was the length of time it takes to get through an LDC cycle when you're trying to change a process or procedure. And I mean, I'm -- as planners, we never want to cut the public out of the process. So, I mean, you can suggest it as minimal or as maximal as you want. Maximal I guess isn't a word, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It really wasn't part of our discussion when the consultant was here. We just talked about reorganizing and simplifying and making it so somebody could see what they needed to do to follow through on a process. MS. ISTENES: We talked about simplifying the process. But you're right, we did not talk about whether it's a resolution or an ordinance or whether it involves the Planning Commission or not or just goes to the board. But I would suggest to you, it's fairly wide open, as Jeff suggested. A resolution is simply just going to go to the Board of County Commissioners. I would say, I mean, as long as you meet minimum state law, I suppose you can make it as restrictive or not as you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'd like to see if we can get to a motion here, too. Susan, is it important that we discuss the concept of, let's say, public hearing today or is that something when we're moving something out of the LDC we can hold that portion of it up to the light, and maybe we decide to keep some of that in the LDC just to keep control of it in the process. So today isn't the day we discuss that MS. ISTENES: Yeah, what I had written down was, and if it's the consensus, CCPC wants public input. They have concern over the Page 121 June 17,2010 ability to quickly amend the admin. code without public input and add or subtract as you wish. Or if that's the consensus, I'll carry that forward. We don't have to discuss it all now, unless you want me to pass that back to the consultant and have him draft up some sort of -- some process that you can consider or at least have the assurance that we're looking at it beyond just a simple resolution. Whatever you want. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think taking your guidance is to -- we provide a couple of options to both, not the board in this upcoming meeting but when we go through the adoptions process, is say this is streamlined with little public involvement, this is medium public involvement and this is just like the LDC. And then take your guidance and recommendations to the board with that. And they're going to choose with what you've gone with, is to say we want to maintain the integrity of public involvement. My goal is to be as transparent as possible, because I know we get in trouble when we don't. I've done my research on what happened back 10 years ago when decisions were made arbitrarily and behind doors. That's not the way we want to do business. So I'm perfectly comfortable taking your recommendation to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the idea of public involvement when we're talking about it, I'm not -- I don't think public meetings in front of the Board of County Commissioners is public involvement. People are cut off at three minutes. Half the stuff is put on summary and consent. Doesn't tell you what it means. So that's not the public involvement that I see involving our codes. It means the subcommittees, whether it be us, DSAC, EAC. But that's where I think the meat of the issues can be more openly discussed by the public. And it's less informal, they can get in here and we can start chewing on things. Board doesn't have the time for that. So when you say public involvement to the board, I'm certainly not thinking it's public Page 122 June 17,2010 involvement, just pop it up in front of them and that's it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, I'm going exactly the way you're talking, a full review in front of a subcommittee that's going to be impacted by this. Planning Commission hears it and the board hears it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also think Jeffs point is well taken. Is this intended to be a manual or a code? Because you're calling it a code. If that's the case, then it needs a higher level of review to correct it. That's the way I think this board is indicating we're preferring to go. Then it comes back down to the cost analysis. We do have a consultant on board, but I don't think he's hired to do all this. The Code of Laws, for example, or the refix of the LDC, the reorg -- in fact, my impression of the guy that was hired, he was going to do Item E, which is review, reorganize and fix the LDC and make it more, I guess, compatible. I didn't understand at the time it was going to be a whole new code. I have no objection to the whole new code. But as long as this guy's -- we've got to get the whole thing done. I don't know if that's the best way to do it in the budget process, and I think that's the biggest crux we have to cross. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, maybe we're premature. Because I'm sitting here, I'm trying to think about is it a to-do manual or is it a code? Now, you know, that is really very subtle. And no one here knows when that break point is, okay? And maybe we should be discussing that aspect of it, whether or not it should be under as equal scrutiny to the LDC in terms of changes, or ultimately become a to-do manual, or a how to do manual. And again, until we see what's in it, because we are extracting what we think are encumbrances to activity by taking out and making Page 123 June 17,2010 it easier for people to -- I'm thinking that's true, am I correct? Just a nod would be good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we're getting a little bit off tangent. I think the nuances what we're trying to do is to take out the LDC -- and Susan, jump in when you need, pull me back in -- put it into a more understandable format that we can modify as this board and this Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But isn't that the key point of it, that you want to be able to modify it a little faster than you would through the LDC? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure the word is faster. MS. MURRAY: Well, then I'm not sure that you need to take it out of the LDC. So that's where I'm going. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The LDC is a complicated document MS. ISTENES: I would strongly recommend that you take it out of the LDC no matter how you choose to amend it or it ultimately gets adopted. Things are embedded in there. It's very confusing. This format is very easy to read. If somebody wants to know what the LDC regulations are, you know, what you can do in a zoning district, et cetera, they go right to the LDC. If they want to know how to put in a rezoning application, they go right to the Code of Laws and Ordinances. They don't have to sift through it all. And let me tell you one thing about the contract, too. It's a time and materials contract. We -- I knew we would never get through all of those tasks with the amount of money we had. Our plan was to come back later and refund it if things worked out with the consultant, with the first item. And I don't remember when, but the administrative code started to become priority, and that's why -- that's what his focus has been on largely. Page 124 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing. I think all the little issues we're going to deal with when we review the drafts, we review the movement of words, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So isn't today as simple as the fact that we support putting in the administrative code the administrative elements of the LDC? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. And the two things I asked you to do was look at the format and tell me if you were okay with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The format is acceptable. MS. ISTENES: And then the two-phase adoption schedule, meaning the first phase, would just simply be the removal of the text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pull it out, right. And we'll discuss every piece then and decide what to leave behind. And the two-phase process is acceptable. That's my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Schiffer. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ahem. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a problem with the two phases. You're talking A through D. And honestly, this whole thing started because of E. So how do we not put E in a phase -- because right now every -- I shouldn't say every, but most of the complaints we get, most of the LDC amendments we get, the Grider residence, all these other things that pop up are because of leftover problems between two ordinances that were never finally collated and coordinated: 91-102 and 04-41. So if E isn't part of the initial fix, that's a real problem. Now, I can understand living without doing the Code of Laws right away. So maybe G and H go toward the bottom. Although I Page 125 June 17,2010 think it's just as important in order to provide some flexibility. But I do think you've got to fix the LDC. That was what I thought was driving this whole train from the beginning. And fixing it became well, let's create the administrative code. And it's a better way to go if we can afford it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one thing that might help is, if we pull stuff out of the LDC that maybe doesn't really need to be there we could start to focus on what's in the LDC. And the process we did in 2004, the reorganization, during that process people held things up to the light and decided it didn't need to be in there. So that would be an excellent time for us in E where we've got all the stuff that's just blurring the issue and we can start going back to focusing on the regulations solely. MS. ISTENES: I'm not disagreeing with you, Mr. Chairman. It definitely needs to be fixed. But I do agree with you, Mr. Schiffer, that will help. Pulling it out of the LDC and kind of seeing what you've got will, I think, be a better perspective or put things in a better perspective for the -- for everybody. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Strain, won't the first two steps really tell us what we need to do in the third step? As we go through and do that and we're taking notes going through that transfer, you can give us guidance as to what, as we go through the process, and say this is a section that needs to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, A through D will get you there. But E and F, because one is fixing and repairing the LDC and then amending to those repairs, I'm assuming F is a result of E. I mean, that was what I believe it is. So you've got A, B, C, D, E and F that are really two phases: Admin. code in A through D and finishing -- trying to fix up the LDC in E and F. As a minimum I think those things need to be done. I think -- my thought all along was we had started out on E, but ended up with A. And that's fine, because it's part ofE anyway. But Page 126 June 17,2010 we're still not -- I think the goal is to accomplish a fix of the LDC. Yes, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: One other issue to consider, and that's are we going to be holding off on future LDC amendments while we do that? And I heard Susan say that it would be very difficult doing both at the same time. And if so, how long can you possibly hold offLDC amendments? Because I'll tell you right now, it's easy taking stuff out. It's going to take a long time to get everybody to agree on what these procedures should be. I don't know that you want -- sooner or later you're going to have Compo Plan amendments that are going to require LDC amendments. And I don't know how much you can freeze these things for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got the Immokalee-- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee alone is going to be a whole rewrite of a section of the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you do. So that's another consideration for you. You don't have the staff to do both, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't understand the staffing, so maybe this is the problem with this statement. I don't see why we can't do LDC amendments while we pull out -- because Susan, it's just administrative. What percentage of the LDC do you envision pulling? Chapter 10, but what else? I mean, we're going to go in and -- MS. ISTENES: I can just tell you from past experience, it's massively confusing. If you want to put an LDC amendment cycle in there, I would suggest you put it in after B, and then just to kind of keep the -- I mean, because you're going to have people nipping at your heels wanting to get in and do LDC amendments while you're doing the administrative code. And our consultant has recommended against that -- Page 127 June 17,2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're saying from a staffs standpoint. MR. CASALANGUIDA: She's got a good point, so does Jeff. I think putting something in between there, as long as we give guidance to the board, it's a minimized amendment, only those required through GMP are additions. But we really tell staff to stay out it. We'll work with the folks we're meeting with this afternoon, see if they can agree to do that at a later phase, what they're talking about doing, folks from CBIA and DSAC. But I think putting something like another line in there that says only those LDC amendments as required. MR. BELLOWS: BCC directed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: BCC directed or as required by the GMP. If you never take a break, you never get this done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think conceptually, the code of -- the idea of going to an admin. code is a good thing. If we can afford to get there and we can do it at the same time and fix the LDC, then I don't have a problem with it, if the budget can take it. But I think the budget is the big, big issue that the board needs to get its arms around. And there may be other priorities in the county, and there certainly are alternatives to the admin. code that we could temporary get by with, if that's what they want to do. That's a decision they're going to have to make. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll lay out the costs. I'm going to get with Susan and put in where we say it will be fixed costs and would be, say, staff costs. And understand, I can't take a hit in staffing if we start on this endeavor. And this funded position, the one Susan's leaving on, I expect that to be there in FY -12 to continue this process, I can get it done. But if that becomes a budget reduction then I'm, you know, dead in the water. MR. KLATZKOW: You can't have a budget reduction in the middle of this. Once we start this, okay, we're not stopping it big. Page 128 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why the table is important to complete, so the board bites the whole bullet if they know they have to go there. MR. KLATZKOW: We did that with -- the codification wasn't completed. If you remember, there was supposed to be an administrative manual in the codification. In fact, it's a little dirty secret around here, we've got a lot of little administrative manuals floating around this county now that aren't published anymore. And that needs to get incorporated in this as well. But no, once we start this, it has to be from soup to nuts, you can't stop in the middle. We did that once, and we're still dealing with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer made a motion, but his motion was for A through D, I believe. And it was seconded by Mr. Murray. Brad, do you want to stay with your motion at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see a problem with it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still stuck on E and F. I'm sorry, but the code has got to get fixed. To me that's more of a priority than an admin. code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to withdraw my motion, I didn't hear correctly and I didn't realize that we were stopping at D. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My motion essentially was saying we support pulling the administrative activities in the LDC out of the LDC and putting it in the administrative code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you leave it like that then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's really what the intent of this is, that we support that concept. And at that time we're going to be able to study everything, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then of course that's subject to a Page 129 June 17,2010 complete budget analysis? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Yes. Budget analysis and, you know, that we're going to -- the caveat is we're going to be very careful with the public involvement in these procedures and maintain them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you second that, before we go into discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would second it subject to later determination. Under B, you have it listed that the CCPC, DSAC and BCC approve the transfer from the LDC to the admin. code. So de facto those LDC items that need to be pulled out are either A, still viable, or B, they don't represent any opportunity within the admin. code. I see a contradiction. I see a problem, and it relates to E, okay. There should be a hand and glove type of thing. If you're going to pull out something from the code, you need to also modify the LDC. Now, I realize that's very difficult and challenging, to say the least. But if you have it approved, haven't you effectively created a new code which might be in contradiction with the LDC because you haven't changed the LDC? MS. ISTENES: This process will involve changes to the LDC. And the administrative code is already established, by the way, by ordinance. And then the consultant has also recommended changes to the Code of Laws and Ordinances by pulling some things out of the LDC. So theoretically you could have amendments going for three documents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope that the motion maker might modify and include E as a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way he motioned, it isn't even necessary to get into the phases. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. The only thing the motions Page 130 June 17,2010 is, that we're supporting the concept of pulling administrative functions out of the LDC and putting it in the appropriately named administrative code. Therefore, as a design professional, when I go into the Land Development Code, I'm focused on the land development requirements, because that's what's in there solely. How to do the processes and all that, I will go to the other code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's simple. I can second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I think that does is puts the burden on staff to make a comprehensive enough presentation, including the legal department, to the Board of County Commissioners so that they understand how comprehensive that statement is. If you start here, you better end there. And that's what legal needs to contribute to the Board of County Commissioners as well as your department. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Jeff said that. I'm going to concur when we get in front of the board that this, once you say yes and nod your head, this is a two, two-and-a-half-year process, and you're going to commit to funding this thing, and they understand what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to give them the numbers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Give them the numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motions are made. Any further discussion? Heaven forbid. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 131 June 17,2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're down to 7-0. Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And I believe that's the last item on the agenda. Susan, again, thank you for everything you've done. Send an e-mail once in awhile with some pictures of your dog or something so we know what's going on. And I want to at this moment take time to thank someone who kind of in the background has done a lot of work for this planning commission. That's Judy Pugh. Our packages have been coming through great, and she's doing a great job, and I want to make sure she knows that we appreciate it. And for once, they're all three-hole punched. So I haven't got to go back to a three-hole punch. It's a little thing but it's a good thing. And of course Cherie' and Kady, thank you, and the records department, we appreciate everything. And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 132 June 17,2010 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:59 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 133 Q?lfJe-rCoul'lty GroWth Management Division Planning & Regulation June 24, 2010 Mr. Jeff Rogers Turrell Hall & Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Reference: Petition: BD-PL2009-l259, McKenzie Dock Location: 47 Southport Cove Dear Mr. Rogers: On Thursday, June 17,2010, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-PL2009-1259. A copy ofCCPC Resolution No. 10-03 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) 252-2484. Sincerely, , . \1iL~iU~ i'X1 J~\~ itt&h. Nancy Gun la h,V;P Principal PI er Enclosure NGIhr CC: Mr. Tim McKenzie, 1910 Hawks Ridge Rd, Verona, Wl53593 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Code Enforcement (Sign Removal) M:a.riarn Ocheltree, Graphics Mil,+I~~l.Records ~D,PSP &. PD!),. File <:) Growth Management Division. Planning & Regulation. 2800 N Horseshoe Drive. Naples, FL 34104.239-252-2400. www.colliergov.net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 10-03 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-PL2009-1259 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK FOR LOT 52 OF THE SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION IN THE LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN COLLIER COUNTY, 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 (CCPe), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 36-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 56- foot boat dock facility on submerged lands adjacent to a single family home in the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development; 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-l259, filed on behalf of Timothy R. McKenzie by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 52, Southport on the Bay, Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 16, Page 100 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida be and the same is hereby approved for a 36- foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20- foot limit to allow for a 56-foot boat dock facility, as shown on the proposed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A", on submerged lands adjacent to a single family home in the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development, subject to the following condition: McKenzie Southport Cove BD-PL2009-1259 Rev. 6/04/1 0 Page 1 of2 I. As set forth in the conservation easement created in Plat Book 16, Page 100, "land modifications or structures are prohibited in the conservation easement except for nature trails, boardwalks and docks. No building structure will be established within 5 feet of said easements and with the exception of mandatory removal of exotic species, there shall be no removal, trimming, fill, transplanting or planting of any vegetation within this conservation easement without the approval of Collier County." 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. G,- l74\ day of A ,)U~ ,2010. Done this ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA n~~ Nick Casalanguida, Dep y ,..f~r Growth Management Division Approved as to form and 1 gal sufficiency: yI{~~\,O Lo\ eidi Ashton-Cicko Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan CPl1 O-CPS-Ol 0 13\23 McKenzie Southport Cove BD-PL2009-1259 Rev. 6/0411 0 Page 2 of2 N .... o .... Q) Cl n:s a.. c:( - :c .c >< W w z :l :;: ~ ii: ~~ o- w ",-' ;l: (!)o.. -' ~~ I ~ wi: . if rli! LL ~ 0 0.. ~12; ~ <D ~ il if q ~ ~ ~~:ilil ffi 18 ~ 121l~~ WOO ..~i~UUol ~ 2!; ~~ ~rl'it;tl:!:l!~~ ~ &L u:~..... ro. _0 ~ ;..I!!.J 'l'i~ &l ..J:::'::: _jgnd~ on u ~bOn~iOlIl;; .. - J: ~zilj .1'8~ ~~~~Iil~ ~ II 0 eIUl~~b~h~~~ ~>~h Filii! ~O~OOOOOOO C:\Drnl:UlnMlaIllllt~.~IlCII~b1l1h..~JlI:IcUIIII ____..___,~._W~"_."_..._.~,~'"~_. ___ .._,_.~_,__~..,_,..__,,_. I B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ N W o ~ z 0 ~ ~ qoH li 0 ~ r ! . m o Z ~ g ~al~~ .. ~. ~ ~ m ~, ~ ~~~2W ~a3~m '1. U o o ~ () W ~ - w N ~ a. Z ~ W a. '1. U ~ l1f~~ ,.; _:Z ~ ~o;- .!'5l lila ~fi l~ <I'" ol:S ~. .il:'!: ::;;l,il ~:Z ~d!lH: llJJ E- ij!ift y::'.' f I ] -~--=-~--- ---- ------... ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -- -- --- ..-- - --- a: I!! z t~Cl :JZz I-OU ~~f m$'!rn I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ '\. " - :E---""'-.- :r '", ::; ::; o 0::> u.,ot z~ ~~ ~~ !i "'~r z., ~L 11; z o en ::l c:: t- ~ n. '" '" ta:Cl ~n mz o '" '" c::..~""~llI~I""'~'T\cf'ubIIIlL~~ lice W.. z- -0 -'> ~~ ::Ii.. ci \ \- -. , "- , N .... ~ / / /' --- "\ "- '- -----~--- ~ ~ o - f., ~ .., ~ ~~~ lis Jl d~! ! i;l.Jiti ~sUI~~ .~ hwi U;= f'j~~~ tlilh3 ~~I~!ai~~ i!hU;d~ ~:l:~~I~h8~ U!~hudl zogooooooo N .... o N Ql C) CO a. '~r .. .. w ! h~ liu: i E <C :5 '-~gli~ .r:: '" ~ >< .~i S w Ih. ~ () o -J o ~ c W G _ 0 N @ Z ~ D. W ~ ~ D. o ~ ~f~j .f ;;;1 JI!: ~j;u ~~.u: 'fJIJ ~i ~i " J