Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/04/20111bl � August 4, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 4, 2011 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: SEP i 9 2011 BY: ....................... ALSO PRESENT: r/ Fiala Hiller Henning_ Coyle --F c_ Coletta TCi CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Misc. Corres: Dale: I CA \ Item #: k"-V Page 1 of 99 Copies to: 16 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir -- ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. -- whoa. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. We have -- besides our consent agenda, which are items from your last meeting, we do have two hearings today. The first one is an advertised hearing on Pine Ridge Center West on the PUD, and the second one is a meeting on three items, a Growth Management Plan change, a DRI, and a PUD called Hacienda Lakes. That is a continued item from the 21 st of July. It's -- are there any changes or anything with the agenda from the Planning Commission? No. Ray? (No response.) CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the 18th of this month. Anybody know they're not going to be here? And I know Mr. Murray won't be here, and I'm sad to say that Mr. Murray's -- this will be Mr. Murray's last meeting. He has had to resign. And, Bob, we'll miss you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have stood proudly for all the involvement that people should have in their government, and I give you absolute credit for that. You've done a great job, and we appreciate it very much. We're going to miss you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means when Bob has a comment today, we cannot disagree with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last day you get the bonus, see. Approval of minutes from July 7, 2011. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER'HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 2 of 99 16 1 1 A August 4, 2011 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. BCC report. Recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On July 26th the Board of County Commissioners heard the rezone for the Gordon River Greenway Park. That was approved 5 -0, but it was without any advisory board recommendations. I think one of the reasons was that they will be -- the ST permit coming back later with the Site Development Plan, and I think that's one reason they didn't have any additional -- or adopted the PUD zoning district without any conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I saw a part of that meeting. I was a little concerned that when we made those stipulations here, it was a consensus with the applicant, from my understanding, as their solution to the concerns raised by the public, which then became the basis for our vote, at least for mine. I'm a little dismayed as to how it changed between us and the BCC to a point where they -- I think -- I didn't see it all, but it seemed -- I seemed to understand they felt they were going to be -- might be too restricted by those stipulations and they wanted some flexibility but they'd come back with the ST application to show that flexibility. The only thing that bothers me, Ray, is I wish that was discussed at this meeting as an opportunity so that it would have weighed on my vote in that regard. We tried to do what we thought was the best protection we could given the codes that we had to deal and live with, and they, from what I can recall -- and I didn't re -watch the tape or re- review everything on it -- they bought in to our stipulations, and then have it go sideways between us and the BCC; that's really not as productive as it should be for us, and nor am I sure that our votes would have remained the same. But in the future it would be nice if -- I don't know how we could change something like that, but it would have been nice if the applicant, which happened to be the parks department, had been more forthcoming with us at the meeting than they -- as they were with the BCC. That did make this board look like we had done a lot of worthless debating on issues that I really wish they had cautioned us on. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are they going to bring the SDP back to us before it goes to the BCC? MR. BELLOWS: They're -- as part of the ST permit process, it works in conjunction with the Site Development Plan, and they will be presented as companion items -- not really companion. The SDP is part of that ST permit- review process because you're really analyzing impacts to the ST by what's shown on the SDP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they are not bringing it back here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If it's an SDP, we're supposed to see it again. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they found some way to twist the rules when -- and I'm not sure -- but Nick's shaking his head no, so that will be a more interesting meeting now that we know the tactics that are being used. So I'm sure we'll have a good time with that. MR. BELLOWS: The board also approved the SRA amendment and the DRI amendment for the Ave Maria Page 3 of 99 A 3 1 61 Au gust 4 2011 i as well as the development order amendment for the Heritage Bay to extend the buildout and expiration date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you, Ray. Chairman's report. I nonnally reserve disclosures till before the hearings. I'm going to just --but I have a little bit of a -- more discussion on my disclosure for the Hacienda Lakes issue. I read the volumes of data, and I'm putting a requisition in to Nick's office for more sticky tabs, because I ran out of them. So I had to cut up sheets of paper, but regardless, I got through the hundreds of questions on that very complex issue that we have. When the applicant asked to have a meeting, we originally scheduled a typical one -hour meeting in the morning, and after I read this I called him back and I said, you know, if we have to go through every one of my questions in an hour, we can't do it, and it would probably be more productive for the public meeting if I told you all the things I have as concerns and you came there more prepared, because, you know, guilty by ambush is not a real good way to run a meeting. So I spent four - and -a -half hours on Monday night with the applicant and his team of conspirators -- I mean professionals, and it was a very productive meeting. We walked away with some items clarified, at least for my understanding. Certainly not in agreement on everything, and I know they're coming today prepared to clarify some of the concerns I have. I'm explaining this to all of you because I in no way did this to circumvent the process of this board, but I know that if I asked -- in four - and -a -half hours on a one -to -one, if I did that in a public meeting without any clarification ahead of time, we could be here for three days, and I don't -- I didn't want to do that to you -all, so I tried to get as much on the table ahead of time as possible. And today when we talk, hopefully, we can be -- I can be more concise in my questions. So that's kind of like a chairman's report, but it will be my disclosure for Hacienda Lakes when we get to it. And with that, we'll move into the consent- agenda items. ** *First one up is Yahl Mulching and Recycling, CU- PL2010 -166. That was from last month. Does anybody have any comments, questions, or concerns about the consent? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The memo that we got from the county says the Collier County Planning Commission heard the Gordon River Greenway Park rezone, and I think this was just a matter of using a form and not correcting. It says at the top that it's the Yahl Mulching. It's the conditions for Yahl Mulching, but in the text it says Gordon River Greenway Parks, so that needs to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any issues with the conditions of approval? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that change in mind, is there a motion to approve on the consent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *The next consent item up is a -- oh, no. It's CPSP - 2010 -2. It's the modification of the Bayshore /Gateway Page 4 of 99 1 161 August 4, 2011 Triangle overlay. Any discussion? Any concerns with that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 9 -0. ** *Okay. The next item up is a dual item. It's the one for the Golden Gate Estates shopping center. It's CP- 2008 -1 and PUDZ- PL2009 -1017. I have one clarification; it will be needed on the PUD. But let's take the CP -2008. Did anybody have any issues? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER HURRAY: Yeah. Maybe I missed it, but on Page 2, No. 3, automotive dealers and gasoline service stations, 5541, "gasoline service stations," comma, "without repair" has been struck. I thought we agreed that we were going to have a gasoline station there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be done with the convenience store where it's also -- that was the one we questioned that was duplicated under convenience stores, I believe. Wasn't that the way -- and Rich is nodding his head yes. Wayne, is that how you recall it? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. And, yes, the 5541 Category No. 3, gasoline service stations, was stricken. And if you look under the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I missed it. MR. ARNOLD: -- food stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4413, which is 5499 is the one. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, 5499, it says, "miscellaneous food stores," and normally they're convenience stores -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, No. 13. MR. ARNOLD: -- with fuel pumps -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's why I didn't pick it up. Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else with just -- let's just take the CP item first. Anybody else have any issue on that one? Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: I do. The one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You aren't allowed. MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's an issue of clarification, and I think -- I may have mentioned this to you after the hearing, Mr. Strain. But it's -- staff advised that they preferred that we put some of the operational standards that we agreed to in the PUD into the GMP text document, which were the hours of operation, et cetera. We felt that it was more appropriate to keep those in the PUD and not have those in the Comp Plan document itself and would ask that you consider removal of those. Page 5 of 99 a 161 . , August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, looks like you walked up here for something. MS. MOSCA: Yes, thank you. For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff. Staff included the hours of operation within the subdistrict text because we felt as though they were characteristics of the specific uses that are within the subdistrict itself, therefore being appropriate to include those in the subdistrict as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that gives the assurances to the property owners surrounding the center that those hours of operation and so forth are maintained. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, did you want to say something? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, because we -- you know, this originally came up surrounding -- it has always been in the PUD document that we were going to have hours of operation. It's never been part of the Comprehensive Plan. And then we got into the discussion about the convenience store and making sure we limited our hours to what's out there today with what I thought to be the ability to come back, should the hours of our neighbor's convenience store change, to request those same changes. So to force us to go through an amendment to the Comp Plan, an amendment to the PUD to address hours of operation seems excessive when we're still going to have to come to the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners to change those hours of operation and ultimately get a supermajority vote of the BCC, which unless we're behaving ourselves as a shopping center, we will not be successful. But to put us through a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a PUD amendment for hours of operation when that was never part of what was transmitted in the first place, I think, is excessive. And I think when we went through the analysis we were supposed to take those things from the PUD, the changes we made in the PUD, and include the topics that were in the previous Comp Plan amendment. And in the previous Comp Plan amendment language there were never hours of operation. So I don't think it was the intent of the board, although we made changes to the hours of operation in the PUD, to now insert those into the Comp Plan, since they weren't part of the Comp Plan originally. Building size was, and we made changes to the building size. Uses were; we made changes to the uses. And I thought that was the intent of the Planning Commission when they -- when they said we're going to discuss them both at the same time and then make the changes based upon what was in the Comp Plan language originally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, you seem anxious to counter the counterpoint. MS. MOSCA: No, actually, I'm not. I'd just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not anxious or you're just not going to or you're going to? MS. MOSCA: No. I mean, staff, again, because we have that level of specificity in the plan, it just seems appropriate because they are, in fact, the characteristics of those uses, that we would provide those additional assurances, just as we did for the specific uses within the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, if they -- if they had those hours of operation in the Comp Plan -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and, of course, the PUD, they're required to come forward in a public process for the Comp Plan and for the PUD, right? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could they accomplish both at the same time? MS. MOSCA: They could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the difference being if it's in a Comp Plan, what happens then? If we've got the same public review for the both, they got the same notification for both, other than the fees that are paid, is there another difference? MS. MOSCA: Not really; it just does become cost prohibitive because it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering why we would want to drive the cost up if the accomplished goal is the same. And that's kind of where I'm coming from. If we can accomplish the goal of a public hearing -- MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why put an applicant through two processes to get to that same hearing? MS. MOSCA: Well, I do agree with you, but it does make it more difficult by providing for that -- those Page 6 of 99 1 61 August 4, 2011 hours within the subdistrict. And I thought that was the applicant's rationale for providing those hours of operation was to limit those. If the applicant is able to just come in with a PUD amendment, they don't have as many hurdles. And, you know, I'm really not trying to create hurdles for them as I am trying to protect the neighborhood. They were -- the neighborhood was told that they would have restricted hours of operation. Again, these are characteristics of those specific uses. If we just put in the CI through C3 uses, I likely would not have suggested the hours of operation also be put within the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's one other thing that -- first of all, the hours of operation -- as I said, we have done simultaneous submittals; Comp Plan, PUD. The PUD always had hours of operation. The Comp Plan never did have hours of operation. Now, the process -- it's two processes. But remember, we were only allowed to amend the Comp Plan once a year. So I've got to wait till April of whatever year that is to start the Comp Plan amendment process, so that usually is a two -year process versus doing an amendment to the PUD, which can be anywhere between 9 and 12 months. I don't see why we would need to go through a two -year process when we have to go through a public- hearing process where what we've always advertised as part of the Comp Plan never had hours of operation. It had uses, which the community wanted, and the PUD always had more detail, which included hours of operation. So I don't know how it got shifted into the Comp Plan document on the basis of operational characteristics when they were never part of it in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure that with House Bill 7207 that we still are limited to a Comp Plan every -- once every so many years? MR. YOVANOVICH: The board can do it however many times they want to, but they have to elect to create more frequent processes. Right now they do them every April. And, frankly, as you know, staff has -- it's been tough for staff to even meet that schedule with the every April because of a lot of things that are going on. And it's never been part -- my point is, the hours of operation have never been part of the Comp Plan. It has always been part of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Rich, you're not doing, you're not saying that what's in here doesn't reflect what happened at the hearing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and that's the only thing we can discuss now. So if at the hearing this debate occurred -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And was the outcome to take it out of the Comp Plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was the -- what the vote was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me -- I mean, I remember what we said was that whatever was matched in the Comp Plan to the changes we are making in the PUD to go ahead and make in the Comp Plan. That's almost -- the best I can recall, almost verbatim what I said, because I remember saying it. Because the question was, how much of this do we put in the Comp Plan? And we thought, well, whatever is in the Comp Plan currently that has to be changed by the language we're suggesting to be changed, change in the Comp Plan. That's what I understood happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. We wanted parody with the PUD and the Comp Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You wanted things that you were changing in the PUD that were also discussed in the Comp Plan to be changed to be consistent. If something wasn't discussed in the Comp Plan, you didn't intend to put it -- to take it from the PUD and insert it in the Comp Plan, was my understanding of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You feel that the argument that this is not what happened at the hearing is a good argument? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what happened at the hearing was what I just said, was that the Comp Plan had a series of parameters and so did the PUD. They differed. We changed the discussion -- during the meeting Page 7 of 99 b K, A 3 `7 August 4, 2011 we discussed both simultaneously. Some of the issues we discussed pertain to one document, both documents, or just one or the other. And I remember at the end trying to -- because the question came up, well, do we -- what do we change in the Comp Plan. And my comment was, we ought to be changing in the Comp Plan those items that match to the issues we raised in the PUD. But I wasn't -- and as much as I would have liked to have discussed this more then, I don't think we were discussing expanding the Comp Plan language. Heidi? MS. ASHTON: There's no legal requirement that the hours of operation are included in the GMP, and our position has typically been that we -- less is better. The hours of operation are really a local issue, so I don't know that DCA's review of the hours of operation, you know, would be deemed inconsistent with their state comprehensive plan. So, you know, it's a policy decision for you -all. There's not a legal requirement that it be in the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, Mark, one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At a commission vote, how many votes would be required to change the hours in the Comp Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard's got his four fingers up, but Heidi's -- Heidi would have to tell us that. MS. ASHTON: For adoption, because of the resolution that we have, it would be a four -fifths vote -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In the future -- MS. ASHTON: -- in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they came in to change the hours in the P- -- if it was just in the PUD and they came forward to change in the future -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I wanted the votes on both. That's what I'm looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be four. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, the votes are the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On both? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And we have an expedited process now, as you're aware, with the Growth Management Plan amendment, so it doesn't get the kind of very detailed in -depth review that it previously got. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the vote's the same, I'm comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I maybe disagree. I'm going to agree with Michele that it should be in the Comp Plan, and the reason for it is nowhere in the Estates has anything been established with 40 acres. This is a major activity center they're putting out there. And everyone that was the neighbors any everything agreed that, you know, when you close it off at midnight, that that's time to quit. So I'm going to go with Michele on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. And I just want to reiterate, I have probably tried to be the hardest and most scrutinizing I could be on this shopping center, and if there was anything wrong, I would tend to try to shout as loud as I could that I think it is wrong. On the same text, we have to be fair, and I believe the intent during our discussion was that it wasn't going to be in the Comp Plan. Now, had this come up during the discussion and we'd debated it then, fine. But I don't think we did, and I don't know if it would be the right thing to do to try to add it during consent or to believe it should be added from the last discussion we had. So I'm not tending to go along with it being added to the Comp Plan. I would rather see it left as -- in the PUD. Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just going to agree with you. I recall some of the conversation that related to, in my view, the fairness issue. If E's or any other organization were going to change its time, they should not -- under the equal provisions they should not be put into a position where they'd have to be two years, three years, potentially, before they can meet that competition. Page 8 of 99 161 14 August 4, 2011 So I -- and irrespective of that, in fact, I think that it's wrong to be in the GMP. It has never historically been the case. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, may we have some clarification, though. Are you just talking about the hours of operation, or you talking about the outdoor music, which is No. 2 under the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going back to what I believe we said at the Planning -- MS. ASHTON: Just hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commission meeting. We're only -- the only one we're discussing here today is the hours of operation. MS. ASHTON: Okay. I just want to make sure, because the category you're looking at does have a No. 2 for outdoor music. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just the hours of operation. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? We're only talking about the first one, CP- 2008 -1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval or denial? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made the motion to approve. Brad, you seconded it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second it, but with the stipulation we're removing Cl, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're removing Cl, which is the hours of operation. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just maybe to make Diane more comfortable is that since it has the same vote, if it's going to require four people to vote for it, they're going to vote for both of them. So the point is, the scrutiny level is going to be the same -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the PUD as if it had a PUD and the growth management with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. Okay. With that, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Next one is the same subject but different issue, PUDZ- PL2009 -1017. This is the PUD portion of the same shopping center. Does anybody have any issues with the consent - agenda summary? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. And, Ray, we had talked about the dumpster location being added as an exhibit and they would be limited to no closer distances from the external property lines than shown on that exhibit. How is that -- did that exhibit -- I may have missed it. Did it get added? That was one of our stipulations, and I'm just -- C -- MR. BELLOWS: It should be added as -- with Exhibit C, as part of Exhibit C. Page 9 of 99 161 "1 300 August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: For the record, good morning, Kay Deselem. They didn't add that exhibit. They just did the strikethrough underline of the PUD document, but they incorporated the dumpster location exhibit into the master plan. So it is included on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then can we see a copy of the master plan? Why wouldn't it be included in our consent? If they changed the master plan, why wouldn't it be part of our consent review? MR. ARNOLD: It's -- for the record, Wayne Arnold. It is in my packet, Mr. Strain. It is the PUD master plan exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And maybe -- MR. ARNOLD: If you'll note -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I miss it, guys? Do you all have a master -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We do not have it in ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't have it in ours, and that is a problem. MR. ARNOLD: It's right after our development table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it didn't make it to our plan. We have a wellfield easement or a wellfield design after our plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a blank page that says "master plan." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven blank pages all where exhibits are supposed to go and revolving (sic) landscape buffers, deviation -- well, deviation is there, planting plans and landscape buffers, but I have nothing on here about dumpster locations. Go ahead. Kay, what's going on? MS. DESELEM: What appears to have happened -- we gave you the strikethrough underline version to show the changes, but you did not get the clean version of the master plan. If we may, we can submit it today for the record. It's on the visualizer so you have it, but that is the document that would go to the board. C14AMMAN STRAIN: Okay. If this is the new master plan, there are several things that are supposed to be on it, including the addition of the wall that we wanted and things like that. And I see it there. Would you mind copying that, distributing that, let us review it during our break. When we come back from break, we will make a decision on this at that time. That will give us enough time to take a quick look at it. MS. DESELEM: Most definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we will postpone the vote on this particular consent item till after break. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. ** *Okay. And that takes us to our regular advertised public hearings. The first one is PUDA- PL2011 -703. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the -- when I first came in this morning, I think I spoke to Jane for a few minutes -- she's the applicant's representative -- about the project. Basically it was scheduling, nothing else. So with that, that's the only disclosure I have. Bob and I may have talked about it as well for scheduling purposes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke briefly to Mr. Mulhere on my way in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I received emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I think -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw an email last night, but honestly I didn't get time to read it because I had several hundred other pages to read, so okay. With that, Bob, it's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere, here on behalf of Germain Properties. With me this morning, Jane Eichhorn, from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; and Dominik Amico, also from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; and John Garbo with Germain Properties of Naples. Up until late last night, or last -- late yesterday afternoon, I think we thought that this would be a relatively simple request. We still think it's a relatively simple request. Page 10 of 99 16 1 A A Au st 4 2011 We are proposing to add a single use to the PUD. Let me start out by giving you a little description of the general area. Testing. The subject PUD is right here fronting on Pine Ridge Road. North is this way, south is that way, west that way. If you look at properties in the surrounding area, this is Kraft's -- Manhattan Kraft's building, and this is an office building owned by Gulf Coast Bank, and this is a retail bank facility here. This is the Nissan dealer, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. Across the street you have hotel, some -- a restaurant, Hooters, Harley. This is, obviously, close to the interchange of I -75, which is a little bit to the east. Let me point out one other thing. The subject property is actually this cleared piece here, which would be the site of the additional use, which would be new and used car dealership. We had a neighborhood information meeting. I think there was about 18 or 20 folks in attendance. Many of those in attendance lived in the residential area. I'm pointing my finger to it on the -- well, you can't really see it -- on the visualizer. Just in here. Once I think they understood that this -- there was a significant separation between this property and their property and that there was also a preserve within the PUD between them and this property and that we would not be having amplified announcements or noise of any kind, I believe that their concerns were addressed. I don't know if there's anybody here today, but certainly -- to speak on behalf of that association, but if they are here, I'm sure we'll hear from them. But I believe we addressed their concerns. We also had, at the neighborhood information meeting -- I don't know if it occurred during or just after -- we had a discussion with representatives from Kraft, and they expressed a concern about the possibility of having a used - car -only dealership on this site, and they had concerns about that. And we agreed to limiting this use to new and used cars only. Obviously, a new -car dealership does sell used cars. But we can understand the concern about used car only. So we were in agreement and we would put that on the record today that we would agree. And by putting that stipulation under the use, we would either prohibit expressly used car only or limit it to just new and used cars. There have been several discussions with the bank. There were a couple of representatives in attendance at the neighborhood information meeting, and they expressed -- and I also received a phone call pretty early on from Garrett Richter indicating that they had concerns. I shared those concerns with my client. At the neighborhood information meeting, there were a couple representatives from the bank. They, again, expressed some concerns. One of the concerns expressly represented was that the existing dealership created some problems by loading and offloading within the alleyway that connects Whippoorwill to Kraft Boulevard. And I think I can point that out for you. You can see this alleyway here, and it comes around here and goes out to Whippoorwill -- and also that they were parking vehicles within that alleyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you move that picture up a little bit. Oh, okay. I was hoping you -- you cut it off anyway. Okay, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. And we felt that that is really an operational issue, one that we can easily deal with by limiting, if -- the -- by designing the site such that the loading and offloading will occur internal to the site -- and we can certainly agree to any kind of stipulation that we would not park vehicles on Kraft. And obviously we're separated from the alleyway so that -- you know, we're not going to park our vehicles on the alleyway that we're separated from. But I think the concern is the vista from the bank office building across Kraft Boulevard to this site. So, again, we would not -- we would not park any vehicles along Kraft Boulevard. There's actually a set of deed restrictions that are fairly comprehensive -- and I know you don't generally consider those, but I did want to get that on the record -- that deal with landscaping, deal with protecting the view corridor down Kraft Boulevard from Pine Ridge Road to the Kraft building, that vista there, and so there's setbacks. All of the deed restrictions -- I reviewed them -- they exceed the county code requirements. We'd have to adhere to those. There was also a concern expressed about what the building would look like. It will be -- we haven't -- my client has not determined which dealership will go on this site. There was some discussion with a particular Page 11 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 dealership, but that has not come to completion, but it will be a new -car dealership, and it will be a new building, obviously, and it will be designed very attractively and with landscaping. So, again, we don't see that there should be any concern as long as we agree to limiting it to new and used cars only. I really think that concludes my presentation. We thought it was a rela- -- oh, I do want to talk a little bit about some of the other uses that are allowed just by example. If you look at the PUD -- and I'm sure you've looked at this already -- the PUD allows building construction, general contractors, building material, hardware, and garden supply stores, limited to kitchen cabinets, doors, garage doors, windows, wood flooring, insulation material, fencing, specialty trade contractors of various kinds, miscellaneous repair for bicycles, cameras, lawn mowers, locksmiths, medical, dental, instrument repair, so forth. It also allows for a number of retail uses, auto supply stores, banks, clothing stores, restaurants, food stores, grocery stores, general merchandise stores, home furnishing stores, hotels and motels, paper, glass, wallpaper, hardware, lawn and garden supply stores. So the -- there was a reference in a letter from the bank that indicated that this was an office complex. It is not an office complex. These uses are all permitted on this piece of property. Actually, I don't think the letter was from the bank. I think the letter was actually from the law firm of -- Passidomo's law firm. So -- and I saw that John Passidomo was here, and I'm sure he could speak to that issue. But the uses are in no way restricted to Class A office space. Having said that, we can appreciate the concerns and we are more than willing to put conditions in place that would address those concerns, including, you know, an appropriate landscape buffer along Kraft where the bank building or the office building fronts Kraft directly along the pathway of the proposed site for the use -- for the new and used car lot. So, again, I think that concludes my presentation. I'm sure you have some questions; I'll be happy to try to answer them. And if I forgot anything, Jane's going to tell me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. Is this location at an activity center? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So those are approved through C5, correct? MR. MULHERE: Some of those uses are C5 uses, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I just wanted to know if it was at a major activity center. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. -- Bob; Mr. Murray after Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Mulhere, the property to the west that's all wooded at this point, is that whole area preserve, or is that just undeveloped land? MR. MULHERE: No. That is undeveloped, and as I understand it, there is -- there has been a submittal -- I'm not sure if they've submitted. They've had a preapp to rezone that to PUD. They may have submitted. They're asking for any number of uses. You are correct, though, you can tell by looking at the aerial that there are -- there's some ST- designated lands in this area here, and there's some wetlands in here. You know, I couldn't say whether they would mitigate to impact those or generally preserve them since they have a preserve requirement anyway through the county requirement. So I'm sure that some portion of that -- yeah. This is the ST area, just to -- you can see it outlined in green. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Big ST area. MR. NIULI4ERE: So -- thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I don't know what their proposal is but, yes, that's also commercial, which -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The -- in the PUD you're also subject to architectural standards; isn't that correct? MR. MUL14ERE: Yes, we would be. COMMISSIONER CARON: There were several -- MR. MULHERE: Specific and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- specific -- MR. MULHERE: And generally to the county's architectural requirements as well, which are not reiterated in the PUD but which we are subject to. And they're -- as I said, there's a set of deed restrictions in place. There's a Page 12 of 99 A 3 August 4, 2011 gentleman here who's registered to speak on behalf of Kraft or with the association. He may be able to shed some light on that, but there are some deed restrictions. And I know they had a concern as well about what the building would look like. And, obviously, we can certainly agree to it having a finished facade both on the frontage facing the bank as well as the Pine Ridge frontage. We would -- we would want to do that in any case. I mean, it's going to be an attractive building, and I think the county would require that, but just in case, we certainly agreed to it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it has to be considered some sort of outparcel thing -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- so it would have to be all around, I would think. But then again, we've been through this more than once. The issue of people parking and causing problems on that alleyway, if I remember when we approved the Nissan dealership, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure that those big car vans were loaded and unloaded on site of the actual dealership and that they were not blocking Whippoorwill or the alley. I don't know -- and I didn't have time to ask staff to pull up that PUD, because I think we made some pretty strong stipulations in that PUD to make -- to ensure that this kind of thing did not happen. If it's happening, then get code enforcement out there, because we were very specific that we did not want these trailers interfering with other businesses around the area, because we've had problems in other areas with these vans parking in the street, on major roadways -- MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- parking in the middle of them. I mean, we fought this up at Wiggins Pass. MR. MULHERE: And we designed that site to allow internal only. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. So -- and I -- I'm pretty sure we did it on the Nissan dealership as well. And, you know, I'd -- whatever we can do to clear that up for people would be a good thing, because we do not want that happening, and we made it pretty clear, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, good morning. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've confused me a little bit when you indicated there're somewhat restrictive requirements already on the property with regard to botanicals, landscaping. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then you said you'd be open to more restrictive stipulation. I'm confused, because if the LDC is less than restrictive, that's already in the deed; what are you really asking for -- MR. MULHERE: Well, specifically -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or suggesting? MR. MULHERE: Well, specifically -- if it would provide some sense of comfort, what I was specifically referring to was a landscape buffer adjacent or along Kraft where -- you know, where that interface with the bank is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that I understood but then I didn't, obviously, appreciate what you meant by more restrictive -- MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for these deed restrictions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. While you're looking for those, I'll just have you entertain this thought as well. When we did another dealership up on Wiggins -- up there by Wiggins Pass -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- there was a concern raised, I think Ms. Caron did, and I think a very good concern for whether or not there would be parking on the roof with visibility. Let me just get that over with right now. Is it ever intended that vehicles shall be parked up on the roof? MR. MULHERE: Single -story building, it's limited, and no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just want to make sure. You're looking for comfort; I'm looking for comfort. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, also if you go to the east coast sometimes you might be considered an alleyway around the building where vehicles are -- they drive them up to a level of about the roofs. They're not on the roof, but they're -- Page 13 of 99 161 August 4, 2011 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's no intention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No visibility of any vehicles of that sort? MR. MULHERE: No intention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the building might -- when it's completed, might look as though it were a business building; is that valid? MR. MULHERE: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a lot of glass and or shine? MR. MULHERE: No. Of course, they don't -- you know, there are certain -- certain dealers have certain requirements or conditions, and they don't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From the -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- companies that I'm aware of, yes. MR. MUL14ERE: And the other thing that I neglected to mention that you made me think of -- I don't know how, but you did -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good that way. What can I say? MR. MULHERE: -- is that there will be no collision, and we're agreeing to no collision shop on the site. Now, there will be repairs, but those will all be internalized in the air conditioning part of the building, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I assume there would be a car wash for the benefit of whomever, but that's all ancillaries to the operation of a new and used -car dealership. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concern was for visibility. My concern was for what many people would consider to be something that looks a little schmaltzy and not really as nice as the area is. The buildings that are there, the Kraft Construction buildings, are really rather nice, and the bank building is nice. So I guess it's very important -- no, I don't guess; I know it's very important to protect that. MR. NIUL14ERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So getting back to the deed restrictions. MR. MULHERE: I wanted to just share these with you. I won't read them all because that -- you know, but there's standards for design, for site design. These were prepared by Architectural Network. So there's standards for site design, there's standards for building design, including roofing requirements, facade design, building facades, storefronts, awnings, building styles not accepted, materials, standards for signage, standards for landscaping, building and utility plantings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Standards for landscaping. That's -- by that I assume that is after the building is constructed, those standards apply around the building? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, all -- on the site. There's landscaping. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But wouldn't lend themselves out to the property line where you -- MR. MUL14ERE: They would, they would, yes, they would. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm trying to get to the root of where you've indicated they're more restrictive than our LDC, but you'd be open to further stipulation? MR. MULHERE: Well, just -- the only reason we offered it up was a sense of comfort, you know, that we would pay particular attention to the landscape buffer along Kraft Road where the bank and the -- and this property interface, so that would be along this area right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I understood. Well, I -- absent a drawing, absent a representation of what it might look like, I'm going to have to relate to what the staff will end up doing if we approve it, and the stipulations that will be included will make certain that this is taken care o£ I'm assuming the extra landscaping would be additional trees and such? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, hedges and trees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hedges and trees. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, one thing. Page 14 of 99 16 1 A , August 4, 2011 Bob, the PUD has a requirement for lighting 20 -foot height and stuff. There's no deviation from that. MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you'll probably be brighter than a normal parking lot but -- MR. MULHERE: There's no request to deviate from anything in the PUD other than to add this use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I had only one question until you started talking. MR. MULHERE: Oh, why does that happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I'm up to nine. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's not too bad. It's under -- it's not two figures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so far. I want to make sure everybody's clear on what you said. You started out your presentation by addressing a concern from a residential neighborhood, and you assured them you would have no amplified music or noise of any kind. MR. MULHERE: That's right. The announcements will -- salesman so and so come to the office. None of that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're not going to do that? MR. MULHERE: No exterior amplified -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So clarification, no amplified noise of any kind is okay? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said that you were going to have new and used cars so that you avoid the only -- having only just used cars. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Like a restaurant and a bar. What percentage of cars is -- means -- could you have, like, 99 used cars and 1 new one and say, I'm a new and used -car dealership? We get in the same issue with bars and restaurants. So what percentage are you going to have in a ratio between new and used? Because that needs to be in here in order for you to qualify as not being just used. MR. MULHERE: You know, that's a hard one for me to answer. I'd have to think about that a little bit. The intent, honestly, was just like every other new -car dealership that you see, they also take trade -ins. I mean, there's no way to do business without taking trade -ins, and then you either wholesale those trade -ins or you sell them, if they're a fairly high - quality product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But just like the restaurants and like we're experiencing in parts of the county right now, we say "no bars." In fact, in Golden Gate Estates we have an exclusive prohibition to bars, yet a restaurant opens up that serves a little bit of food, and all of a sudden they're a bar and they're legal because they serve so much food. So, now, how are we going to avoid that with the car situation here? MR. MULHERE: By -- I understand what you're looking for. You're looking for some sort of a statement that says the majority of sales shall be new cars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care about -- I want the product on site. I don't want -- I think the concern is not just sales, but the product that you retain on site, a bunch of broken -down used cars, or are you going to have new cars? MR. MULHERE: I understand. Maybe we can continue, and I'll try to -- I might need five minutes or something; we'll have a conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said that your design for loading and offloading will be internal to the site. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Go ahead. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the design for loading and offloading will be internal to the site. Was that a commitment? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's a commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to have no vehicle parking along Kraft Road? MR. MULHERE: That's a commitment, yes. Page 15 of 99 Au st 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- and I want to ask, I guess, Ray, they talked about facades, and they would have a full facade on the north and east fronts, but is the code more strict than that? I'm assuming the code is at least that or more; is that fair to say? MR. MULHERE: I don't think it's more. I don't think -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you check and make sure that if the facade is not limited to just the frontage of the street. Their offer to put it on the east towards the bank as well as the frontage is better then than the code, or the code may say, in a case like this all the way around, but what I'm concerned about is the future ST area to the east and to the south where the Kraft building is if the facade is not protected from that viewpoint either. So maybe we could look at that before this finishes. MR. MULHERE: I think the issue is -- I mean, I don't -- certainly we understand the need to treat this frontage with a full facade and, of course, here as well. Of course, this will be set back a little bit. There has to be a place where we can then access the repair, you know, shop, and so on and so forth, so obviously that's going to be in the back of the building, and that would be most likely -- the most likely place where you would load and offload cars as well. So, I mean, we'll have to treat that through a landscape buffer with our adjacent property owner. And I don't know that -- I don't know that this area right here would be -- if we look at the ST,, I don't think it actually -- it sort of comes up and then moves around like that. So there is an area where there's no ST immediately adjacent to us that I doubt would be a buffer, would be open for development on our neighbor's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, considering that the ST you showed a little earlier includes the fire station that somehow got there, I'm sure that anybody can put a building anywhere they want in that ST before it's said and done. MR. MULHERE: Well, to be fair, that was put on the zoning codes in the mid'70s, so things have changed because of development and so on and so forth. So you come back in during your development and you do an environmental assessment. But clearly, looking at the aerial, there are some wetlands on that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're -- and while we're continuing on, before we finish this discussion, I'll get a reading from staff on the facade issue. Do you have any problem limiting your use to Tracts B and E? MR. WL14ERE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You volunteered to add a landscape buffer. Where and what kind? MR. MULHERE: Sir, there would be a landscape buffer required along Kraft Road, and it's a private -- it's a private road, so -- and it wouldn't be a Type D, and we would need to put a Type D in there, but I'm thinking a 15- foot -wide landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your statement was, we'll add a landscape buffer. When you add something, that means you're doing more than what you already had to put there. MR. MULHERE: I meant more in tenns of -- and I think -- hopefully I clarified it in response to Mr. Murray -- and more in terms of plantings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'd like to know what that is. MR. MULHERE: I think we're going to have to just take a minute to quantify that for you. I'll take a look at the code. I want to be able to give you a specific response in terms of what the plantings would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said you're going to have no collision shop on site, right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Most dealerships have repair bays, and those bays, at least the ones that I have to take -- go to once in a while, open up front and back. And when you do that, the repairs going on, which are a lot of air guns and noise and tools and equipment and people starting early and working till whatever hours, the noise travels both front and -- both directions in that building. Have you got any solutions or suggestions as to where you'd think the best location for a repair shop is and how you'd protect the sound from that repair shop to the adjoining area? For example, that office building; the last thing that office building needs to look out at is a repair shop. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you -- I mean, because you've got -- you basically gave us a blank slate for the Page 16 of 99 161 August 4 2011 layout of the property. MR. MULHERE: So it will be within the building enclosed in air conditioning, so there will be, you know, obviously no desire to leave those garage doors open other than to bring vehicles in and exit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to air condition your bays -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for your repairs? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The entire -- the entire thing will be air conditioned. You can't even get employees today to work without doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of product are you putting here? Is it, like, Lamborghinis or something where the people can afford to pay for that kind of repair? MR. MULHERE: That's the design, would be air - conditioned service bays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when those big doors are open, you're air conditioning the out- -- wow. MR. MULHERE: That's why they get closed. BMW is that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I'd sure like to know where that is -- where you're thinking of putting it and then any restrictions you could suggest as -- in regards to the method you'd try to control the sound. If it's going to be that your bays will be closed when they're not -- when people aren't entering and exiting -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will be fine. MR. MULHERE: And we would commit to that, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're -- outstanding we have three issues which we'll listen to the staff report, we'll listen to the public, and then I have three issues to address pending anything that might come up from the other input. The one is the percentage of new and used cars, the second is the addition to the landscape buffer, and third is the location of the finished facades. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just --that's okay. I understand you're struggling over there. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Struggling. So kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One last item for me. Is this a franchise dealership? MR. MULHERE: I don't know the exact answer to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a franchise? MR. MUL1 ERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is a franchise? MR. MULHERE: It will be, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. They have certain requirements. Okay. MR. MULHERE: They do, they do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question is valid, though, about the ratio, certainly. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We're going to -- while you're going on, we'll have a conversation about that and hopefully be able to respond to that, and also the landscape buffer, I have a response for that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray looks like he may have a response to the architectural. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Section 5.05.08, No. 2 talks about primary facades, and we have Carolina Valera here who's our urban design architectural review staff person. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Carolina. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, principal planner with the comprehensive section. I understand the questions are, what are the primary facades? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We want to know -- MS. VALERA: And I'm sorry. I came to drop off something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what facades on -- what facades on the buildings that would go on this site. Now, they'll probably have one or two buildings, if not more, but at least they're going to have a dealership and they're going to have a repair shop. They could be combined into one building; they could be separate buildings. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are the facade requirements for each one of those buildings if they limit their Page 17 of 99 August 4. 2011 -- and they've agreed to limit their construction to the vacant parcel north -- or to the right of those office buildings in the front there, so -- MS. VALERA: Well, definitely any building fronting -- is that Pine Ridge? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. VALERA: That is a primary facade, regardless of the use, so they will have to meet all the requirements for primary facade, glazing and other design treatments for that facade, and also that road, that's south -- is that -- I'm sorry. I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kraft Road. MS. VALERA: -- if this is -- that cannot be facing north, right? That is what, east? MR. BELLOWS: Well, let me orient it. MS. VALERA: Yeah, thank you. So that east road along the property, that's -- also will have to meet the primary- facade requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Of any buildings, you know, one or two or how many buildings that are fronting that road will have to meet primary- facade requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, is that a private drive, or is that a public- dedicated road? Because, Carolina, wouldn't it matter because that's -- MS. VALERA: It does not matter, no. MR. MULHERE: It's private. MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't matter for -- MS. VALERA: It doesn't matter if it's private or public; they'll have to meet primary facades. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But it's not -- are you considering it a collector then? MS. VALERA: The collector road and arterial road says for non - retail type uses for churches and, you know, when the zoning doesn't require architectural review. That's when the arterial/collector road kick in. But for any project that has to have architectural review, it doesn't matter if it's a public or private street. Any facade fronting a road or a street will have to meet primary- facade requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what about the backside distance from residential? Doesn't that bring -- MS. VALERA: Yeah. There's a -- 300 feet requirement. But, again, if the project is -- and I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I just came in to drop off something. Is this a nonresidential PUD; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, nonresidential. MS. VALERA: So any buildings, regardless of the distance to a residence, will have to meet architectural requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So are you saying all four facades? MS. VALERA: No, no, no. That four facades is just for shopping center. Is this a shopping center? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. VALERA: No. So no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. VALERA: So all you have is facades along Pine Ridge, the north road, and facades facing that east road will have to meet primary- facade requirements. Only those two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: May I ask Bob, do you have any kind of preliminary site plan -- MR. MULHERE: We don't. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: -- for the building? MR. MULHERE: We don't at this point. We're working with a particular dealership that I'd -- you know, that has not come to fruition, so we're kind of back to the drawing board on that, but -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I was out there. MR. MULHERE: I think we -- but we do understand that it needs to be a new -car dealership. Page 18 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 The -- I just wanted to point out, perhaps for Mr. Schiffer, if it's okay, this is a conservation area within the PUD. So between this building and this building and this conservation area, the perspective is you're not -- you know, this is blocked -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, I agree. MR. MULHERE: -- so -- it did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: We're still waiting on an answer on the percentage. I think -- Mr. Germain was unable to be here, but Jane is talking to him on the phone, and I don't see her back here yet. On the landscape buffer, if I could put this exhibit on the visualizer, what we would propose is a Type B buffer width, which is 15 feet, which is consistent with the code, but with Type C plantings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ah, okay. MR. MULHERE: You can see there's a double hedge row in there and you have more trees. It's actually doubling everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Type B with Type C planting. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the reason I'm getting this clarification now, Bob, is I want to make sure that if there are any speakers -- and they understand what you're offering so that if that mitigates some of their concerns, at least we know it by the time they get up here. MR. MULHERE: And I do have an answer to -- the maximum amount of used cars on the site at any point in time would be no more than 35 percent. So 65 percent new, 35 percent used maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. So maximum of used cars is 35 percent, new cars is -- new cars will be anything that you want to put in there -- MR. MULHERE: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but you're never going to have more than 35 percent used cars? MR. MULHERE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions before we get to staff. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, it's all yours. MS. DESELEM: Good morning, again. I'm Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. And you have the staff report. It was revised last on 7/18/11. The staff report explains who the proper owners are, who the applicant and the agent are, explains a requested action, explains that it's an 8.87 -acre tract as described in the location provided by the applicant, and you have the purpose and description as also described in the staff report and by the applicant. The applicant has told you what is around it, so I won't go on to that again. There's a Growth Management Plan consistency finding, finding that it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan; that includes a transportation element review and a notation that there really isn't anything changed for the Coastal Construction Management Plan areas, so there was no review required. And staff has provided an analysis that includes the transportation review and zoning services review where we go into a discussion about what the new and used car sale and service category allows, specifically the uses that would be allowed. And my understanding is now the applicant has clarified that somewhat and limited it. And staff has provided an exhibit showing you where the tracts are to describe B and E as it is platted. And staff is recommending approval with the stipulation that the new and used car use be limited to only Tracts B and E. And we have findings of fact, both PUD and rezone, in support of our recommendation. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, the property -- the drawing you saw up there shows the whole west side of the property. Is that the property? Because in the packet some of the documents don't show that. It just shows the front two parcels, which I think are tract -- I can't read it. It's too small. MS. DESELEM: They are, in actuality, amending the entire PUD. But the part that Mr. Germain is more Page 19 of 99 A 30 161 August 4, 2011 involved in, is the owner of, are the two tracts that are vacant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is -- MS. DESELEM: What the applicant showed on the site, right -- yeah, outlined in red, that is the entire tract of the PUD itself The part where it appears to be cleared, that's Tracts B and D? E? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they are the subject -- MS. DESELEM: E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is what we're looking at now, correct? MS. DESELEM: Well, we're amending the entire PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he will only own the front two parcels? MS. DESELEM: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. MS. DESELEM: He only owns it, and that's why staff is recommending, since that's what the representation was at the NIM, that that was where they wanted the use to be, and they really didn't want to re- evaluate and, you know, do the entire site as a car dealership. Staff included that condition in the PUD recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I got it. Okay. I'm good. Thanks. CHAHUVAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I just thought of something I probably should have checked before I got here today. Maybe you can answer it for me. The property owners are Kraft Office Center, Gennain Real Estate Company, and Pine Ridge Investors in Naples. So the Kraft buildings in the back, which I assume are owned by Kraft, are also owners of the original PUD, too, I believe, aren't they? So they would have been -- when they sold properly, they would have deed restricted it to protect themselves, I would have assumed, and, secondly, could the Germain property owner make these changes without the consent of the other property owners, since they're all in the same PUD? MS. DESELEM: There may well be deed restrictions that would govern it outside the scope of zoning, so I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But from a PUD perspective, you've got three property owners that own the PUD. MS. DESELEM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can any one of them go in and change the PUD since it's for all, or don't all have to consent to the change? MS. DESELEM: In this case I believe we have authorization from all three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. Okay, thank you. MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back and double -check the documents, but I believe that's what's represented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob wants to talk so I can have another question. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I don't know that we have authorization from the bank property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the bank one of the property owners on that subject -- on that piece -- MR. MULHERE: Within the PUD, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You have two PUDs there, Bob. You have an east and a west. MR. MULHERE: Oh, that's correct. I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think you're -- I think they're on the east side, not the west side. MR. MULHERE: Kraft, it's Kraft. Yeah, thank you. And we did get authorization from Kraft. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was kind of thinking of that, but then after -- I just wanted to make sure we are talking about one PUD, although they're east and west halves. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Split right down the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: There are two distinct PUDs, Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West. We're only addressing Pine Ridge Center West. It's kind of confusing because the Kraft building goes on both. MR. MULHERE: Split -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so does the road. Page 20 of 99 61 � A 31 August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: So there were variances approved to allow that zero setback for that south portion. That same thing doesn't apply to the north part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Kay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll -- Ray, do we have any -- first of all, public speakers, we'll ask for the registered public speakers first. If anybody else wants to talk, we certainly will provide the time. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have two speakers. First speaker is Frank Delgado, to be followed by John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Delgado, if you'll come up and use one of the microphones and state your name for the record. You were sworn in when you -- earlier? MR. DELGADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DELGADO: Frank Delgado, Summit Management, speaking on behalf of Kraft Office Center, LLC, which is not Manhattan Kraft, just so you know. And the only couple of comments we had were actually addressed with regard to the percentage of new and used. That's quite suitable for what we were hoping to have so -- and they've been working with us on that, so I think that's great. And the only other comment we had is that we wanted to -- and it appears this is going this way anyways and they're cooperating -- is that the buildings have an exterior appearance that's in keeping with what's existing on site in the previously approved PUD uses. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DELGADO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John? MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents First National Bank of the Gulf Coast. As indicated in your staff report and as Mr. Mulhere has indicated in his introductory remarks, the bank's corporate headquarters and ancillary bank branch facilities face the site of the proposed car dealership and share an entry road into what currently constitutes an office park with it. We have asked for, on numerous occasions, a master plan for the property, what is contemplated. We've asked to -- in order to frame our sense of how we can reconcile what now is exclusively an upscale office park with the introduction of new C4 and C5 uses. We were just retained yesterday, and we apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused. We submitted a letter last evening, which we shared with the Planning Commission, in which we reiterated our request to see a master plan. And we appreciate the extraordinary effort the Planning Commission's gone through this morning to try to anticipate and address what we think could be irreconcilable incompatibilities between what is now only an upscale office park and new C4 and C5 uses. We know enough to know at this point that there are existing C4 and C5 uses in this planned unit development that are permitted. But the fact is, we respectfully submit, there's a time warp between what's there on the site, what the PUD says could be there, and what is proposed to be there with the amendment submitted to you for consideration this morning. We respectfully request -- and we do this with deep reservations. The bank officials at First National Bank have been champions of commerce in our community for decades. They rally around commerce and are fully supportive of it, but they respectfully submit that commerce needs to be reconciled with the integrity of the existing corporate park development and that a master plan be submitted so that we can actually respond in a meaningful way to the kind of protections that would have to be imposed in order to ensure there was, in fact, compatibility. There is -- there's one entrance road to this corporate park. We can imagine tractor trailers delivering automobiles to a car dealership trying to make its way through that entrance to this entry road and trying to do that with the existing office park. Page 21 of 99 August 4, 2011 You fully appreciate, I know, that we take no comfort from any deed restrictions. You have no enforcement ability with any deed restrictions. And with all due respect, any conversation that may have been proffered as to deed restrictions is meaningless. We appreciate the -- what was -- I thought was a torturous attempt to try to contemplate what could be protections, and there are protections that we take comfort in that were discussed this morning, but the fact is without a master plan in front of us, we're shadowboxing with a ghost. We can't contemplate everything that could happen when you introduce C5 uses into what is now an upscale office park. So, with deep reservations, we respectfully request that you recommend denial or, at the very least, recommend that the petitioners come back to you and to us and to the public with a master plan so that you can do, in a meaningful way, a reconciliation of what we think, so far, from what we know, could be irreconcilable in compatibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, John. And I have a question. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not necessarily against the use if a master plan was produced that at least showed you or your client how they're being protected in somewhat of the ways we even discussed this morning, but maybe there are others. Is that a reasonable conclusion to what you've just said? MR. PASSIDOMO: It goes beyond what I meant to say, Mr. Chairman. I think it's possible -- we think it's a healthy exercise for everybody to go through. At this point in time when we look at C5 uses and the uses that are near there now in this corporate park, we cannot reconcile those incompatibilities. We'd like to at least go through the exercise, and we've asked for that repeatedly, to see a master plan, so that we can come back to you and say, we think that it can be improved, we think it can be improved dramatically, but we just, frankly, don't think those incompatibilities are reconcilable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what I really think would be counterproductive is to suggest to this applicant maybe that you look at a continuance then come back with a master plan after getting with you and your client only to have you say, well, we don't want the use anyway. That would be kind of a waste of everybody's time. So if you're digging your heels in and saying, this just isn't the use, we're not going to accept it no matter what, that's one way of looking at it. But if there's a glimmer of a compromise or a glimmer of a way this thing could come -- be good neighbors, you guys could be compatible, I'd sure think that's worthy of considering. And that's what I'm trying to understand. If you guys are just going to say out - and -out no, then tell us that now. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we're not saying out - and -out no, but we're not saying out - and -out yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. PASSIDOMO: I'm saying, we need to go through this exercise, we have every confidence that it can be constructive, and we intend to participate in it in a meaningful way and with an eye toward finding an optimistic solution that can reconcile incompatibilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, to be honest with you, you are in an interchange activity center one. That's one of the more intense uses. You have to anticipate any array of uses there. And I understand the PUD didn't include these, but with the right elements of compatibility, not all car dealerships in this kind of area would be detrimental. There are some that would be, but I think you might be able to find a compromise, and that's what I'm hoping to see, only because this is a use that that interchange activity center already allows. Now, it may not be in the current PUD, but they could have asked for it. And at the time, had they asked for it, I don't know why we would have said no to it. So it could have evolved differently. But as I think you started out saying, time is the factor, and -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I think that -- we have more of a micro rather than a macro analysis. We fully appreciate what could have happened there and what could happen in -- at the interchange. But the fact is, when you look at what is there now -- that's why we alluded earlier to a time warp. What is there now is an upscale corporate office park, and all the uses are an upscale corporate office park. The -- there are uses in the existing PUD that, quite frankly, aren't reconcilable with those existing uses, and we think that without protections, introducing new C5 uses into this situation could make a bad situation worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you, John. Anybody else have any questions of the -- otherwise, we'll go to -- any other public speakers? Page 22 of 99 161 Akugu3,70"I1 MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that the last registered pubic speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody wish to speak to this issue? Bob? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I believe that the conditions that we've put in place address any concerns, reasonable concerns. Site planning is an issue that will go forward in concert with the dealership, which we haven't actually identified yet. We certainly, I'm sure, don't share -- don't mind sharing those site plans as we move forward, but there's no guarantee that working through the site plan and asking for a continuance when we don't even have a dealership in mind will address those concerns. I believe the conditions we've put in place have addressed those concerns. And, you know, there really is nothing to be gained for us to ask for a continuance when we don't even have, you know, an ultimate user. We are agreeing to a new and used car dealership, we're agreeing to conditions that minimize any reasonable concerns that anybody could have as it relates to development of the project. You can see the room's not full of people objecting. Kraft is not objecting, with the exception of us agreeing to a new and used car dealership. They have the same issues and same respect with their building as anybody else would have, and they don't have an objection. So with all due respect, we believe our proposal is a strong one. I was able to add some -- I was able to talk to Mr. Germain as recently as this morning and add some additional considerations to this proposal that would address their concerns. We've been working with them. We've been talking to them. I don't believe that this would change one thing. We're going to come back and say, well, we don't have an agreement. We respectfully ask for your recommendation for approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hate to engage you, which -- seemingly in hostile, but it's not my intent to be hostile. MR. MULHERE: I don't take it that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I've been considering -- you know, you made, I think, an error by saying any noise. I'm sure you didn't mean any noise, per se, but limiting noise was a big factor, certainly a reasonable factor. MR. MULHERE: I thought I said any amplified, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it came down to any noise, and I don't know if you wrote down "any noise." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wrote down no amplified noise of any kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. But I listened carefully. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, no. I apologize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's all right. Because it's important for this reason. You mentioned that the place will be air conditioned, and that would be true during most of the year here. But come the wintertime, the bays may very well remain open because air conditioning may not be applicable, in which case, if the bays are open, the sounds will emanate and so forth. Now, there are various means of creating -- you could put a curtain up. They have these strip plastic curtains up and so forth, and that's a site -plan issue, and we don't get to see site -plan issues. MR. MULHERE: No, we -- I think -- look, we can agree to a condition that says that the bay doors will remain closed other than allowing entry and exit, temporarily, to allow vehicles to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that, and then it becomes a matter of people having to -- yeah, okay. What we're trying to do is establish good neighborhood -- good neighbors, rather, now. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. We're trying to establish good neighbors now and make sure that that's a doable rather than the consequence that you have to have code enforcement visit you people. That wouldn't be something you'd want. MR. MULHERE: Can I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm struggling. When you say about -- you haven't got a franchise yet, I Page 23 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4 2011 would -- I'm not going to presume to have the knowledge -- the deep detailed knowledge, but I have some limited knowledge about franchises. All of the major organizations have very specific requirements -- MR. MUL1 ERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and -- even in their buildings and the presentation and the show, the office, and so forth. I can't imagine you not being able to come up with some kind of a rendition of a master plan at least showing entry and exit of things of that nature, because we're looking at a blank slate here, and we appreciate that it will become a fact, that things will happen if we agree to this, but will they happen in the very best way? And I certainly agree with Mr. Passidomo that it would be better -- and certainly for us. I know I felt that way -- why don't we have a master plan? Ingress and egress. I have an assumption that the spaces where the representation of trees and bushes, there's two spaces where it looks as though it might be ingress and egress. Is that reasonable, my conclusion? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that is reasonable. In fact, obviously the main entry is going to be down Kraft, which is where our clients will come in as well as the bank's clients and Kraft's clients and everything else down here. This is -- there's landscaping, as you can see on both sides, and you see the break here and the break here. There's -- both of these properties have -- or at least one property has an existing easement that would allow traffic through the project, ultimately. The presumption is that when this is developed, this property over here, there will be access through this property to this property and out to, I guess, Livingston. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you expect a loop road, some kind of -- MR. MULHERE: Of some kind. I think the staff has required that as part of this PUD. Now, that will have to become -- come to fruition as part of the zoning of the other PUD. So, I mean, we generally know the ingress and egress, we generally know where the building's going to be, you know, within reason. We just don't have the details yet. We just don't have the details because we haven't been able to ascertain which dealership will go here. Again, we were working with one, but that hasn't come to fruition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I can appreciate that. I don't have a problem with the fact that you're looking for that. What I would love to have seen would have been at least a rectangle of sorts showing me general proximity to Pine Ridge Road as opposed to the building being set way back, et cetera, et cetera. It would have given us a better sense of what it is you're really trying to accomplish. I see you're saying that you're in -- kind of in a locked -in situation. MR. MULHERE: And we intend to be good neighbors. Mr. Gennain operates his dealerships to be a good neighbor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He does. MR. MULHERE: We've been here before. If there's a problem, we want to know about it, we'll correct it. We don't want to have to, you know, go through a code - enforcement condition. We'd rather be proactive about it. I guess the other thing I would offer in response is that when you talk about being champions of commerce, certainly that family has been a champion of commerce in this community as well and wants to continue to be, and they know this business, and they know that site is a very good site, and it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, it's -- really would have loved to have seen something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, you've been in communication with the bank all along, correct? MR. NIUL14ERE: I don't know the degree to which my client has been talking. I know he has been talking to him, so -- I can't give you specifics of day and time. I received a call from Garrett Richter several weeks ago. I immediately notified my client. I know they've been in discussions. I know they've been in meetings. I know there's been telephone calls. So, I mean, generally to answer your question, I think there has been discussion. There just hasn't been -- I think the resolution was -- or the issues were expressed as concerns over site planning and potentially just the whole idea of introducing this use into the -- into what is -- what they've called an office complex or an office park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you think that's the issue they're concerned with? I mean, not the aesthetics of the building, not looking down on the rooftop, nothing? MR. MULHERE: Well, they may have some concerns about that. I think we've addressed those concerns with the conditions we've put in place. I think the other condition is one that we can't -- we can't address, and that's Page 24 of 99 161 August 4, 2011 their desire that this use not be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I believe it would be more attractive than a supermarket with refrigeration and everything else on roof Okay. So there was nothing yesterday that you know that blew up that would cause them to retain counsel at the last minute? MR. MULHERE: No, I -- Mr. Richter, when he spoke to me, said we're going to aggressively pursue opposition and we'll retain counsel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Barry? Bob, don't walk away. I have questions, too, when Barry finishes. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Just an observation. Being there yesterday, the bank is already adjacent to a car dealership and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the other side. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: --which also has vehicular traffic access to go to Kraft Road, so --just wanted to point that out. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We had a very controversial shopping center come in here a while back, and for consent today, in fact. They provided a PUD with their Comp Plan change. They didn't have to provide the detail on the PUD that was there because we've accepted PUDs with just bubble plans. They went into excruciating detail to prove to the concerned public and neighbors, especially, that they were going to be the best neighbor they could, and here's how they're going to do it. It did solve a lot of concerns. It still hasn't solved everybody's concern, but it helped go a long way, to a point where they got approved. You've said to us you don't have a dealership in mind. You haven't got a -- someone anxious to build there immediately, basically, because you don't have a franchisee. You're going to design this for interior loading, all interior to the site. You're not going to have vehicle parking. You're going to increase the landscape buffer. You're going to have a certain mix. You're going to have finished facades. You're talking about no collision shop. You're going to have a repair shop with bays limited to open -- how they're going to open and close. There's a big difference in a dealership that sells Land Rovers or Porsches or some of those more exotic cars versus a Chevy dealership or a used -- a more used -car dealership, say, or a lower -end -- lower- priced car. I think it would help you get to a more bonified, let's say, acceptance if you were to at least show a site plan. It would show good faith, it will show a better attempt. We'd have the opposition taking a closer look at it. They may have suggestions on how to improve it that are worthwhile and a compromise, and at the same time they could dig their heels in and, say, we don't want any of this at all. I did not hear that today. I heard that they're willing to take a look at it. I think you ought to capitalize that. I think you ought to ask for a continuance to get there, especially when you don't have a client standing in the wings dying to get that property off and running immediately. I don't see where the loss is to go a little further. And I understand the cost of land planning, but I also know what -- how the firms do it. I've been working with firms for years doing the same thing, and I think they could accomplish it expeditiously and with a minimal cost compared to the gain that you might get out of it. MR. MULHERE: I think without even having a franchise, or an identified franchise, I think I agree that, as Mr. Murray said, we can at least get location and a few other issues addressed. Jane is trying to reach Mr. Germain. Perhaps we could revisit this after a period of time or, you know, maybe at a break from -- I have to get an answer from him. I have to get an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need to take a break for the court reporter, and the longer we can run your decision out, the longer it takes Richard before he gets to start, and he's anxious not to start. So -- I see him there pulling his hair out, so -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Rich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. This was going to be rather simple. MR. MULHERE: Let me get an answer -- and we'll try to get that right now for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And also, staff, before we break, please pass out the master plan that we were talking about earlier, and we'll take a break for 15 minutes. Well, actually, we'll be back here at 10:45 to resume Page 25 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 and finish up this one and go into Hacienda Lakes. So we'll break right now. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from break. And, Bob, you're in a world of trouble right now. MR. MULHERE: What'd I do now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri does not like you talking over people. She cannot type when you and somebody else is talking. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you don't get rid of that habit here, you need to get rid of it at least at the BCC level. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to be reformed from this point on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, thank you for reminding us to keep him in line. MR. MULHERE: And also I speak too fast as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're never alone in that. MR. MULHERE: My client has agreed to continue for two weeks. We'll get with representatives from the bank with a site plan. We'll be prepared to have that discussion, and hopefully we can resolve those issues and come back on the 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that would be very helpful to everybody involved, so -- MR. MULHERE: I don't know what your agenda looks like, but hopefully we wouldn't take much of your time if we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continuances, with the exception of those handled by Richard Yovanovich, are usually -- are first up when they come back, so we will -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask that you -- Ray, we'll ask that this be put first on the agenda when we come back on the 18th. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Request for a continuance. Is there a motion to accept? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: PUDA- PL2011 -703, Pine Ridge Center West PUD, move for a continuance to the 18th of August. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Go ahead. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want to make sure we have enough time to review whatever's submitted. So if the applicant can get us something within a reasonable time -- I don't want to be in a situation we're not providing you in the packet -- we may have to distribute that site plan to you in the last couple minutes or last couple days before meeting. I just want everybody to be aware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only distribution that you would have to us at this point would probably be a site plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have to review that, and we'd have one page to review. So I think that wouldn't take a full week for us to review it, although you've got some legal requirements to get it out in a certain time frame. I still would -- we will have as much flexibility as we can with the one -day submittal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. MR. MUL1 ERE: Okay. We'll try to get it, you know, to where we're either in agreement or not as quickly as possible, and then get it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order for the motion to have some flexibility -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll take away the date. Page 26 of 99 16 1 AugusA 00 t 4 011 not having to be bothered by it by talking to the applicant and their team for hours. Now, for the record, we are discussing Item CP- 2006 -11, Item PUDZ-2006-AR- 10 146, and Item DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. They're all actions related to Hacienda Lakes. This is a continued item from July 21. It was advertised prior to that meeting, and it will -- I'm -- we'll go as long as we can today, Richard. So it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. And for the record, that's the last time I'm going to listen to Ray when he tells me that an item before me is going to go quick, so would you mind going second instead of first. With me today are George Bauer, who's the property owner; David Torres, who's the applicant and property owner's representative; Ron Weaver with Stearn Weaver -- Stearns Weaver, who is our DRI counsel; Bob Mulhere of Mulhere & Associates, who is one of two land planners on the project; Dwight Nadeau with RWA is the other land planner on the project; Ken Passarella and Cheryl Rolph, I think is -- with Passarella & Associates, are environmental consultants; Emilio Robau with RWA is our professional engineer. And then Bill Oliver and Fabricio Ponce from Tindale- Oliver are our traffic consultants. They're available to answer questions if you have questions of them after my presentation. As the chairman has pointed out, we have three separate petitions in front of you. We have some Growth Management Plan amendments that you previously heard at the transmittal stage, and you unanimously recommended transmittal of those GMP amendments. We have a DRI development order, and we have a PUD rezone petition. I've put on the visualizer an aerial to show you where the property is located. As you can see, it's a rather large parcel of property that is basically located on the eastern side of Collier Boulevard in the general area of Rattlesnake Hammock. The project is 2,262 acres in size. Of that, 1,637 acres of that is designated rural fringe mixed -use district sending lands, and approximately 625 acres of the property is designated urban residential fringe. And I'll show you that better on the colorized PUD master plan as I go through it. The project itself would be eligible for -- and is eligible for density blending. The urban line is essentially right here. So the only portion of the project east of the urban line is this roughly 100 -acre parcel right there. Everything else is west of the urban line and is in the urban residential fringe subdistrict. The property is requesting 1,760 residential dwelling units, of which 704 are currently anticipated to be single- family, and 1,056 would be multifamily. That will be in the yellow portions of the master plan in front of you. There is a request for 327,500 square feet of retail and 70,000 square feet of professional office, including medical and general office, and that would -- will generally be in the areas labeled C or in the area labeled -- and I can't see that label -- R/MU, residential mixed -use, since it's within the appropriate distance from the hospital to allow medical offices to be there. We're also asking for the ability to have a 135 -room hotel that can be located either in the commercial district or in the business -park district and leading into the business -park district. The business -park district is labeled blue on this master plan, and it would allow up to 140,000 square feet of business park in addition to the hotel. We have provided for a public elementary school as part of the review process, and that's in a darker green color on the master plan, and we've also provided for an EMS station, which is also identified on the master plan. We're maintaining the swamp buggy use that's already allowed on the property, and that's in a pink color on your master plan, and we're also providing for the currently- existing Junior Deputies project, which is the lighter brown on the master plan. We have in both the DRI development order and the PUD provided for conversions of some of the uses, and I'll get into greater detail as we're going through the DRI development order when we start talking about the conversion formulas. We've -- the GMP amendments have gone to the state, and DCA came back with no objections to the GMP amendments. Both the RPC and DCA have seen our DRI documents and have offered no objections to our proposal. The DRI development order in your packet has been approved by RPC and RPC staff. Today we're in front of you -all for all three petitions, and hopefully we will be in front of the Board of County Commissioners in September, hopefully September 13th or 27th, for consideration all three amendments. I'm going to just briefly go over the Growth Management Plan amendments, you know, short- and - simple synopsis, since you've already heard them. We're requesting a.3 dwelling- unit - per -acre density increase so that we Page 29 of 99 s;s Agust �,011 can use our qualifying TDRs within our own project. We're not using all the TDRs generated by the project, but we're just using the qualifying TDRs within the appropriate distance within our project. We're providing for the ability to impact more native preservation or native areas in the urban area in exchange for increasing our preservation in the rural area, and that was to accommodate a request we had through our working with the various local environmental groups to reduce our impact in the rural area and increase or try to limit our -- limit our impact in the rural area and focus our impacts in the urban area, so we needed to have that ability to increase our impacts to some of the native preservation in the urban area. The mixed -use activity center, we're adding 9.16 acres, and that's basically to recover the 9 acres that was conveyed on the adjacent hospital. And we're clarifying the access to the business park tract to make it clear that Lords Way, when it's appropriately constructed, can serve as access to the business park. So that's a general and quick synopsis of what we're proposing to do GMP -wise. We are -- the development -- I'm going to go next to the development order and walk you through that, and then the PUD. Hopefully I can go -- well, maybe -- we may want to do certain issues one at a time, if it makes sense, and we'll see what the Planning Commission feels. Due to the intensity of this project, the project is considered a development of regional impact. Accordingly, both the RPC and DCA reviewed the project and make recommendations. As I previously stated, they both reviewed it, and they've offered no objections to what we're proposing to you today. You have a very long and detailed development order. It goes into a lot of different conditions. And if you want to go into those conditions, we can, but I was going to highlight the ones that are generally conditions of concern, and namely traffic is usually the big -- the big issue when we're dealing with projects of this size. And what this document shows you is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you right side that, Ray? There you go. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, one of these days I'm going to figure that machine out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're directionally challenged. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. I was telling Mr. Bauer that. I said, don't count on me for east and west or north and south. We -- the project really breaks itself down into a north segment and a south segment. And to throw you off, I'm going to work south to north. The south segment is this area right here. And that is actually broken down into three segments for purposes of improvements we need to make in order to get development within the south segment. The first segment is some interim bridge improvements at the Rattlesnake Hammock/951 intersection heading east, and also it provides for the construction of two lanes of Rattlesnake Hammock up to the FP &L easement. Once we complete those improvements, we would be allowed to develop up to 327,500 square feet of retail or Residential Pod A, or a combination of the two as long as our peak PM trips do not exceed 1,409 PM peak trips. So development is tied to that improvement based upon those standards. Segment No. 2 would be, build the bridge to its ultimate configuration and construct Rattlesnake Hammock from FP &L to the Swamp Buggy entrance, which is approximately right here. When we do that, we get 20,000 square feet of general office, 50,000 square feet of medical office, we would have the ability to do the 135 -room hotel within the activity center, and we would get the remainder of the retail or Pod A and construction, or both, whatever we didn't use in the first segment. And the final segment on the south side is from -- extending Rattlesnake Hammock further east from Swamp Buggy to Benfield Road, which is here, and Benfield Road is going to run at a north/south direction. And once we do that we get Residential Pod B for development. Now, when you go north -- yeah, when you head north, that's broken down into two segments. You have Residential Pod C -- and it's hard to tell, but there's a bridge that's going to connect Residential Pod C to Collier Boulevard. When we build that improvement, we would get to build Pod C up to 300 PM peak trips for Pod C, and the next segment is to build Lords Way from Collier Boulevard to the west side of the business park. And when we do that, we would get the business -park development and Pod D, okay. And then finally, we have to -- I guess it's the eastern portion of the project, if you will. When we build Page 30 of 99 A August 4, 2 1* 1 Benfield from where we left off at Rattlesnake Hammock to the entrance of the Residential Pod E, we would get Residential Pod E for purposes of development. We spent a lot of time working with transportation staff and FDOT staff to come up with a proper development schedule tied to the necessary improvements, and those details are in both your DO document as well as your PUD document. There -- again, there are a couple other highlights in the development order that I wanted to point out, and that's the school site that we're conveying to the school district, as well as the EMS site we will be conveying to Collier County. Now, you recently received a memo from your staff that listed outstanding issues. Now, that's really related to the PUD. But one of the issues that isn't in that staff memo as an objection and isn't in your staff report to the DO as an objection is the conversion formula. So, technically, if you -- and I -- if you read the staff documents, it looks like conversion formulas are no longer an issue. I know better. You -all know better. But it looks like we need to go forward and address those issues nonetheless based upon recent communications from your staff. I would like to take you quickly -- I don't have too many page -by -page changes, and these really were issues that came up in our discussion with Commissioner Strain. And some of them are really changing "shoulds" to "shalls" and things like that, and then some are a little bit more detailed. If we go to Page 4 of 55 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which document are you on, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: The DO, I mean the development order. I'm going to do DO first, and then we'll deal with the PUD later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Page 4 of 5, Item No. 4, we need to strike the word "composite" before the Exhibit B reference. It's just an Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you're picking up on the speaker very well. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We would strike the word "composite" before the word "Exhibit B" in the second line of Item No. 4. Then we would go to Page 6, Item C. There is a reference to 50,000 square feet for when we need to build a bus shelter. In meeting with staff, that was changed to 75,000 square feet, and we're building an additional bus shelter for the business park. So we're going to have to add language into Exhibit C that says when we basically get COs for greater than 70,000 square feet of land uses within the business park, we'll provide another bus stop /shelter within the DRI. So we're going to have to add that language to the -- I had proposed language that's acceptable to staff. I can read it into the record, or I can show it to you on the visualizer, whichever is easier for the Planning Commission and Terri. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it on the visualizer for now. Let's see how lengthy it is. MS. ASHTON: And just keep in mind that I don't think I've reviewed any of this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now why does that not surprise me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, this language is taken verbatim from the PUD document that staff did review, and it needed to be incorporated into the PUD -- the DO as well to make them consistent. Is that okay? You all can see it; is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I can leave -- I'll leave a document that has all of these changes with the court reporter, and ultimately it will be -- if these changes are recommended by you -all, it will become part of the revisions that we'll need to make, and staff will have their opportunity to review them at that time as to whether they make sense to them. Jumping all the way to Page 40. In Items E, F, G, H, and I on that page -- and I'll wait till you -all are there -- there are a few references to the word "should" that should be changed to the word "shall" to make them mandatory. And all of these changes are being made to the 7/1/2011 version that you -all have in your packet. On -- on the following page, on Page 42, there's another -- there's another reference to a "should" that should Page 31 of 99 Zvi August 4, 2011 be "shall," and then under the school site, since we know the measurements of the school site, we've changed the "up to 20 acres" to 19.55, which is what's on the master plan and has been agreed to. And if the school board decides they don't need all of it, they can obviously tell us they don't need it all. So those are changes to clarify kind of where we are at this point in the process. This next one I can't remember if we discussed or not. It's on Page 43. It may have been something that we noticed as we were going through the document most recently. We wanted to clarify in Item G that we will attempt to keep the school's frontage to two lanes instead of "for attempted, "say for walking for -- actually "for safer walking." So deleted the word attempted. And I don't remember if that was discussed or not or something we caught on our own. Another clarification on Page 44, Item C, regarding density. We had stated that our density was 1,760 units, and Mr. Strain correctly pointed out that that 1,760 is composed of the single - family and multifamily residential development, which could change based upon conversion formulas for senior housing and other items -- and for senior housing and ultimately RVs as we talk about that issue later. Just a few more. Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you have -- MS. ASHTON: I would just like between -- you know, if it gets approved today, between now and the next meeting, to review it in total context, because I'm kind of uncomfortable with the number of changes that they're asking for here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, to be honest with you, Heidi, there's going to be a lot of changes before the day's over, so we'll have to see how it boils down by the end of the day. MS. ASHTON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. The next change is simply somehow we left the word "city" in there, and since we're in the county, we needed to clarify that typo. COMMISSIONER CARON: What page? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Page 47. The next -- the next change would be on Page 49. In Paragraph E there's a reference to the statutory requirement that we be given impact -fee credits for dedications and improvements we make to the extent that there are impact fees for those types of improvements, such as, like, roads. We have obligations to make some improvements and dedicate some right -of -way. This statute basically says, when you have a road impact fee, you're supposed to get credit for those improvements against those road impact fees. Since it's already addressed earlier in the document, we felt, after meeting with Commissioner Strain, that this was, in fact, redundant and didn't need to be in there, and that's why that's being taken out. You've already seen the conversion schedule on Page 49, and this is where I want to -- I guess we should focus on the conversion issue. We're asking for an opportunity to convert a few different uses to other uses. The ones that we're struggling with, why there's staff opposition, is why staff would oppose our changing single - family to multifamily or multifamily to single - family since the conversion formula is based on trips, and we can't exceed 1,760 units anyway; because what happens with the DRI, unlike a PUD, you actually go through the analysis and you identify exactly your unit mix. Most DRIs have a conversion formula between residential uses to allow you, if you determine you need more single- family, to take some of your multifamily and make them single- family and vice versa; if you think you need more multifamily instead of single - family, you would be able to do that, but you still can't go above the 1,760, and that's what that table says. Staffs not objecting, I don't believe, to the senior - housing conversion, but they are objecting to the transfer between standard residential housing, and we're requesting that that conversion formula continue on forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you go and you pass that piece of the conversion formula -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Go to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have submitted three three -ring binders and hundreds and hundreds of pages, and staff is going to present a report to us. While a lot of it is small and minor in nature, there are several big issues. And when you hit one of those, rather than go past it, I'd rather have staff come up and give their counterpoint to that piece of it -- Page 32 of 99 M7 1 A �) August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then go on to the business piece of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way we understand fresh in our mind why -- what you say and what staff says. So if Ray would leave Kay alone and let Kay come up here, we can move forward with that. I know you're coaching her, but she can do a good job, Ray. Kay, I don't know if you heard what I just said, but as we go forward, there are some bigger issues with this that have been contentious with staff, and I'd like to know, when Richard gets done explaining his side of it on those few issues, that you at this time address that side of it instead of waiting for your presentation. So right now we're on the conversion factors, the four of them, just relating to the residential issues. Could you explain to us your position on those four. MS. DESELEM: I'm not sure the -- would you enumerate what four? I was talking to him, so I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know there are various conversions. There are some for residential and some for commercial. MS. DESELEM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are four for residential. You should have -- with the amount of objections you've had, I'm surprised you wouldn't remember them. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I just want to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Single- family to multifamily, multifamily to single - family, RV -- single- family to RV or multifamily to RV, and then senior housing. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any -- which ones are you objecting to, and what's your position on those? He just stated his. MS. DESELEM: Originally staff said we could do the care units. We would support that you could, you know, convert care units. Our contention is that RV uses are commercial uses, and there shouldn't be a conversion factor for residential. As far as the single - family to multifamily, the applicant and staff have looked at that, and I don't think that there will be a problem with that the way it's proposed. It has been done before. What we were really opposed to more than anything else was the conversions of the commercial uses, retail and office and RV to -- and, like, everything could be everything, and we still object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to get to the commercial in a minute. But I'm trying to break this up into the most palatable pieces as I can -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since it's so large. Okay. So basically you believe -- can live with the single- and multifamily and the senior housing from a residential perspective. It's the TTRV? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is the trigger that bothers you the most with that one? MS. DESELEM: With the RV? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. DESELEM: It's a commercial use; it's not a residential use, and you shouldn't convert commercial to residential. That should be counted as part of their commercial square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in our -- and I have to -- I didn't look at that aspect of it. So if I were to pull up the TTV section in our code, it would be -- in the preamble it would define it as a nonresidential use? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, I believe that's to be correct. We can double -check it, but I think in the nomenclature, the TTRV is a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- the conversion that they're using is based on what; a traffic analysis or traffic impact? MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other concerns that staff has beyond the traffic issues involving TTRV or single - family, the comparison between the two? Do you see any other uses they impact beyond traffic? Page 33 of 99 161 A )� August 4, 2011 MS. DESELEM: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: We do have issues with compatibility and the fact that they've included the TTRV within the residential part of the PUD document. We believe that it should be separated from that and have its own part, just like the BP, the commercial, the residential. There should be something called RV. It should have its own principal uses, its accessory uses, and then incorporate whatever appropriate property- development regulations would fit into that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they had come in with a separate -- see, I know where they're planning to put the RV. It's over along the Benfield Road just northeast of the business park. If they were -- if they had come in with a master plan that showed that area as TTRV and they had a separate district shown in there, TTRV, and they increased their density to, let's say, 500 units more, from 1,760 to 2,100, 2,200, would that have -- where would you have stood on a scenario like that? I mean, you basically, then, would have gotten your development standards, you've gotten your commercial -use designation, supposedly the LDC or the standards would have addressed the compatibility. Is it the density, the increase, that concerns you or -- MS. DESELEM: It's the location of the use and the lack of detail and information about it. As it was originally proposed, it included camping cabins and tents and everything else with the large density. I think it was, like, 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: And it was to be adjacent to single - family homes, perhaps. And we didn't really have a good feeling as to how it was to be designed, what setbacks might be provided. It's just too much in the air. But we could have worked through that better if we had the separate area for the TTRV, and we could look at it time and get a better picture of it. Okay, this is exactly what you're going to have. You're not going to have this or you are going to have that, and what the setbacks would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You started out by saying it was the location. So the location on this master plan, if that was designated as TTRV with the right compatibility and design standards pursuant to that section of the code, is that location unacceptable to you? MS. DESELEM: Not necessarily. I remember talking with Corby. There were some issues about the access and -- but I think we pretty much worked through that issue as far as they were asking to have the Lords Way provide access and be determined to be a collector road or something to that effect. I'm not exactly certain. Corby might remember too. But, yeah, I think it's an appropriate location if it's properly buffered. We don't really have an objection to the use. It's the fact that the use is included in the residential portion. I mean, you can't homestead an RV, so it's just -- it's not a residential use. It's a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. They haven't created it as a separate RV district. They've put it under the R district as a permitted use, which is inconsistent with how your Land Development Code is structured for the TTRV, which is under zoning for commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know that issue is going to get into detail as we go into this. I want to focus on the conversion aspects of it right now, because that's the -- I want to get past the conversion because there are myriads of other issues, and I'm sure we're going to talk about them all, but the biggest ones are these -- there's three of them, and this happened to be one of the big ones. So from a conversion viewpoint, I think we understand your position on the TTRV conversion to single - family. And I -- so it's not a density. It's more, not because of the quantity of units that the conversion allocates, it's because you're converting from multifamily to what staff considers a commercial use. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on that issue before we move on? Brad, and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I had a question on conversion. And, Rich, is these factors based on trips; is that how you came up with them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. These are all based upon the ITE manual. And, frankly, we'd be fine if you Page 34 of 99 161 A August 4, 2011 want to change the document to say, "and" -- we can have 1,760 residential units and 290 RVs. We figured you needed to analyze it from a traffic standpoint and there needed to be a give and take. If we decided to do the 290 RVs, we would do less residential development, keeping it in line with the trips -- the max trips we can have, which is 3,328 PM peak -hour trips. So we were actually offering this up because we felt that we needed to show you how we were staying consistent with our traffic analysis. Because it's an "or," okay, that segment. And I know we're going to get into greater detail, but just generally what we had anticipated in that area of the project. We would either develop it as residential or we would develop it as an RV, an RV park. And within our R district, we have single - family and multifamily residential uses, and one of the allowed uses is an RV park. And in our development standards table, we tell you what our development standards are if we're going to have an RV park on that portion of the property. If I were to create this separate district that you're talking about, I would still include residential uses in there as an alternative. So I didn't see a reason to create another subdistrict when I've already done it. I've done it in the bigger R district. We identified the location. We have development standards. It's really a form- over - substance type of an argument, because we don't want to be locked into RVs on that property. We want to have it as an option. Most of the RV parks that you've approved recently -- and they're not all that recent -- but Naples Motorcoach, East Trail. That's a PUD. Pelican Isle, PUD; Silver Lakes, PUD; those are, all three RV parks that are in the general vicinity of this project, all done through the PUD process, not the straight zoning to TTRVC. And I will also tell you that the code talks about a density for RVs, and that's why we talked about it, and it talks about 12 units per acre. We've asked for what's consistent with the code, and we think the method that we've addressed it is okay. If there's a concern about our development standards, let's talk about the development standards and see how we address the development- standard issue, because it doesn't sound like the location is a problem. It doesn't really even sound like it's a conversion - formula problem, because they don't think I even need to convert my residential to go to that. It's really a development - standards issue. If it's a development- standards issue, let's talk about the development standards that are in the table, and if we need to change them to address compatibility issues, we're fine. We had proposed -- and you'll see it when we get into the PUD -- a specific Type C buffer. We thought that had resolved the compatibility issue, but apparently not. So we don't really see it as an inconsistent use. This is an R district, and an RV is allowed as one of the uses in that district as an option. MS. ASHTON: But not under the code. But if I could -- this is the problem that I have with it. You've got 1,760 residential units that then are broken up into, what, 400 single - family, and the rest are multifamily, and then you can convert it to RV, okay. So now you're going to have RV, and then when you can convert the single - family to multifamily or adult congregate living, I don't know how you expect staff to administer this, because you're going to end up with more than 1,760 units when you apply the conversion. So I can't tell you what we're going to come up with, and that's the problem I have. Not the uses. I think this could be designed in away to accommodate all the uses they want to do, but --and that's just the residential. That's my comment on the residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But to follow up with your point, if they then said, okay, we want 1,760 of a mixture of multi and single - family, we want no conversion but we want the ability to put 290 resi- -- I mean, Class A motor homes on this location in the site and we would adhere to the TTRV standard to do so, does that -- would that work simpler? See, because they could have come in and asked for 3,000 units on this property, and most likely, with the lower density ratio that they have, which is .78, you know, I mean, who knows? They could have walked away with it. So instead they've come in with a conversion with a lower number when they may have been better off, for clarification, stop fooling around with all this stuff and just give us the cap that you want and work down from there. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And I had said before to them that you can create your district and you can say it's going to either have so many RV units or so many residential units. I proposed that a long time ago, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly what we did. We created a district that said we can have so many residential and not more than 290 RV units and not more than 450 senior - housing units. Now, when you do the conversion formula -- we've all done the math. Well, not everybody. But when you Page 35 of 99 August 4, 2011 divide 450 by 4, you lose roughly 112 single - family units. When you convert the single - family to RVs, you lose more single - family units. Now, David did the number. The number's, like, 2,300. If we did 290 RVs and we did 450 senior, we would have a total project density, if you'll let me use that term, including single- family and multifamily, of roughly 2,300 units. MS. ASHTON: Where we differ is he didn't create a separate district. The district is R. It just allows an RV use, and that's where the disconnect is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think the whole idea of throwing multiple conversions at this project probably was a mistake from the get -go. Straightforward, simple English is the best way -- I should say -- be careful if I say English anymore -- but simple languages for the best of us to understand it. You know, I mean just by telling us, here's my total density, of the density I want 290 of this, boom, it's done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have been a lot simpler, Rich, than trying to throw a bunch of conversions that we've got to go back and forth on trying to understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm all about simple. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And, also, the LDC says that you follow the district that most closely resembles the district you're creating. So the district they're creating is residential. So that means the RV district is subject to all the rules of residential and not the TTRV, which the TTRV was designed to address certain public safety and health welfare issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a development - standards table. That's how you deal with development standards. Where there isn't a standard, that's when you default to the most similar district. That's how the code works. All PUDs are their own zoning district with their own development table. Once you get that development - standards table, that is the zoning on your property. If you forgot something -- and I don't know what that something may be -- you would default to the most similar district. We would still default, when dealing with the RVs, in my opinion, to the RV -- TTRV portion of the code, and for the residential uses we would default to the residential portions of the code. If -- I've got a very simple fix, which we can address later in detail in the PUD. We can do as Mr. Strain said, let's put the maximum number in of 2,300 and whatever it is. And then we could say, of that a maximum could be 17- -- we could work through those numbers and do it that way. We actually thought we were doing it the right way by taking away some of our single - family development in exchange for senior housing and in exchange for RVs. We were not -- we didn't -- everybody could do the math to figure out what that max number was. It was all based on trips, and it was certainly to try to put -- hold ourselves in check, not in order to get anything above that. If that's the simple fix, we could do it that way, or we could just go to 290 RV on top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Either way, you still cap it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the -- so we can -- the simplicity of the transportation cap is still intact. Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Rich, isn't the reason you're doing this so you have flexibility in the marketplace constantly? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. I mean, who knows? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, there may be some fun with numbers to do it, but I think it makes a lot of sense that they have that flexibility to adjust between different product. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, with the overall cap that we can never exceed what was analyzed on the transportation analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have a ceiling. MR. YOVANOVICH: That ceiling is there regardless of what we build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I'm concerned about two things. Number one, Kay started out by saying we're allowing now a conversion between residential and commercial because staff looks at the TTRV use as commercial. Page 36 of 99 wrl August 4, 2011 Having -- I mean, I own one of these units, and I don't consider my unit commercial. I've never stayed in a commercial center. I've stayed in RV parks. So I'm not sure why it's looked at that way. But I want to make sure I understand the ramifications of that. If that's the concern, why, Kay? Why is it a concern that we're looking at a conversion from TT -- to create TTRV connected to residential in this DRI/PUD? MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, Kay Deselem. One of the concerns that we have is that it can change the appearance and the intensity of the project. Just by converting things back and forth, as Heidi said, you don't know what you actually have. It's kind of a moving target; how do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- MS. DESELEM: So we wanted to clarify and have it separate what residential was and what commercial was, because otherwise it almost becomes self - amending. It's like anybody else has to come in and amend their document if they want to change something, but the way this would be set up, it seems to be almost self - amending, which is contrary to what we normally would do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the focus on this issue is on one very focused piece of land within this development. And they're offering up a set of standards and changes to it that would only be applicable to that piece of land and the conversion could only occur on that piece of land. Under that criteria, why is the conversion between a residential unit and a Class A travel unit problematic? MS. DESELEM: Okay. For example, I think he said that he could get up to 2,300 units total with the conversions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: I might misstate that, but I think that's what he said -- and this has been advertised for 760 (sic). Everybody assumes there's just going to be seven hundred and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventeen. MS. DESELEM: -- 1,760 number of units. So already you've increased it. So the density and intensity of the project changes by the use of that conversion. MS. ASHTON: If you're going to try -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a whole different argument, which I didn't expect. Can you weigh in on that? MS. ASHTON: If you're going to try to derive the RV -park numbers from residential, I suppose you could do it if you distinguish this from the other RV parks. Like I've heard from you, I've heard that they're going to be single -- they're going to be separate lots. They're going to be owned. It's not going to be rental. It's high end. And they're different amenities. I mean, I suppose you could distinguish it from the standard, but I'd still call it a different district because of the way the LDC is written, or you indicate it's a deviation from the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there are parks -- like, there's a new one down in Everglades City. There's one -- Pelican Isles is one. They are basically Class A units. They don't have the tow- behinds. They don't have the modular mobile units. They're Class A units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me -- see, these are all compatibility issues that should have been raised a long, long time ago. They weren't. We can accommodate a request that they be Class A motorcoach. If they don't want tents and things like that, that's not an issue. We didn't intend for tents. We did -- we have development standards for lots that are in the table. There's nothing wrong with our having a park that allows for rental of those spaces for people who come down seasonally. I don't know, Mr. Strain, maybe you own multiple lots throughout the country when you travel, but I'm sure you pull in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish I did, but no, I don't. I pay 23 bucks or 46 bucks a night depending where I go. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I'm sure -- and you have a very -- you have a nice mobile -- motorcoach, and that's what we want, like has been approved in the general area. We're fine with it being Class A motorcoach. Those are development types of issues that we can address in the PUD to clarify it. But right now, the use that we want -- I circled where we want it on the map, and I'm just trying to understand -- if I understand what staffs recommendation is, they want me to create a separate district that's called RV district, and within that RV district I can have residential uses. Page 37 of 99 August 4, 2011 MS. ASHTON: No. You're not -- you can derive the units from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Either /or. I can do an either /or. No, hang on -- hang with me. On that piece labeled RV, I can do either RVs or I could do residential, right? That's exactly what my document currently says. There's no reason for me to create a separate category that already does that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- I know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to deal with that when we get to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane's next, then Brad -- or then Donna, then Brad. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, there was so much material to go through. But in reading this from the Department of Transportation and the FDOT, it says "proposed." It says, "With the adoption of this amendment, the change in land use would allow up to 1,850 dwelling units, 188 additional units, using newly transferable TDRs from the 1,016 acres lying within one mile of the urban portion of the project. "It should be noted that Hacienda Lakes DRI residential component, as currently proposed, would be limited to 1,760 dwelling units." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what we're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- yeah. Now they're -- that's kind of where the -- part of the problem lies is that there is 1,760 units, but they've been defined as single - family and multifamily. Residential -- or RV is not considered a dwelling unit if it's got axles and wheels on it. You can't homestead it. The CCRC are more medically related units, so I'm not sure they're considered residential units. That's why there's conversions for those. And I don't know how all that fits with what was advertised that Kay now has brought up. So at some point after lunch when we come back, if the county's attorney could look at the advertisement -- advertising criteria in relationship to the numbers and the conversion results. I want to make sure we're standing on firm ground the way it was advertised, too. But Diane's point is what I had made to you Monday night, is that 1,760 is what you say throughout the document, but really with the conversions you've got more than that. And I understand how you got there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to explain any differently than I have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to Diane that issue, go right ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're absolutely correct. And the way we've handled all these other -- and as I understand it, senior housing is a nonissue. That's the one conversion fonnula staff has agreed to. So by definition they already knew by allowing that conversion formula in there I was going above 1,760, because it converts at 4 -1. So if I only converted one, I was going above 1,760 for overall project intensity. Every -- the intensity of this project does not increase through any of these conversions, because the intensity is tied to the trips. This project intensity does not change. Through all of our NIMs and through all of our public meetings, we have discussed the conversion formulas and the ability to have senior housing, RV parks, and take those from the 1,760 units. The public knows what's going on. And we've done this many times with senior housing, many times with senior housing. So the RV -- the RV issue -- if we need to put a number in there to talk about it -- if we decide to have the RV park, there's a theoretical number above 1,760, if you want to count the RVs as -- in the density number we can do that, same thing with the senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be careful about trying to include that in the density number with the advertising issue, so we -- but let the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll let the county attorney have time for that over lunch and maybe get back to us. MS. ASHTON: You know, I always like to know when I'm -- when we're looking at a new policy, and this is a new policy if you're going to allow a conversion, you know, for -- for RVs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we're there yet. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we currently have, apparently, a fairly common acceptance, that 4 -1 ratio for Page 38 of 99 " I :, I A 3 ,I ,. August 4, 2011 CCRC -- MS. ASHTON: Yes. We've used that multiple times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has been an acceptable standard. So what I suggest is that when you look at a ratio for mobile homes, you treat it in the same perspective. You look at the CCRC. If that triggers a misnomer in the way we've advertised in regards to the guarantees, because that conversion is in other projects and it could go higher, then you really need to see if we required other projects, then, to disclose the CCRC separately as a potential above the density, and the same, then, would apply to the TTRV use or the motor -home conversion. I just don't know if that's the case because I haven't gone back and looked at any of those. MS. ASHTON: I'll consult with the county attorney. I'm less concerned with the advertisement because this is a very large project, everyone knows it's a really large project, and things can get changed a little bit when they go before the various boards. And if things need to be amended in a future advertisement, such as when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, then we would make sure that it was properly -- that it reflected the units and so forth that were being proposed at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add. The ALF conversion factor, as used in other PUDs that I worked on, never results in an increased number of dwelling units, because the tract is specified for a maximum number of single - family over the entire tract. And if they have the option of building ALF for every acre converted from residential to an ALF use, you subtract from that maximum number. So the advertising's always correct that you have that maximum number of dwelling units. And if -- you can come down if you add ALF. I've never seen one where you're converting from an ALF to add residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But go ahead. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this was my point. Everything we've done in the past when we've used a conversion factor has respected whatever the total factor was. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. That was staffs concern. COMMISSIONER CARON: This one does not, and that's my problem with this. When you think about a conversion factor, you just think about a way to get senior housing on here or a way to get an RV park on here, but it shouldn't affect the bottom -line total. And in this one, apparently what they're saying to all of us is we're going to use this conversion factor, but we're just adding it on top of what we've already gotten, and that wasn't my initial impression, but that's apparently what they're saying here now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you want to go? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I had a couple points. One is, in the PUD you do have the statement, "But in no event shall the residential unit count exceed 1,760" -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the multifamily and the single - family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- units. Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: They will never go above that number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that if you do add RVs, they can be above that number? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, but there'll be a corresponding reduction in the 1,760 equal to the traffic impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the senior - housing care units -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Same thing. MS. ASHTON: But I think that you're using the numbers of, whatever, it's four hundred and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Four fifty was our cap for single -- we were -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. So you can still -- you know, it can still go over -- I don't know how you count 1,760, but your numbers you're looking at are the 400, and then the other number, and then how they can be converted back and forth. So when you look at the total units, you know, I don't know what the number will come out to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what that statement means is you will never be able to add up multifamily and single - family and get a number greater than that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll never be able to add up multifamily and single- family and get above 1,760. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yet you could have converted down some of these other ones to be on top of that with RVs, which they're saying they want to be commercial anyway, so -- Page 39 of 99 V August 4, 2011 MS. ASHTON: But I'm not sure that that's what you're saying, Rich, because if you've got 400 -- say you decide the whole project's going to be multifamily -- I'm not saying you are, but just hypothetically -- you could convert -- the four could be converted into one -- one single - family is 1.6. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. What I'm saying is, if I wanted to convert the project to an entirely multifamily project, we can do that since it generates less trips than single - family. I would get rid of my 704 single - family units, and I would have 1,760 multifamily units. That would be my project if it was 100 percent multifamily. Now, if I wanted to build a project that was just like it is, 704 single - family, 10,056 (sic) multifamily, and I want to do 450 CCRC units, I would have to -- 450 divided by 4 is 112. I would have to take 112 multifamily units off the books to accommodate those 450 units. Now, mathematically it exceeds 1,760, but from a traffic standpoint it doesn't. But I don't get 1,760 single - family /multifamily and 450 senior and 290 RVs; I have to reduce my multifamily or single- family to get to use the 450 cap or the 290 cap, which is no different than we've done senior- housing -wise in many, many PUDs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Let me stay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you do go down to senior, you do stay there. You clearly say that, you know, you can convert at that ratio, you set a cap and you say that that could bring the -- you know, raise above 1,760. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're clear there. You're not so clear, I don't think, anywhere about the recreational vehicles. But, again, I do like using the conversion of residential units versus commercial, because one's residential units, the other one's square footage, and how would you ever incorporate square footage with residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: And you wouldn't. And I can tell you, I've not seen -- I'm not saying there's not one out there. But I've not seen an RV park that was required to be developed in an activity center, because that's where only commercial can go. Your Comprehensive Plan actually says, an RV park can go anywhere in the urban area provided it has access to the arterial. That's what it says. Now, where you decided to put it in your Land Development Code for convenience, whatever, but it doesn't have to go on commercial -- on property. It's not a, quote, commercial use like it's discussed as retail and office. So it doesn't make sense to give up retail square footage for an RV use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, just to clarify, the maximum you could ever do is you could have the maximum RV units. If somehow you worked this conversion factor -- and I'm not even sure you could -- the maximum 450 senior care, and then the maximum, the 1,760 doors to residential or multifamily units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the numbers. MS. ASHTON: You're ending up with both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If we max out -- if we max out the 290 RVs, we lose 106 units. If we max out the 450 CCRC units, we lose 112- and -a -half units. So we would be down to a hundred and fif- -- 1,542 residential units, but the total of everything in the place would increase to 2,282 units, okay. That's the math. And I rounded up on the halves. MS. ASHTON: But the way it's currently written, you could take some of the multifamily units, convert it to AC -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. MS. ASHTON: -- ARC, and then you could take the single - family and convert them back over to multifamily. So, I mean, that's where the real difficulty is if it's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The 1,542 never changes. The 1,542 never changes in that equation. It will always be 1,542 or less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The factors equate out if you move it up or move it back. It ends up in the same spot. I mean, I came up with 2,229, but that's exactly -- we're real close. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Then if we -- I'll have to come up with some other language that does what you're saying, you're proposing, because what we have right here opens the door to a huge unknown in my opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's mathematically predicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you said something in your presentation that you could have 1,760 Page 40 of 99 161 August 4, 2011 multifamily; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you allow the single -- the conversion formula between residential uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you can -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right? And that's a less traffic impact than what we've told you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not what I saw this project as being. Because everywhere in the project it says you're going to have single- family and multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't picture the whole thing being one massive, giant apartment building complex. And I'm a little concerned when you said that. I didn't know that was possible. MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it in the -- well, we cap the maximum between. That's not an issue for us, Mr. Strain. It was actually in a hypothetical posed to me to how to -- to work the numbers. I wasn't representing that we were going to convert all the single - family to multifamily. We can include a cap that says you can't convert more than X single- family to multifamily or Y multifamily to single- family. That's not -- that's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're hardly along -- we're hardly -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is hardest, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: The rest of them are going to be a little easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really, really wish you guys had thought this out better about how complicated it's been to make this project. I really, really did. It would have made today so much easier, and I'm worried about the future and how people going down the road are going to understand to follow this thing. Somehow we'll clear that all up. I just wish it was simpler to start it out. I have never seen anything quite like this. Bob, did you -- did anybody else have any comments on the TTRV issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just comment. Aren't you creating this complexity so that you have market - fluctuation ability? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the only reason you're doing it is? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any other scheme you have? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's it. And you know what? The only thing that's different in this than any other one you've seen so far that's a residential -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is we've introduced RVs. The CCRC is thing is nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's unfair, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: The CCRC on the residential is nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't spend four - and -a -half hours with you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a lot of other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on just this issue. There's a lot of issues here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But on the conversion formula, there's nothing unique about the CCRC conversion, and staff even accepted that one. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. And I believe that staff has agreed to the CCRC. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That one was agreed to. It was the single- family to multifamily that staff was objecting to. But I think I heard them say they're okay about that now. RVs is still a debate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ASHTON: Again, Rich, it's not so much the mix of what you're proposing. It's the ability to administer what you're proposing, because I have no idea how four units from here are going there and two over there and 1.6 over there. I mean, I think it's extremely difficult to try to administer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's how it works. I don't think it is. I come in with a Site Development Plan or a plat for my RV park, and let's just say I do 290 units on it. I have to show you that what I have left on my PUD monitoring report is the necessary single- or multifamily units left to support that RV park. It's done all the time. We do PUD monitoring reports all the time where every time we go in with an SDP we Page 41 of 99 it 161 August 4, 2011 have to show you that we have the units left to build the project. I don't think it's that complicated to administer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they'll have a matrix in the annual report that will be coming in essentially yearly or every two years. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it can be easy to keep score. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MS. ASHTON: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a second. Heidi -- MS. ASHTON: Plus we'll verify, and I don't think we have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you're going to have to wait to be recognized. She's going to have trouble writing everybody. So let's just take turns. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked for Mr. Murray to go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. With regard to changes in the future, let's assume that we settled all this now and we do have these conversions that are possible. In the future, if they were to change a number, a small number, for conversion, would that be considered to be within the PUD and it's just an adjustment, or is that a substantial or an insubstantial change? How would that work? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would have to -- if I exceeded a conversion formula -- for instance, we put a cap on there and it says I can't convert more than 25 percent of the single - family to multifamily. Making up a number. If I exceed that and I want to go to 26 percent, I would have to come amend the PUD, I would have to do an NOPC under the current rules, and that would probably be an insubstantial change as far as the DRI review goes, but I would still have to change the PUD document to exceed the numbers we may agree to today. So there would be a public- hearing process if -- if the market flexibility we gave ourselves was not enough, through this process we'd have to come back and ask for a change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I understand you correctly then, if your 290 TTRVC, those units, you planned -- let's say you planned to have that park, and over time you recognize that's not the best thing, but you only need 75 percent of that; 25 percent of those changes you can convert back? MR. YOVANOVICH: I wouldn't -- what I wouldn't do in this scenario -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What would happen is I can go up to 290. I can go less. If I wanted to do a 200 -unit RV park, I can do that, and I would give up less of my single - family or multifamily units to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those kinds of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're easy math. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they may seem so, but for this poor guy here, he wants to be sure he understands it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So as you're going ahead -- let's say for the sake of argument this were approved just as you're presenting it and we're going to go forward, plans, as we know, change over time, and even after you've initiated building you may change plans; are you saying that each one of those changes then would require a PUD review? MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's beyond the conversion formulas, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Beyond the conversion formula. MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's beyond the conversion formula. The reason we need the conversion formula is I can't tell you today that I absolutely know I want 1,760 multifamily residential and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- multifamily and single -. I'm saying to you, I might want some of those units to be senior housing. Let me convert some of those units to senior housing not to exceed 450, because that's what I think I need, and I will reduce an appropriate number of my single - family and multifamily units to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand -- Page 42 of 99 August 4, 11 MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the market flexibility I'm asking for for senior housing as well as RVs. And it's an either /or on that property. You know, I either would do RV on that property or I would do residential -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand what you're attempting to achieve. What I'm really asking, probably staff as well as yourself, whether or not that represents a proper protection for the community in terms of what you choose to change in time over time. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we've identified where on the master it has to be. We haven't -- originally we had it anywhere in the R district, and staff said, no, you can't -- it can't be everywhere. Pick a location. And we identified that specific location on the master plan, said, this is where we want it. And I don't think staff is saying that's a problem where we want it. I think we're talking about how do we get this and how do we count for it. Hindsight is 20/20. What 1 wish I had done now was come in with just a conversion formula for senior housing and said, throw in another 290 of RVs, and here's where I'll put them. I wish I had done that, and I don't think I'd be having any of this conversation. We made it more complicated by taking away some of our residential density to accommodate that, because I don't think there was an issue traffic -wise for those 290, density -wise for those 290. So, I mean, I really -- and compatibility with the community for the 290. It got complicated. Yes, I wish I'd have just simply now asked for an extra 290 RV units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the total number doesn't scare anybody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your narrative, but I still want to make absolutely clear, at least for me anyway. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you were approved and you have 290 designated at the location where you designated, but you assert, different than Kay has -- you've asserted that it's residential. One could understand that; it would be in the residential tract. Bear with me a second, Richard, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So let's say in the future -- and let's allow that you've built the 290 units and so forth, and then whatever time it is in the future, a decision is made to do away with that park and now reconvert it back to either multifamily or single- family; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it can happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a change you would expect to come in for revision of the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I wouldn't need to because residential's already allowed on that property, and as long as -- as long as I built the number of units I gave up, whatever the conversion number was -- I think it was 106 -- I would be limited to 106 units in that area unless I had some leftover units from my development. But no, I would not have to come back to convert the RV park back to a single - family or multifamily project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the county would know that only because you would have to come in for a permit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: -- to raise the current operation, whatever that would be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: -- in order to permit for single or multi? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But beyond that there would be no requirement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and we -- but in that you have your PUD monitoring report, and they would compare the PUD monitoring report to either the SDP or the plat that would come in to assure we're not exceeding our -- COMMISSIONER HURRAY: What I'm trying to get at -- I hope you appreciate now -- is that the assertions are made, and I think they're probably valid -- how will the county know what you're doing? And so I guess, you know, I made it rather a macro by saying the full 290, but you're saying also that if you committed to modifying a portion of that, you would also have to do the same thing, wouldn't you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. There's always a land -use approval I'm going to need from Nick and his staff to change that use on that site. Page 43 of 99 August 4 , 2011 161 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then I would listen later to see whether or not staff objects to that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think you did something which was smart a couple years back. You tied everything to trips. Because you get PUDs that come in and say, how many different uses can I have, and I'm only allowed to analyze X amount of trips. It was a good idea. In this case it's a good idea as well, too. Adding just more units on, I've analyzed a certain amount of traffic, and we said, that will work. Just adding 290 more RV units is not a good idea. The issue in talking to staff, I'm hearing is, you've got a tract on there that's called R/RV. And he's not saying either /or. He's saying, I'll come in there at some point in time, and I'll take up to a conversion factor. So let's say he comes in first and puts in residential. Now, this R/RV, the RV portion, is more commercial -type use. And I just talked to Rich. It's transient. It can be overnight use back and forth. So what happens if he plats a hundred lots, and then it could be R and then it comes in for RV later, which is more of a commercial use right next door? Now, there is buffering standards there, but there's no predictability in that tract of what it could be or what portion thereof could be. So I asked Richard, is it an either /or? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you said a conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I go today and I say to you, Nick, on this piece of property, I want an RV park, it's an RV park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it's either 290 RV or zero, or is it a combination? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it will either -- no, the piece. The piece I come in with will either be an RV park or I won't do an RV park and that piece will be developed as residential. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It won't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It won't be a combination on -- within the same development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. And I think that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a separation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Nick's saying is, what if you decided to do a hundred -unit RV park; what happens to -- with the rest of the area in that R/RV area? MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- now, this is where the development standards are important, okay, because the area shrinks. The area on which I build the RV park becomes smaller because I'm doing lesser units. I've got a buffer between my park and any adjacent residential, regardless of how big the park is, and there would be residential that would be built in the area that we choose not to be RV. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's the problem that's staffs running into, because it's a commercial use next to -- it's a residential but commercial use next to potentially residential. If the entire tract was R/RV -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I get it. We'll either build on that entire piece RV, or we'll build on that entire piece R. So you don't have to worry about it shrinking or getting -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That solves the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when -- Nick, you also have a good point is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've still got issues, but go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is that we could establish a residential neighborhood, and down the road he could come back in and put an RV park in the middle of an established -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: But he's saying it's either /or. And if that's in the PUD, that takes a lot of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That tip will either be an RV park or it will be a residential. MR. BELLOWS: So he's designating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way it is now, it can be in any R district. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It can only be in that location. That's the only location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that something new you're adding or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we've had that for the last few reviews. Page 44 of 99 161 1 A 7) August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know what, we aren't going to resolve this before lunch. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take lunch, and maybe we can get back to some kind of resolution, and we're going to have to go right back on this subject. And when we get back from lunch we're going to ask this panel how long you want to go, because we're going to -- we don't want to lose our sanity before we -- of course, some people may already think we have. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll take a lunch break until one o'clock, come back and start over then. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from lunch, and hopefully we'll be done here in a few minutes today. I doubt if that will really happen. But before we start, I want to thank a young lady that's ten years old and happens to be a really good cook. Her name is Karah Lewis, and maybe she got her cooking from -- pointers from her mom, but I'll tell you what, she's been an uplifting treat for this board periodically. So, Karah Lewis, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, now we go from nice subjects to Richard. COMMISSIONER CARON: The sublime to ridiculous. MR. YOVANOVICH: How did I know that was coming? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on the TTRV or the conversion to motor homes and R and all that. Are there any final parting comments on that before we just roll on with the rest of this? And I'm sure it will keep cropping up in other avenues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah, if I could. I think -- have we agreed that the conversion from single - family to multifamily is not an issue? And, Commissioner Strain, to address your concern, we would cap the maximum number of single - family units that can convert to multifamily to be no more than 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To be honest with you, with staff also working -- say they can work with that and the one with the senior housing as well, to me that's a big plus, and so I don't personally have a problem with it. I don't know if the rest of the board does. If any of you do have, speak out. The concern has always been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to take them off, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the concern has always been, how this gets handled as we go down the road. And if staff feels it can be handled, then I feel confident we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think there's already a provision in the PUD, but if there isn't, we can agree that every time we bring in an SDP or plat, we certify a tally of where we are -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- regarding the approval so it will be something that staff -- staff will have handy as they're reviewing to make sure that we're appropriately accounting for where we are under the PUD. So I hope that would -- we talked to Nick briefly about that, and I think that would -- that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you don't plat? MR. YOVANOVICH: Plat or SDP. Those are the only two that I know of If there's something else -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you don't plat? So you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, plat or SDP. Any -- I was using that by way of example. Any development approval we would need we would have the tally there for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Regarding the RV, I thought we were -- we were pretty close because we agreed to limit it to just that tract, and it had to be an either /or. We would either do RV on that tract, or we would do residential. And hopefully with that in mind, the conversion, based upon trips, can work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we've heard from all parties in regards to if they've all come to that conclusion. I don't mean just this panel but, I mean, we've still got a staff report to go through, and I'm going to need Page 45 of 99 some guidance from Heidi as to how she sees this language coming together. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I was hoping we were going to -- MS. ASHTON: My suggestion would be, we've gotten some input from the board, Rich has some proposed solutions. I'll work directly with Rich to address the concerns that I've raised and then implement the issues that he's discussed so we can come up with some language that we would be agreeable, but it'd have to be at the next -- at the next meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as the direction is to come up with a formula to allow for the conversion, we can work the language out. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm looking for is guidance on that. MS. ASHTON: So that I'm comfortable with what -- that what he said on the record today is what's reflected in the document. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the panel have any issues they want to express in regards to this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It probably will come up in other discussions because we have to go through some of the other documents, so let's just move on. The next level of conversion was your commercial conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good resolution. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to simplify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just cross it all off. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we would like to do basically is convert -- have the ability to convert retail to office at a one -to -one ratio. We have 327,500 square feet of retail approved, we're asking for, and 70,000 square feet of office. That totals 397,500 square feet. That number will stay fixed. If we want to build less retail and more office, you could trade. So we can go down to 300,000 square feet of retail and then bump the office by the twenty -seven five. I hope that's -- and as everybody knows, the retail trip generation is higher than medical and general office. So from a transportation standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, from a mathematical standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, and actually from an implementation into various uses within a project it shouldn't be difficult. You're either office or you're retail. We should be -- it should be a fairly easy thing to monitor. And it wouldn't -- we wouldn't be going office to retail. We would just be going retail to office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's one - directional? MR. YOVANOVICH: Retail to office only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you can't decide that you're not going to do so much office and convert that to retail. It's just one - directional. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be --correct. And if we need to cap the amount of retail we can go to office, we can do that at 25 percent, just like we did for the residential. So you wouldn't end up with a 100- percent office park when we have been talking about a retail and office development. Again, that gives us flexibility for what the market says. Now, I know that was something that has not been supported by staff. And should we talk about that one before I go to the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Donna had a question or a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Well, now my only comment is we would not want it to go 100 percent office in that activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So 25 percent is a good figure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, do you want to comment on this aspect of the conversions? They're wiping out the conversion table and moving to one conversion, retail to office. Is that -- right? Page 46 of 99 A 3 161 August 4, 2011 some guidance from Heidi as to how she sees this language coming together. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I was hoping we were going to -- MS. ASHTON: My suggestion would be, we've gotten some input from the board, Rich has some proposed solutions. I'll work directly with Rich to address the concerns that I've raised and then implement the issues that he's discussed so we can come up with some language that we would be agreeable, but it'd have to be at the next -- at the next meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as the direction is to come up with a formula to allow for the conversion, we can work the language out. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I'm looking for is guidance on that. MS. ASHTON: So that I'm comfortable with what -- that what he said on the record today is what's reflected in the document. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the panel have any issues they want to express in regards to this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It probably will come up in other discussions because we have to go through some of the other documents, so let's just move on. The next level of conversion was your commercial conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good resolution. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would like to simplify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just cross it all off. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we would like to do basically is convert -- have the ability to convert retail to office at a one -to -one ratio. We have 327,500 square feet of retail approved, we're asking for, and 70,000 square feet of office. That totals 397,500 square feet. That number will stay fixed. If we want to build less retail and more office, you could trade. So we can go down to 300,000 square feet of retail and then bump the office by the twenty -seven five. I hope that's -- and as everybody knows, the retail trip generation is higher than medical and general office. So from a transportation standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, from a mathematical standpoint it shouldn't be difficult, and actually from an implementation into various uses within a project it shouldn't be difficult. You're either office or you're retail. We should be -- it should be a fairly easy thing to monitor. And it wouldn't -- we wouldn't be going office to retail. We would just be going retail to office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's one - directional? MR. YOVANOVICH: Retail to office only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So you can't decide that you're not going to do so much office and convert that to retail. It's just one - directional. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be --correct. And if we need to cap the amount of retail we can go to office, we can do that at 25 percent, just like we did for the residential. So you wouldn't end up with a 100- percent office park when we have been talking about a retail and office development. Again, that gives us flexibility for what the market says. Now, I know that was something that has not been supported by staff. And should we talk about that one before I go to the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Donna had a question or a comment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Well, now my only comment is we would not want it to go 100 percent office in that activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So 25 percent is a good figure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, do you want to comment on this aspect of the conversions? They're wiping out the conversion table and moving to one conversion, retail to office. Is that -- right? Page 46 of 99 1 1 A 61 31, August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got one more after this one. Let's do one at a time. It's easier that way. MS. DESELEM: For the record, again, Kay Deselem. It sounds reasonable, but I really need a little bit more time to study and talk it over with staff so we can see what else might be involved, since this is the first time we've seen it. Because I just don't know for sure, but it sounds reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. So, Rich, what other one do you have up your sleeve? MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's the last one. We have the ability to build a 135 -room hotel, and that's 92,000 square feet, and it can go either on the commercial tract or it can go into the business -park tract. What we would like is if the market doesn't support doing a hotel, we would like to convert the hotel -- we would not -- it would be either you do the hotel or you don't. You can't do part hotel and part non - hotel. We would like to convert that hotel to 60,000 square feet of business park only, not retail; it would go in the business park. The business park is 35 acres. It has its open -- we're not trying to change any of the open -space standards, and we'll get into the uses later. Our thought is, if we're having a real successful business park to where we use all 140,000 square feet and there's not a need for a hotel, doesn't it -- that means, economically, we're probably doing a good thing. Why not do more of a good thing by having a successful business park that's providing job opportunities and the like? So we're saying, we would like the ability -- and, again, that number came from traffic trips. That's why it's not a one - for -one 92,000. It's reduced down to 60,000. If the market is really there for a bigger business park square - footage -wise, keeping in mind I could put a 140,000 - square -foot business park and a 92,000 - square -foot hotel on that same 35 acres -- that's 232,000 square feet -- I'm actually coming in less square footage at 200,000 square feet, and I'm doing more business park, which we think is kind of job creation, economic development, something that would be a good thing in this area. So that's our rationale. MS. ASHTON: Can I just ask a question for clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: Are you saying that you would either build a 135 -room hotel -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Or 60,000 square feet of business park. MS. ASHTON: Okay. You can't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No combination. MS. ASHTON: So you're not going to break it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. MS. ASHTON: Okay. I just want to make sure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an either /or. MS. ASHTON: -- I'm understanding when you're proposing. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- and it was confusing, because before we had a conversion that would allow us to give up some of the rooms. We would, again, go back to an either /or, make it real easy, hopefully, to monitor. It's an all -or- nothing, if you will, and take out some of the complication that was there by allowing us an option to do a combination of both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I know, it's going to be conceptual, it's going to be based on further review, and you've got to have time to look at it. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, that's it, that's it. For the record, it does sound reasonable, yeah, and it seems like a much improved version than what we have, because the other one was so convoluted and hard to figure and maybe a little of this and a little of that, and this seems very straightforward and has merit, I think. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to concur with that. Looking this over, I have no problems with it, but the original concept was problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish we had the same conditions of our -- of comments thrown at us. We need time to review it, we've got to read it, we'll look at it. We'll get back to you. MS. DESELEM: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Kay, appreciate it. Does anybody have any questions on the two conversion issues that we just spoke about? Page 47 of 99 151 1 3' August 4, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one. And, Nick, the emphasis on traffic counts. And the number that I just saw used was 3,328. That number's created through the ITE manual and all the other stuff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How could density change and still be within that number? Meaning, I'm trying to think of how to describe it. We have different variables and standards that make up all the computations, and sometimes things can change within them that allow more because the standard was lowered or changed. Is there any way the ITE trip - generation counts change that 3,328 would end up producing more than we're anticipating out of this project? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do an update manual. You had an ITE 7th generation, then you had an 8th generation, but only when they get more information, they tweak the information a little bit, and it's based on, say, intensity per thousand square feet. They'll say, per thousand feet of commercial you get X amount of PM peak trips. Would the 9th generation say it might be a little bit different per square footage? It might, but it's always been fairly slight. They just -- they update a little bit. So I'm pretty comfortable using ITE 8th generation PM peak -hour trips, and that's what they've used here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the next version came out and it said for X amount of trips you need, instead of a thousand square feet, you can fit two thousand square feet in there, that's -- theoretically we'd have to buy into that because of the trip generation that's being accepted as a static point in this application? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you stuck to the 8th generation ITE in terms of square footage to trips, that would lock it in, but I've never seen that drastic of a change. It's always been a minor -- they either add categories or they say more studies have been done and they adjust the PM peak. It's usually, I would say, de minimis. It hasn't been that dramatic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the possibility of them asking for in the future an alternative impact -fee study, or I think you call it an OMB study, to show that the impacts they have on the outside is not as great as they anticipated because of capture rates or other internal means? Could they then come back in and argue, okay, since we don't have the impact on the outside road system as approved by the alternative means allowed by the code, we, therefore, have the right to go ahead with this stuff because we're not meeting our caps. Can that -- is that a possibility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if you tie it back to what the ITE, 8th generation -- you know, trip generation is referenced in this, that they'd have to come back and do a PUD amendment in order to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm already capped. I'm already capped on my numbers. So even if the ITE manual says I have less impact -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he said an the alternative study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at your stages, Richard. You've got various stages -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based upon road improvements and other things you're doing. I wanted to make sure that within those stages we still have some kind of solid control, and it looks like the ITE manual provides that to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's saying -- and without getting into a debate, he's saying if you came in and did an alternative study -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and based on your entire development, your internal capture was higher and your trips outside were less, would that allow you to generate more intensity. What I'm saying is no. Based on what you've submitted, we'll put together a table that allows those uses to ITE PM peak trips and say, that's it. So you're not doing an alternative study. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we can argue with it, but there's no point -- there's nothing to argue about, but I'll be glad to try to make that happen -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Page 48 of 99 b A 1 �j August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you'd like. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks for the offer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on then, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're vacating this easement; that's what we're doing? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are we on, sir? MR. BELLOWS: Fifty -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty -one, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fifty -one of fifty -five. Apparently we had listed, in the list of easements that show the chain of access, an easement we're actually vacating, so that's what that is striking. That easement is actually going away. We're still providing the access but not through that easement. And I know you don't want to hear this, but I think that's all the changes we have to DO. I know there's a concept question I think Mr. Strain had regarding valuation of dedications, and I don't know if that's something you want to talk about at the DO stage or the PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a big issue, and it's in the PUD, and we can bring it up anytime you want because I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's also in the DO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Either way you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I mean, we're in the -- we're talking about the PUD right now. If you want to bring it up now, then let's go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're talking about the DO? I mean, before I leave the DO, is there anything else we need to talk about on the DO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we are on the -- I'm sorry, you're right. We're on the DO. No, we can talk about that issue at this stage or at the PUD stage. Anywhere you want. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I guess, should we try to finish up the DO? Are there any questions related to the DO right now, or do you just want to go to the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm going to -- when you get all done with your presentation, I'm going to go through my three books page by page. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't want to do it item by item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get -- I'm already too confused with this. Try not to do it too much to me. Mr. Eastman, then Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, no. It was Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, you may have done this, but this is in the development order. You changed the reference of up to a 20 -acre elementary school site on Page 42, but there's a similar reference -- and you may have gotten it -- but it's on Page 4 at the very bottom of the page, another up to 20 acres, and I just wondered if you wanted to make the change as well on page 4 to be internally consistent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. On Page 4, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good catch. Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then just when the next draft comes back, there area number of pages where the term "applicant" appeared. I'm not sure if it's on this draft right here that you just distributed, so if we could do a search and replace, and replace either "applicant" with either "developer" or "owner," whichever would be the appropriate one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll do that search to make sure. MS. ASHTON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you want to move to the PUD then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Okay. MS. ASHTON: Rich, are you working off the version that then the -- the one that appeared in the supplement, just so everybody's on same page? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just going to say we've kind of -- we've gone through back and forth, and we Page 49 of 99 A August 4, 2011 submitted to staff -- in response to the issues they raised in their staff report, we submitted a draft dated July 26, 2011. I believe that's the version you have in front of you, and that's the version I'm going to work off of because it shows a couple things. It shows how we addressed staff concerns, and then I'm going to talk about additional concerns that were raised mainly in the meeting with Mr. Strain and us. So I'm going to work off the 26th version, if that's what everybody's got in front of them, July 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for my benefit, would you mind, when you refer to a paragraph, use the numeric reference -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- only because I'm going to be working off the version that came in my booklet, which is 6/28/011. And staff keeps sending us stuff after I've spent a day reading and marking up a hundred or so tabs on a PUD version. I'm not going to re -read another one and mark up another one all over again. So I'm still stuck with that one. I'll do the best I can to follow along with what you've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Besides, that was after the hearing date anyway, right, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. It was after the hearing date that we got the revision. We should have had this before July 21 st. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember you continued it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but the hearing date was originally scheduled by July 21 st. We would have -- we got our packets just before that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, we got the staff report and we met with staff on the 15th, and as a result of the meeting with -- the 15th, we generated a new PUD document to respond to their issues. And we got it to you as quickly as we could, in reacting as quickly as we could to the issues that were raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Rich, just to make sure, those of us that --the one I printed has no footnotes and no page numbers or anything, so is that the one that on the -- like two pages in on the R/MU crossed out, medical, dental and hospital, is that the version? Like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Where -- yeah, where you have No. 8 was crossed out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. All right, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, that's the version. Okay. Starting on Page 2, which would be Section II, AT We would revise Item No. 7 to have it only refer to senior housing for persons over 88 (sic) and delete care units group -- I'm sorry, senior housing for people over 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say 88, holy cow. That's a limited market. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure Mr. Strain couldn't move in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking my mom couldn't even go in that one. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will eliminate care units, group housing, group housing units as defined under the LDC, and then in the middle part of that paragraph we would get rid of foster care because we are limiting the uses to just senior housing for people over 55. So that's how that paragraph will get modified. We would delete churches, which is Item No. 8. On the same page, under B 1, at the end of Item No. 1, we would strike the words "and provide essential services." They didn't seem to be necessary as we reviewed this with Mr. Strain. Item No. 4 on that same page was how we tried to address staffs comment regarding where would the community horse stable be located. It would be located on this parcel here. It's the only parcel east of the Benfield Road. So obviously Benfield serves as a natural break, if you will, for the use of horses in the estate. So the community facility would be located in that area. Item No. 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's -- Donna's got a question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the language here would not allow it to creep over into the preserve, though, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It would be in the R. COMMISSIONER CARON: Residential lands, okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, in the residential lands, as accessory use to the residential. Page 50 of 99 6 ISO 1 A .rs August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but -- and I think I mentioned this to you. See that blue on your master plan? All that R is separated from the horse trails that you would use in the preserves that apparently are currently used that way now by that lake. So what's the advantage of having horse stables over there when they still can't get to the preserve? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to -- I'm sure we'll have to figure out where the lake with actually end and have the ability for horses to find their way to the state forest to go on the trails and all that. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you buy to the north end of that site and your access is only from the end of the lake, you've got to have some kind of horse trail through the yards of everybody's home so they can ride their horses all the way down to the south area to get over to the preserve, and how practical is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're -- yes. We're going to have to deal with that when we design the community if it's going to be a horse - related community. I mean, yes, we're going to have to figure that out, and people who live in a horse community, I'm sure, are going to expect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you could break that lake up and make it a little bit aesthetically pleasing and not make it a canal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, this isn't to the -- the master plan is not supposed to be at that level at this point. You know, we're -- you know, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is when you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- not at final design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is when you're proposing something that we've got to see how it practically fits, and that kind of was a -- like a roadblock. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, we know we're going to have to actually -- when we get to the nitty - gritty details, we're going to have to find a way for the horses to get to the forest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on there, just a scrivener, I think you should add "ed" after "allowed," and maybe -- MR. NADEAU: We did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe -- MR. YOVANOVICH: "Allowed on residential lands lying east of "? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, "may be allowed." It's a scrivener. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And swimming with horses is fun, so maybe that's how you start out. It is. I mean, I've swam with a horse. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not to insult you, but that's what Mr. Mulhere said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple of guys in this room know how to have fun, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Okay. On Item No. 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, before we leave No. 4, let's talk about the size. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's No. 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you -- okay. Well, my copy's No. 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's because you don't want to work from the version that we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you spent the time on -- well, you probably did, but the time I spent on this, I couldn't redo it twice. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, I understand. What we had changed is we broke 4 into two paragraphs, into 4 and 5. The way it reads, for your benefit, Mr. Strain, is "Private stables on single - family lots greater than," and we originally had 10,000 square feet -- we had changed it to 21,780, and we're willing to cry uncle again and go with staffs recommendation from their July 21, 2011, memo and go to 30,000 square feet. So we'll have minimum lots of 30,000 square feet if we want to be able to have a horse, one horse, on an individual lot. And I hope that is okay with staff since it was in the 7/21 staff report, but that's what they were recommending. Page 51 of 99 161 A A 3 August 4, 2011 MS. ASHTON: You just need to consider that horses are herd animals and they like to be together, so if you're going to now be allowing one horse, plus on a half -acre lot, you know, you've got to accommodate for the pasture and you've got to accommodate for the, you know, manure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And, by the way, it's just on the tract east. MS. ASHTON: -- so consider those as you're making your decision. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it would be limited to just the tract east of Benfield where we can have the community stable, not throughout the entire community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in that same sentence it has "horse density." That stays the same? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, one horse per lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, to take Heidi's point, I mean, the minimum lot is thirty thou? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you keep the 21? Let's say I have a sixty thou lot. I could essentially get three horses. If it's a -- if horses like friends, let's give them more. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They have you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're okay with more than one horse. We were told, you can have one horse on a 30,000 - square- foot -or -above lot. We're just responding to the limitations placed onus. If we can have one horse per 21,780 and we decide to do a full acre, we could have two, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would probably be better. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we were told -- the comment we received was, limit yourself to one horse per lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, you know, is this the first time we ever dealt with horse density, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The Estates uses it. The Estates allows one -- that's where the 21,780 comes from is when you calculate the number of horses that are allowed on an estate lot, it equates to the 21,780 per horse. MS. ASHTON: But I think the Estates lot size is 1.25 acres, and then you get one horse per whatever. Staff can answer that better, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in this case -- but in this case you have a 30,000 -foot lot and you've got one horse. You buy an acre lot, you get two horses rather than be limited to one. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine with that; we're fine with that. It's if staffs okay with that and the Planning Commission's okay with that. MS. ASHTON: I think you'd have to change the 21,780 to one acre in the first sentence, and then the second sentence could stay the same, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, did you have something you want to add? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm just curious as to how the horses are going to get around in the residential development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we mentioned earlier. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to design it, Nick, for a horsing community when we get ready, and you'll be reviewing the site plan for it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, but what kind of standards should -- you know, are you going to have them driving -- walking down the middle of the road or provide them a horse trail easement between the lots that allowed horses? MR. YOVANOVICH: And we'll have to deal with that. It may be they can walk down the road. They do it in the Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: They do it in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And, you know, you're going to have signage in the streets. I mean, people are going to know you're in a horsing community. MR. BELLOWS: That's 75 -foot setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not like -- it's not like you're going to come into Pine Ridge and let people walk up and down the street. COMMISSIONER CARON: What do you do in Pine Ridge? Page 52 of 99 ..:a. 1.61 August A 3 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They walk up and down the street. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They walk -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What do you do? Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you've got to take it easy on how much we speak out. Terri's still got to get our names in there, so let's -- one at a time is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have horse trails if that -- if we need to put in there that we'll have horse trails or sidewalks. I'm not -- I mean, I'm serious. Horse walks. We'll have horse walks, horse trails, either in the near or the front to get horses around, I mean, off the pavement, if that's a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are there any equestrian community designs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to look at inserting some of those minimal provisions to make sure that if you decide to go with the equestrian effort, you do so under some standards that are acceptable. And if that means horse trails, then fine, just write that in. But I think if you're going to go that route, especially in a large section with the barricades you're putting up to get to the preserve, we ought to write some standards in there that provide the access that Nick's asking about and some way that we can say, you've got to do this. You don't take the roads. You don't take the sidewalks. That might be the way to look at it. So I'd suggest that those be included in some manner. So do you have any problem with that, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- if you're going to be doing good design, you're going to use them anyway, so why don't you put some -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. That's fine. If we have to get that detailed in the PUD, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what a PUD's for. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, you could say -- why can't we just put something in here that the -- there will be appropriate horse trails that -- to accommodate that? And so are we going to get down at the next -- do you expect us to come back at the next meeting with the development standards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if -- you can come back anytime you get -- you've got to give staff enough time to review it and for Heidi's office to review it, and then come back. If it's the next meeting or the first one in January, it's whatever you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: January? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I said January on purpose. Whenever you want to come back's okay, I'm sure, with this board, Richard. So we'll work as fast as we can to get it done for you, but it's a matter of having it reviewed by staff and the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, can't you just add six -- in the accessory use, add horse trails, like you do in preserves, and then that way you'll design a nice equestrian neighborhood, and it will have horse trails. MR. YOVANOVIC14: I think that works for us, if it works for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff needs some time to think about it. I'm not sure that they realized this use would even be going this fast forward today. But the fact that it is, we need to make sure that it's done in a manner that works for the community. With that water body up against the preserve and some of the other restrictions to get around, it's just not -- it's not unreasonable for you to plan ahead as to how you're going to trail people around that area. MR. YOVANOVICH: I disagree, because the staff report said we could have this use if we had minimum 30,000- square -foot lots. So I think staff said, here's how you fix it; go to 30,000- square -foot lots. We had proposed going just to 21,780. We're now saying, okay, staff, you're right; we'll go to 30,000- square -foot lots. They didn't say, and give us the details of how you're going to get the horses from the house to the state forest. I mean, if they had that concern, I think that would have been in the staff report. The staff report said, go to 30,000 square feet, the July 21 staff report, and we've done that. What we're saying is, we'll include a provision that there be appropriate horse trails within the horsing Page 53 of 99 A 16 1 `1 August 4, 2011 community, and then we can deal with that at the site level stage if that -- without having to worry about going back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can come up with some development standards between now and then. I don't think it will be that, you know, difficult. So I think we'll put our heads together. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next page, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Make sure we got them all. Going to Page 3, which would be Roman Numeral III, the RM -- R/MU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: The second line, it had up to 70,000 gross feet. It's actually 50,000. And then we would like to add at the end of that first paragraph, after the words "Tract C," except as provided for in the land use conversions in Exhibit B." It was in the previous sentence, but it didn't make it to the following sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Heidi. MS. ASHTON: There was a reason I took that out, and I don't recall at this point in time. I think it was -- where did you want to put -- can you say again what you wanted to add? MR. YOVANOVICH: After the words "Tract C" -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we would add "Except as provided for in the land use conversions in Exhibit B," which -- MS. ASHTON: Well, I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because remember we -- MS. ASHTON: I think the reason is, you wanted to go over it, and I think that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and we still do. If -- MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. I don't have my notes, and I don't recall exactly what it was. But when I analyzed it, it was never going to be over 50,000 because of the intensity. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We -- now, we -- it can only be medical. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And now that we have the conversion formula, that would allow us to give retail up to come over to medical. We would like to be able to do -- I'm sorry -- yeah, retail to go to medical office. We would like to be able to put it on that tract where it's designed to go. MS. ASHTON: But retail is a higher intensity than office. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not putting retail there. We're taking -- if we convert some of our retail office space -- MS. ASHTON: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- bring that number down, we want to be able to take some of that square footage and put it on the R/MIJ tract, so that's why the -- medical office. That's why we want to put it there. That's why I want the ability to go above the 50,000 if the -- if we use the conversion formula to create more medical. MS. ASHTON: But there's a problem with the conversion. I'm sorry, it's after lunch so I'm not as clear, but what you're trying to propose is not possible. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. We just talked about the medical conversion. We just talked about being allowed to use retail and converting it to either general office or medical office, because both general office and medical office have less traffic impact than retail, and we capped ourselves at 25 percent. So theoretically we could take 10,000 square feet, by way of example, from the retail, create 10,000 more square feet of medical, and put it on this tract. So we're not capped at fifty; we can go to 60,000 square feet. MS. ASHTON: I'll have to work with Rich on the language, because I have concerns with the way he's proposing it. The prior versions of what I looked at, the conversions didn't work. In some instances they were trying to take an office use and get a retail value from it when it wasn't a permitted use. I mean, it was just confusing, so I'll need to take a look at it and figure out how we can accomplish, because I think what he's trying to do is he wants to take a use that's permitted in retail, but it's not permitted here, and move it over to this tract. So it would be over 50,000. Page 54 of 99 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be over 50,000, but it still would be office, medical office. MS. ASHTON: Correct. It would be one of the permitted uses, but you're pulling it off of a retail use on another tract. So if that's what he's trying to do, I can work with him to accomplish the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no. I was just going to mention to Heidi, it is a one -way conversion now, too. I mean, a little bit -- MS. ASHTON: Before it was a two -way. I just need to check -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Understand what you're saying, absolutely. MS. ASHTON: -- it because I kept saying no, no, no on -- I've reviewed at least 20 versions of this document, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no question. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something else, procedurally, this PUD we're going to be going through it basically page by page, and we've been -- this is all part of Richard's presentation, but I think it might be beneficial, especially since I've got a lot of tabs on these pages, if we hit our issues on each page as they went through them so we don't have to go back through everything twice. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That -- I'm hoping that's what we can do, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that in mind, does the Planning Commission have any concerns on the first two pages that were already passed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, mine already were addressed so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, mine haven't all been, so let's go back to Page 2, and I'm on number Roman Numeral IIA8. You said strike "churches." We discussed it; I thought we were striking the whole thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought I said -- I meant to say strike all of 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of 8 is struck. Then we go down to B, accessory uses. And if we look at No. 3, in that one you refer to community residents and their guests. What is a community resident? MR. YOVANOVICH: Someone who lives in the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the community? The entire DRI or the PUD or the village that you're in or the horse stable section or the commercial section or the swamp buggy section or the JD section or the RV section; which is the community? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think all of the above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under your residential permitted uses you put your accessory uses in, you've got a community center, and everybody in the place, including the commercial tenants, can go and use that community center in the residential section? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want to exclude the commercial tenants from using an overall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just want to make sure everybody understands. Because someone down the road's going to read it, Rich, and they're going to try to interpret it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't think- -- look, the way I was thinking is we would have within our -- like every other project, you can have one big or two big community facilities where people come to, and then within each individual development you can have a smaller -scale community facility. This was to allow for both, and for people who are residents who live within the community can use them. We didn't -- we weren't looking at you can only live in this section to use this community facility, and there may be instances where we do say you can only live within an individual neighborhood to use a facility. It was to cover both situations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a project up on the north end of town -- let's see; I think it's something like Olde Cypress -- that has an issue where they just got their PUD amended but they had a community center, and the concern was they will be brought in -- some outside property into their PUD because of the way it's worded, the outside people would have rights to their community facilities. And I just want to make sure we don't run into that again. Page 55 of 99 A 161 August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll make -- it's for the people who live within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Live within the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful. On No. 4, which could be your No. 5 -- I'm trying to convert for you -- you had a reference to a community stabling. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You still have that? Okay. What's community stabling? Is that like a retail operation that you're going to rent out -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- spaces and sell tack and who knows what else you might be doing there? MR. YOVANOVICH: For people who live within that residential area, it will be a community stable where we'll be providing all of those services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this word "community" in this case is exclusive, where in the prior one that we just talked about it isn't exclusive. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I imagine if you live in one of the other portions of the community and you want to have a horse, you could go rent a stall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are commercial? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We are -- we're accessory to the residents of this community. If I live in a different portion of the community and I want to have a horse and I don't want to buy on the east side of Benfield Road, I can buy -- I can have a horse and I can stable it at the community -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to be responsible for the community stabling? Is it going to be an HOA? Are you going to have a -- I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we have to decide that today? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand how you're going to -- if it's a retail operation or not, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- it's no different than a country club that serves the community where some people are members and some people aren't. You have a restaurant and you have a golf course with that. That's not a retail operation open to the general public. It has some aspects that are retail, but it is accessory to the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have a restaurant there, too? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON: I'll work with Rich to clarify what the community in each of the sections means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two references to community. They need to be clarified so that we're not mixing them up. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I do think it's an important point, because I'm not sure that what you want is for me to decide that I want to buy a horse but I'm going to stable it over in your PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want you -- you can't. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want me there anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't come. You're not allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: But anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You have to live within the PUD boundaries, and you would be eligible to come stable your horse at the community stable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So I think Mr. Strain's point is valid; this is not specific enough. That's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We certainly can clarify that, but the intent was you've got to live within the PUD to be able to rent a stall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other sentence that's here is, horse racing, dressage, or horse jumping events open to the public are not prohibited. So if they're closed to the public they are allowed? They are prohibited, okay. Page 56 of 99 161 1 A August 4, 20 1 I'm sorry. Are open -- are prohibited. So the reverse then is if they're closed to the public you can still have those events but they'd be for the community -- whatever the community happens to be? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be for the residents of the PUD, for those who live within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you going to buffer that operation from the homes and the rest of it? I mean, now you're talking -- because there is a place in Golden Gate Estates that's operating like that right in the middle of the Estates, and it's causing a lot of concerns by the neighbors there. MR. MULHERE: Traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between traffic, deliveries of hay to this facility. The woman apparently claims she has 12 horses, and she's got lights on and all this other stuff going on and full events with loudspeakers. You predict -- that fits the description here. How do you differentiate that operation from a compatibility viewpoint to the homes in the area? I mean, do we have any standards that fall -- that address that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, at some point you have to trust that the developer is going to develop a community that people who ride horses are going to want to buy into, and if they're not going to want to buy into it, we will not be able to sell the lots. We're going to have those facilities on a plan for people to see as they're buying in the horse -- in that portion of the project. Have we gone down to the nitty-gritty detail today to define -- to design that? No. We think it makes perfect sense to have a horse -- especially being located next to the forest, to have a horse community as an option for development. And we will -- we will work those details out as we design that particular phase of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let's go to Page 3 then. And you had left off on the top of the page when Heidi and you started talking about the conversion language. Did you have any more changes you wanted to make on that page? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Item No. 6, which I've put on the visualizer, would, again, change it just to senior housing for people over 55, and we've deleted Item No. 8, which is not on this page, but -- this has been cleaned up, but 8 went away, which is the medical, dental, and hospital equipment sales. So those were the changes to that particular page of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caron -- Miss -- Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven as well as, churches, right? That was coming off of here as well as medical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're leaving in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You told me just the opposite. MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it backwards. It was the residential development, the --purely residential, churches came out of, but for something that could be both. That could be medical use. We wanted to leave churches in subject to approval of the BZA, because that may take on a different -- in a purely residential context, we didn't think churches made sense, but in an aspect where it could be something that's not a residential development -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's specifically called out here as a medical use. That's the other use besides residential that's supposed to be on this parcel. That was the -- the whole point of that strip there was that it was supposed to be residential and medical use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll take it off. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certain that churches -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- Rich, if you could do Pages 3 and 4, then we'll ask for any other board comments, then we'll go on to 5 and 6. MS. ASHTON: I have to say, I don't know if senior housing is, because we have certain development -- you know, we have definitions in the LDC, of which senior housing is not one of them. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is defined in our document in Exhibit B as senior housing for people over 55, which includes independent, ALF, and nursing homes. Exhibit B -- and CCRCs, and it has characteristics that you have to have in order to qualify for the definition of senior housing. MS. ASHTON: I'll have to take a look at that, but I just have to preface that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a feeling we're going to have to look at everything when we're done. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Page 57 of 99 6 e 161 3 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4, Rich, did you have anything on there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Again, at the top, under accessory uses, strike the words "and provide essential services." Oh, sorry. And then we deleted Item 1, which was aircraft -- aircraft and parks. We're not going to build planes here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you just took the fun out of today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Really. I wanted that one in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the only thing I wanted. MS. ASHTON: And there is a sentence on the visualizer that's added on this draft that isn't in your book, but it was in the supplemental one that he submitted, which has not been approved by staff. It begins with, "Furthermore, any office, hotel density not used elsewhere in the PUD may be used within the BP if the other nonresidential tracts are built out, as long as intended use is allowed within the BP tract." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm real confused with what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't get any of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think Terri got quite a bit. What -- let's start over again. What is this you're referring to? MS. ASHTON: If you look on your visualizer and you go to -- it's the third sentence under BP that starts with "furthermore," that's a new sentence that's not in your version on the 6/28 draft. That was something that staff and me -- and I took out of a previous draft. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did not add that sentence as part of the 7/26 revision, that "furthennore" paragraph, sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when did you add it? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was in previous drafts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: But they're showing it on the visualizer, so are you proposing that language? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm not touching that language; that language was in the 7/12 version of the PUD. MS. ASHTON: The version that's in the board package is 6/28, and that was not in there. The 7/12 was the version that they prepared to try to address the issues that staff raised. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that was the 7/26 version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- Rich, here's the 6/28 version, and it's the one I used, and that is not in here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, we added that sentence at some point to, again, address conversion formulas. We'll have to modify it for the hotel dens- -- well, actually hotel density -- MS. ASHTON: Well, it was never approved by staff or me, just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I'm assuming we're going to be going through a substantial review of this to catch up you and me on drafting the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have to, yeah. I'm -- by the way, I mean, I know we've got Kay and Ray, and Nick doesn't do writing -- but Kay and Ray, are you guys making good notes of all this so that we can -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we're taking good notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm only making -- MR. BELLOWS: We also have the video we'll look at, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. So that sentence is going to have to be reviewed separately by everyone. Let's move onto the rest of that one. Anything else on that page, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not that I know of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the Planning Commission, anything on Pages 3 and 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to Pages 5 and 6. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is 5, and I don't -- I'm going to have to shift it up, but Items 11, we added the Page 58 of 99 r 161 August 4, 2011 words -- after 3699 we added "indoor only." In Item No. 17 under industrial and commercial machinery, we restricted those to SIC Codes 3524, 3546, and 3571 through 3579. So we eliminated some of the codes that were previously requested. Under 18 we also reduced the number of requested uses to Items 2833 and 2844. Moving up the page, whichever way we're going, we eliminated Items 26 and 27. Okay. That's that page. Going to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- under wholesale non -trade goods, Item 34, we put in No. 5153 in place of 5159, and then B 1, SIC Code 7363 we said "not including labor pools," because that was a concern about certain temporary labor services. And you can see Item No. 5. We just limited it to the hotels, and we made it very clear that the hotel square footage is not counted towards the 140,000- square -foot cap since they were analyzed separately from a traffic standpoint. So that's 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The title of this is permitted secondary uses, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- none of these uses are subordinate to any other use. Do you think it would be clear if you named it, like, limited principal uses? Secondary kind of gave me the impression there had to be something else before you had this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. They -- we basically took this from the way the terminology is in the Land Development Code. So if we want to change the terminology, that's fine. It's just -- we just --we took the terminology from the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- I mean, but what is permitted secondary? What is -- why does the word "secondary" -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we're capped at 30 percent of the project can be these uses. On the others, it could be 100 percent, but they've got to be no less than 70. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I just think, you know, they're still principal uses, they're just limited. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think the word "limited principal uses" avoids the -- because I thought these at first had to be subordinate to something else. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We're -- if that makes it clearer to people, then we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't matter to me. I mean, if Brad likes it, that works for me. I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because they're not secondary to anything, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Is this your last meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we can't follow you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's see what Bob thinks about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No speak English. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just think these are allowable uses, but you're limiting them in some fashion as opposed to the other ones that have no limitation. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm easy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't matter to me either. But just, when I first read this, I thought that, you know, you couldn't have a daycare center unless it was subordinate to something else, and that's not what you really mean here. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is not -- 30 percent of our project can be developed with these uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that explains it, yeah. Page 59 of 99 a A 161 August 4 2011 g , MR. BELLOWS: That's consistent with the B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's secondary, in a sense, you can -- maximum of 30 percent is all that's allowed. One item up on No. 31, you don't want to do 3731. That's building and repairing tankers, transport vessels, trawlers, lighthouse tenders, naval ships. I really don't think you're going to do that at that location. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be novel. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. I had that, but for some reason I thought we discussed it and decided to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we discussed it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Not you, not you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you said you'd take it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: What number? MR. EASTMAN: Which one was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3731, No. 31. MR. YOVANOVICH: Under Item 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to 7 and 8, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is under Tract C. We eliminated 8, which is agricultural services. We modified No. 9 under the 799 category, which is usually the catchall category, to limit it to only billiard parlors, bingo parlors, marshal arts, and yoga instruction, bicycle and golf cart rentals under the 799 category. And then we eliminated Item No. 10, animal specialty services. Item No. 12 we had a wrong site for the auto and home - supply stores. It's actually SIC codes 5211 through 5261 and 5531. And then Item No. 14, we added the word "including," so it reads "including garage automobile parking structures," and then we added "no towing yards" under that category. And then under automotive repair we have -- MR. BELLOWS: 7533. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I know. I can't read my handwriting at this point. Sony. Under automotive repair we have 7513 through 7533, and then 7536 through 7549 we eliminated 7534 as a use under that category. And then items -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Item 27, we got rid of "including communication towers," and then Item 28 we're modifying it to, again, be consistent with just senior housing for people over 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission on Pages 7 and 8? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, back over on Page 7, your caretaker's unit, I just want to make Ray and Kay or Nick aware of it. The caretaker's units, and they're referenced in multiple locations, are all counted as the residential density against the 1,760. So kind of keep that in mind when you -- however you need to note that. On No. 26, 7361, it was that day -labor number again that we took out previously; did you see a need to leave it there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was permitted secondary -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had actually left 7361 in, Mr. Strain. You're talking about on Item No. 1, going back to Page 6? COMMISSIONER MURRAY Permitted secondary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6, Item No. 1 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 7361? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We went back and looked at that, and I believe it was -- it's establishments primarily engaged in providing employment services, except theatrical employment agencies and motion picture casting bureaus, establishments classified here may assist either employers or those seeking employment. Establishments primarily engaged in operating theoretical employment agencies are classified in the industry as 7922, Page 60 of 99 161 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 those operating motion picture casting bureaus are classified in the industry as 7819, and farm labor contractors are classified in agriculture industries 0761, and then it gives a specific list of chauffeur registries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Read the fourth one is all that I was concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Labor contractors? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Employment agencies, except farm labor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want -- so if we say "except labor contractors "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be better for the project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you need that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. And we were trying to get -- I think earlier we talked about the others. Okay. That was -- we must have missed that one when we were looking at the list. So we'll do that there as well as later on. Actually, we don't need it later on since we have it referred to under business services. Okay. Where are we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Pages 9 and 10. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, 9 and 10. Okay. Now, we probably should have done 9 in the continuation of 8, but these last two paragraphs deal with the senior housing, and they're not necessary based upon the revisions that we made. Eliminated -- MS. ASHTON: Well, let me ask you a question then, because if you eliminate those, the senior housing, is that limited by the square footage then under the commercial, or is it derived from residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. If we decide to put senior housing on the commercial tract, we subtract it from our square footage, retail square footage. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So it's not governed by the FAR like we typically do. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, Kay's leaving, so you're in trouble now. Okay. Bye, Kay. Have a good trip. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Eliminating churches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's only because it's picked up elsewhere under religious organizations, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right. There's a couple in here that we had in a couple of times, so we must have really meant it. Dance studios, the SIC code is 7911. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 36, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Number 36, sorry. Okay. We looked at No. 50, kiosks. We thought the better way to handle it was to actually define, and what it is is "kiosks that are small, separate structures, often movable, and open on one or more sides used as a newsstand, vending stall, or other convenience would be allowed within the commercial area." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Small," not to exceed? I mean, small to you could be 5,000 square feet. So what do you want for "small" to be? And "often movable" means it doesn't have to be, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Two hundred square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that 10 by 20; yeah, that would work. MR. YOVANOVICH: On Item No. 57 I think we got rid of the -- is that an "or "? We made it a comma. And then Item No. 69 we excluded massage parlors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want escort services, steam baths, Turkish baths, and tattoo parlors? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait a minute. No. How come I had on my notes excluding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read all those things to you Monday night. I don't know what a Turkish bath is, but it doesn't sound like a good place for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know we eliminated tattoo parlors. I had the tattoo parlors gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's a horse bath. Page 61 of 99 August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Escort services I don't think we're interested in either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you may be, but you're not going to admit it, but anyway. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a kid show. This is family hour. What were the other ones, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Escort service, massage parlors, steam bath, Turkish baths, and tattoo parlors. Those are what we talked about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. They're all out of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't get Tom chuckling too much, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. Okay, Item 7 goes away because it was covered above in 69. And then Item 72, political organizations, the actual number is 8651. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the Planning Commission have questions on Pages 9 or 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thanks. Eleven and twelve? MR. YOVANOVICH: We struck 90, and in the previous version we had moved the "excluding adult- oriented rentals and sales" to the right location. Under 82 previously we had it under recreational - vehicle dealers, and so we had it in the wrong location, so we moved it up to 82. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they now can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You imagine, the original request in this is was escort services, what we would end up with there. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said you were originally requesting -- you wanted adult- oriented rentals and sales with escort services. What a combination, Rich. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Turkish baths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Turkish baths, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's No. 75? What did you end up doing with that? We discussed it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did we get rid of it? I have it on mine to get rid of it, but it stayed on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had it on mine that you had gotten rid of it, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We're getting rid of that one. I thought we did, too. All righty. We're flying along. Now we're into Tract A, which is the swamp buggy tract. And under Items 2 and 3, we just got rid of the catchall groups. I don't believe they were in the previous adopted PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anybody from the Planning Commission's got questions on 11 or 12? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, wouldn't these attractions sometimes want the RV site and everything near them? Will they be or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Our RV site? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A lot of these kind of events you're allowed to do -- there is a lot of RVs around, a lot of people staying overnight. Is -- is this site -- I mean, you -- I always thought that little R piece near it would be a good place for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you could see where the RV park would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in pretty close proximity to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walking distance? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to the swamp buggy. Yeah. I think so, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let's assume this sport evolves a little bit more. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's assume the sport evolves a little bit. Won't people be coming in RVs Page 62 of 99 16 .1 1 A August 4, 20 1 and staying on -site and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they probably can do that now. Are they doing that now? Yeah, it's in the PUD that they can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's open field. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What number? MR. YOVANOVICH: B6 on Page 13. It says, "picnicking and playground areas as well as areas for camping that may be utilized only three days prior to, during, and three days after each major event." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will work. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Pages 13 and 14. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Nice segue to that page. Under Item No. B2 we struck everything after water - management structures because we have to get them permitted anyways, so that was superfluous language. And we didn't want any scholarly research on the archaeologic site, so we struck the word "scholarly." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't really -- couldn't figure out what you meant by that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I don't think we had any changes to 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have changes on 13 or 14? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to 15 then, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Fifteen, a question was raised, do we even need Item No. Roman Numeral X. I'll put it up here. We struck it. But first going back to Item No. 6 above it, again, that's another reference to water - management structures. We -- obviously it has to be in accordance with permits, so we struck that language. And then the question became, do we really need a separate development tract for right -of -way? I honestly don't remember how it got into the PUD, but we struck it. And if we need to leave it in, that's fine, but we really don't have a tract. We do identify all the right -of -ways on the master plan, but we don't typically identify what permitted uses are allowed in right -of -ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- Nick, the county never has required that that I can recall. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I was just checking his IT trip generation, if you can just refresh me on what he's coming up to right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was looking at something different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have on Page 15 of the PUD, it's on -- they established a definition or a description of a tract for right -of -way, ROW, public right -of -way permitted uses. If it's an ROW, it's public. There's no need to have it spelled out in the PUD what can be done with it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never -- I don't recall seeing that kind of thing before -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I suggested that it be struck. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And nothing on 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's got questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it a certain fact that they will -- the county will accept dedicated right -of -way there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not all of those roads. A lot of those roads will stay private, and some of those will be public, Benfield, Lords Way, Rattlesnake. The rest will be privately owned, privately maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you struck that for the reason that it was designated as public right -of -way? MR. YOVANOVICH: We struck it -- we typically don't have with -- a separate district within a PUD that identifies right -of -ways as -- and what you can do in it. We identify right -of -way on the master plan, but we don't Page 63 of 99 o `v August 4, 2011 have a district with allowed permitted uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think so. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's struck then, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's gone, 10's gone. And that's it in Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on Pages 15 and 16 from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to go over the signs, how many signs we're putting on this master plan and where they're going to -- do you just want to put up your master plan and show them? MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, RWA. If I may refer to the visualizer, on the master plan we have little icons that are denoting boundary markers. They would be located along major public roadways. So when the traveling public is moving on Collier Boulevard, there would be a little boundary marker on each corner, Benfield Road in this corner, moving to the southern portion of the site. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's one by your public facility, too. Is that actually one of the seven you're counting? MR. NADEAU: The one by the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: PF. MR. NADEAU: Public facility also does have signage there, boundary marker. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're up to four. MR. NADEAU: And on the south side we have the southern terminus of Benfield Road as well as the two corners of Collier Boulevard associated with commercial tract. And they're just monument signs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to find out where they were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Exhibit B? Which --a lot of the first two pages, Rich, I think is all going to be rewritten. It's all your conversion standards, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. On the first page, though, we had added this sentence to address staffs comment regarding the 13 units being located on the R/MU tract. That was one of the staff comments, so that's on the first page. And then the -- Page No. 18 would be pretty much -- that's our first stab at rewriting it to implement, as we discussed earlier, the new conversion formulas subject to staff reviewing it. We're also clarifying -- that's where you'll find the definition of senior housing that's applicable throughout, and we just went -- we went through and made sure of that. We're using uniform terminology, got rid of the "care unit" phraseology and went purely to "senior housing." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, on that senior housing care unit intensity where you talk about an FAR of .60, you're capped at 92,000 square feet, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. That's the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're capped at four hundred and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Four hundred fifty units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four fifty units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So shouldn't we reference the FAR but also point that there's a cap not to exceed 450 units? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. MR. NADEAU: It's on the bottom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it down on the bottom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. "In no instance shall be greater than 450." Good catch, Dwight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ASHTON: Can you put the previous page back up. Page 64 of 99 16 A 3 August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Excuse me? MS. ASHTON: Can you put the previous page back up. You went so fast I couldn't get it. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I expect you're going to have to look at all this, Heidi, in greater detail. This was our attempt to write what we had previously described as how we were going to address the retail to conversion to office as well as the conversion of the hotel to business park. And then also -- are we ready to go to the next page, 19, or are we still here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on Pages 17 and 18? Yes, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I don't know --just because we're on the subject of residential, I'd be interested to know what staff thinks about the recommendation to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council with regard to affordable housing. I mean, we haven't dealt with that. I don't know where the proper point of getting to that is. MR. YOVANOVICH: They actually recommended that we not address affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: The planning council -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- did not believe that there was a need to provide affordable housing under today's economic conditions, so they did not go along with their staffs recommendation and actually forwarded a recommendation to not require us to provide any additional affordable housing. Because based on our analysis, there is more than enough affordable housing in the area to satisfy the demand for affordable housing created by our project. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what they've said is different from what is included in our report that we got, which is their staff report that they developed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And their staff report said that, but what was approved by the Regional Planning Council was not what staff recommended. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 19 and 20. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's more correction of the senior housing terminology. The -- we eliminated the language relating to development standards for schools since that's already the law, and we added for recreational - vehicle park a 25 -foot Type C buffer to address staffs concern regarding the separation of an RV park from an adjacent residential development. It's probably not underlined on that version, but we did add that to the last bullet point under RVs. It's in the 7/26 version. And then under sign, development standards, the second bullet, we clarified signage for swamp buggy. That's Page 19. Page 20, for those of you who are on the 7/26 version, if you look under the multifamily dwellings column, under front -yard setback says, "20 feet or a half the building height, whichever is greater." That was to address staffs comment about our taller buildings. So that was to increase the setback for the taller buildings from our neighbors to whatever direction they may be to those taller buildings. Same thing for the rear yard in that category. And then if you go all the way down under maximum zoned height and maximum actual height for accessory uses, we reduced that to 35 feet and 35 feet respectively for accessory uses related to multi -- I'm sorry -- yeah, to multifamily. We also deleted Footnote iii because it's already in the code. Didn't we? MR. NADEAU: Yeah, we did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Triple I. Okay. And going to the next page, we added a footnote to address -- we're adding a footnote to address the 23 -foot separation for parking from sidewalks as -- I mean, that would be at Footnote No. 5 for side - loaded garages and for regular front garages as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Footnote number what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're adding a new Footnote No. 5 to address -- you know, we're required to make sure that any cars that we park in our driveway can't go over a sidewalk, and it's twenty -- we have to have a minimum clearance of 23 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Pages 19 and 20? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a 5 on mine at all. Page 65 of 99 16a ,1 A August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a 5 on mine. It stopped at 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're adding it, we're adding it. That's what we're talking about today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Now, we just put this in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And this is in response to a comment --a question raised by Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's usually in the PUDs. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's in code, but we always usually put it in the PUD as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The minimum distance from the PUD boundaries, it's 15 feet across the board? So you're telling me that you're going to have an 85 -foot building 15 feet from your boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- Dwight, I think we probably need to put that "or half the building height" in there as well. Yeah, I think we need to add that same "half the building height" reference from the PUD boundary as well. Yeah. I'm sure that it will be half the -- well, maybe not. "Or half the building height, whichever is greater" needs to go under minimum distance from the boundary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is this going to be placed on the multifamily? Where is it going to be placed in the map area? Because that's important to know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, anywhere in the yellow that there's an R we can have any of the various product types. And I know that was a comment from staff that they want to limit where we can have our, quote, "taller buildings," and honestly we don't think that's even necessary, and there's several good communities throughout Collier County where they have various product -type heights. Throughout Pelican Bay is one. Pelican Marsh is another where they have their mid -story product throughout the PUD, not necessarily does it have to be immediately adjacent to the commercial area where taller buildings may be allowed. So we think that we should have that flexibility to locate our mid -rise buildings wherever it lays out on the plan that makes sense in the future. I don't think -- if you go through Pelican Bay, you'll see two -story product right next to five -story product, and it looks -- it looks nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to go back to the distances from the boundary hereon all of these. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- everything he has listed was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It would have to be the same throughout. It would be the same throughout, 15 feet or half the building height which is ever (sic) greater for all product types. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought that's what you intended. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. Well, it's certainly at the minimum what I intended. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It's lesser an issue when you're talking about a single - family home, because they're only going to be, what, top, 35 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but I mean, you've got 50 -foot buildings here, you've got 85 -foot buildings, so, you know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there anywhere else on the 951 corridor where you have 85 -foot multifamily? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if they get that tall in Lely Resort; do you, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do not. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if they've gotten that approved or not. I know if you go towards Marco COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing on the boundaries of -- that's for sure, on Lely. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know that. I know that. But what staff was actually pushing us to was putting Page 66 of 99 ' ",° 163 A August 4, 2011 those taller buildings closer to 951. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Close to the commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, towards the commercial, which is closer to 951. MR. BELLOWS: I think the staff concern was where you would have abutting residential ends to the PUD, that there would be these tall buildings that would be affecting properties outside the PUD; whereas, on 951 there's certain expectation of building heights because it's a commercial node. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And from a residential standpoint, when you're looking at -- we are -- you know, basically we're going to have -- if we're 75 feet tall, the setback's going to be 37- and -a -half feet from the boundary, plus the buffer. So we didn't think a 75- foot -tall zoned height, 85 feet actual height, certainly within the area, will raise -- pen is (sic) -- or anywhere along there, really, would be offensive to anybody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- comment? You asked me a question before. The community -- I belong to the civic association. And for years and years and years, the concern we have had is not having tall buildings. We don't want canyonization. And I know that along rights -of -way 75 -foot is the current committed. But we worked with Treviso Bay people to make sure that their towers were pushed way back. And I would tell you we'd have a preference for moving any tall structure as far back as we can. So I'm just conveying the thoughts as I understand them from the community, and I've been very involved for a long time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Murray, since you're probably -- and you're probably the closest to this, I think, where you would live. What distance would you like to see a residential building taller than 50 feet be located from 951? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think we'd have to go to a line of sight, and that's the only way I can relate to it. I'm not in a position to be able to tell you it should be 363 feet or any other number. There's a line -of -sight issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Rich, why don't you just eliminate it from Pod A? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one's A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, C; I'm sorry, Pod C. Everything else is set back in from 951. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, that scares me, because that's what I just said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about eliminate it from Pod C, which is the -- this piece right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's good that you point it out. Yeah, please, if you -- I don't know what the distance there is in depth, but it looks like it's a healthy chunk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're going to have frontage, landscaping, and line of sight is the biggest factor. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we'll eliminate it from Pod C and we'll figure out how to fix that onto the master plan, because we don't have pods on the PUD master plan. But we'll be able to work that out. MR. TORRES: We'll move that area to a lesser height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Hammock Bay, I believe, is a residential tower that exceeds 80 feet, but it is set back quite a bit from 951. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't really want to site that one, because that's, like, 20 stories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a biggie. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't think that was a visual comparison that I really wanted to make. COMMISSIONER CARON: You really didn't want to go there, okay, Tom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just because I think there -- I think that is apples to oranges. Page 67 of 99 161 1 - A ugust 4, 2011 MR. EASTMAN: The question was posed, and that's something that answers that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you asked Tom -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't need you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the next school's going to be 85, 20 stories high. So any other questions? Let's go through Page 19 and 20. COMMISSIONER CARON: What happened to seven - and -a -half feet between single - family homes? MR. YOVANOVICH: We should have six. I thought six was the number. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, seven - and -a -half is what -- we've been doing that for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I thought we were -- I thought we were -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- from Ken for a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ken Abernathy was six. MR. YOVANOVICH: He was a six. That was the six -foot rule. We always wanted five. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it was seven - and -a -half rule. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that was -- the six was the compromise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The last time I burdened you with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- six as opposed to the five, and you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I tried to go back to the old -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You acquiesced, and I appreciate that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, guys, one at a time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. Sorry, Terri. You're right, I did, after an appropriate amount of time, try to go back to the five, and Mr. Murray held my feet to the six. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be better with seven - and -a -half, but six was -- I found acceptable at the time. Perhaps we should have a stronger number. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If you would talk to Victor Hill from the forestry, he would say 30 feet between homes. So there is a big difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, on accessory structures you don't have a minimum distance from MPUD boundaries, do you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I lost my pages, sorry. Bear with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20, Table I. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see -- I don't see that category, so I think we're going to need to add that, minimum distance from PUD boundary. Yes. We don't have that, do we? We need to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you refer to half building height, your definition just says BH is building height. Ms. Caron probably means actual, and you probably mean zoned. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, sure. I gave you the example of 75 at 37 and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I heard you, but I also was thinking how she might be thinking, and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I knew what he meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is zoned okay? Why don't you just put zoned. COMMISSIONER CARON: I knew what he meant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down there where it says building height, why don't you add zoned so everybody that little -- wouldn't come up in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break till 2:45 and come back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Forty-five you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two forty-five. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can handle this meeting without Richard, but if he wants to come in and entertain us, he better do so. Page 68 of 99 s 6 1 A August 4, 2011 During the break I got a call. In a couple minutes the folks from the Pine Ridge Center west are coming back in. We're going to finish with them this afternoon, so we're going to take a little change in mode here, since this is not going to be done today. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're a funny, funny guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we do have a change in tactic. I'd like to go back and try to -- and I know that there's more to do with the PUD, and it could easily take up the remaining time that this board's going to be here. I would like to get at least get one thing out of the way today, and that is the Growth Management Plan. So let's -- if you don't mind switching gears for that for just a moment -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to see if there's any questions. We can resolve that one and then go on with the other two, and that will at least get us a foot through the door. * * *So CP- 2006 -11 is the growth plan amendment involving Hacienda Lakes mostly involving the commercial change to the front of the property alongside the hospital where the -- I believe the 10 acres -- or whatever it is that got moved in the activity center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nine point something, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know you included your presentation as encompassing all of these, so I guess I'll just go straight into questions from the Planning Commission on that three -ring binder titled "CP- 2006 -11." Does anybody have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, weren't we going to go a little further in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are, but here's the problem. We're going to quit at five, and we may have to continue those things that aren't done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since the CP -- the Growth Management Plan amendment -- and they -- there's going to have to be readvertising and all that good stuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd rather minimize the amount of advertising and other costs and only continue the absolute items that are necessary. And this one, I think, with a few questions can be resolved, and we could vote on it and get it done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just coming up to the good part, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah. We haven't got -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was kind of hoping there were no questions since it got transmitted unanimously the last go- round. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The Comp. Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I only have 20,30 tabs. MR. YOVANOVIC14: Boy, I'd hate to see how many you'd have if you didn't like it the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I want to make sure my questions are answered. I posed these questions. I went over them with you. I just want to make sure they're answered, that's all. So -- and they may all be. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: When we talked I had asked three questions on three different things that affected the DRI itself. One had to do with the Lords Way and the language there, and that's all been -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. In the PUD document, we have cross - sections that tell you what we'll do if we're going to build it to serve a business park. So that's in the PUD document itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then there were the FDOT comments. And are those -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I forget -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The comments themselves, you're fine with those -- adding that -- some sort of language? I mean, the language is going to change because we've just changed our bottom lines and square footages anyway. But is there any problem with the DOT language? MR. YOVANOVICH: We addressed the DOT language in the DO, development order. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So I mean, I'm -- we're focused on the Growth Management Plan amendments Page 69 of 99 16 1 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 right now, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that's what this is under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, right. Just the GMP amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I think -- Commissioner Caron, I think your questions, these last two really are related to the PUD and the development order, not the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That staff report included all three. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Well, this specifically refers to the GMP. The FDOT Comment No. 1 was, "While the proposed amendments to the GMP could result in an increase of overall densities and intensities, the amendment does not include policy limiting the allowable amount of development to that specified in the DRI," so that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I recall. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the GMP language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But -- and it typically doesn't. What happens is you take care of that through the development order and the PUD stages of the project, and we did. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, I'll re -read the DO stuff, but I'm not sure that what we did in the DO today -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Look at Page 32 of Page 55 in the DO, and that will -- that's how we addressed FDOT's comments, and they were happy with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the final thing was that in the traffic report -- and I read you the sentence from the traffic report. It said that there were different uses. And did you check on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, and I forgot what the question was, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the traffic -- in the traffic analysis, the first line in the second paragraph or whatever it was, said that there were different uses from what had been there before. I didn't notice any in my review, but I don't know. And you were going to check on that for me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to make sure, because I'm going to ask the traffic -- this is the one that says, "The revised transportation analysis was prepared in response to review agency comments and due to some changes in the proposed land uses "? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that actually is part of the DRI, but I'll ask -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, sorry. At this point I don't think it matters, just answer it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners Caron, what it was is the business park was not in our original submittal, so that's the reference to the changes in the land use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions about the three -ring binder for the Growth Management Plan change in the activity center? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My questions are down to one, and it's more of Corby than you. So we've got to have staff report. If you don't have anything else, we'll get staff report on this issue then. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt with the comprehensive planning section. I won't waste your time with a long review and report, but I'm available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to get closer to the mike, Corby, if you could. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I might as well break in, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the risk of missing something earlier, on Page 7 of the staff report, your recommendations, you have two differences, I think, with petitioner to adopt with modification and not to adopt. Are those still your views consistent with what you currently believe? MR. SCHMIDT: They still are, yes. Those modifications are that double strikethrough -- I'm sorry -- double- underline portions of the Exhibit A, and those have been completed, and we support those changes. Those are those modifications. Page 70 of 99 6 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And are you feeling strong on those views or they're -- I notice you say with modification. Has there been an effort to make a modification? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. They're made, reviewed, completed, and acceptable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you found that acceptable? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that one's struck, not a problem. And the acreage allowed for southeast quadrant of MUAC No. 7, that one has not been modified? MR. SCHMIDT: There's been no change to staffs review, opinion, or recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a big chunk of acreage. Okay. Well, we'll have to ask Mr. Yovanovich what his views are on that now. COMMISSIONER AHERN: We already approved it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're talking GMP. That was my question. I'm going to be asking you that same question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While Corby's up there, did anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He could answer it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Richard, do you want to answer Bob's question now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, Corby. MR. YOVANOVICH: Obviously, we don't agree with staffs recommendation that -- of the denial of adding the acreage. We had a long discussion about how the history of how that acreage got taken out in the first place, and there was a long discussion about the market is going to determine whether or not that acreage actually gets developed or not. And I thought, in front of the BCC, staff basically modified their position as saying it wasn't a big deal -- a big enough deal for staff to continue to argue over the nine acres for transmittal purposes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wasn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a big deal, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. It wasn't a major deal for us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Nick, you're going to have to say that. I thought that's what, ultimately, in response to questions from the board -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct what? I didn't hear. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That it wasn't an issue for the nine acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was not an issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was not an issue. It wasn't a major issue for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Would you do me a favor, Rich, or somebody, show us on the visualizer where that acreage is so we can -- maybe you could put the horses there. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: The horses would start right around here. It's right here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a significant piece of change for you. You need that, I'm assuming. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is -- it is, because we -- when Mr. Bauer sold the land to the hospital, about nine acres of it was in the activity center, and it was always with the understanding that since the hospital didn't need the activity- center designation, he would be allowed to take those nine acres and put it over here. So it is very important to us to have that nine acres back. And I thought that became a relatively insignificant issue for staff upon further reflection, and the board unanimously transmitted and so did you -all recommend -- you unanimously recommended transmittal of those additional nine acres, and so did the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember that very well. And the reason I raise the question is because it's still in here as still an issue that, quote- unquote, staff doesn't recommend it. So I think we should clear that matter up. I can understand that staff has a position that's based on GMP and the rest of those criteria. But you've indicated that that's not necessarily -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it's inconsistent that the comp planning review folks have maintained their position throughout. And what was asked of us, if it was a significant modification; we said it was not. And Page 71 of 99 A 3 ' August 4, 2011 they said, if we could live with that, and we could as staff. But we still held our reservation with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, that's better for me because now I understand you are saying still not to adopt it, but if it were that's not earthshaking? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not earthshaking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. That was what I needed to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I do have one. Under Part 5 of 6, the urban designation for business park, Subdistrict H -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we added language, except that a business park, in Section 14, may have access to an arterial road via the Lords Way. But isn't that access contingent upon certain improvements occurring on Lords Way? MR. SCHMIDT: They are not, not for the business park. The kinds of improvements that are being required of the Lords Way for some of the other uses are acceptable to allow for all those that might be associated with the business park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. The business -- okay. Richard, do you want to shed some light on this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Very specifically, Mr. Strain and others, when we went through this process, you wanted to make sure that in the PUD document we included the type of cross - section we would have to serve the business park -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for Lords Way to serve the business park. We have done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: The cross - section is in there. So the Lord -- I guess if you want to clarify it -- the answer to your question was, yes, the Lords Way can serve as the access provided. It is built to the county's standards for it to serve as appropriate, you know, access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I was getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So, yes, you did say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to clarify, because it doesn't say that on H, and I was wondering if we should expand a little bit on H to let -- make it clear that it can't be left as it is. It wasn't to serve as an access to arterial road via Lords Way without any improvements. Those though improvements are as defined in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or -- yeah, as -- to meet county standards is the quick and dirty way of saying it. That's the way it was, provided it meets county standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And, Corby, do you have any problem with embellishing the language so that it's clear in that regard? MS. ASHTON: I'd prefer to just leave it the way it is, because this does give them the ability. It says that they may use that access, but it doesn't -- I don't think it really binds the county, and those are issues that we'll be addressing during the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they -- the way it says now, "May have access to arterial road via the Lords Way." So what is the deciding factor, then, on whether they may have that access or not? There is none. They could have it just like it is today by that language the way it's written. That's the only concern I had. MS. ASHTON: And -- that's correct. And there's only, I think, one property that would fit the description here that could possibly use that access point. But what the applicant was trying to fix is that a business park could not have access unless it was on an arterial, and that's kind of what we were fixing. So my preference would be to address it in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the only reason for the exception here is because of the improvements they are going to make to Lords Way so that a business park accessing an arterial as a result of Lords Way would be substantially safer than it is today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they could use it today the way this is written, and that's not what the Page 72 of 99 1 -A August 4, 2011 intention was. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we're in line. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And when you're talking about a business park, you're talking about some pretty intense uses. It needs to -- that road needs to be fixed before it can become the access for a business park. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, for -- it's in -- I understand you're talking about the GMP. It's in the PUD under Section 5. Right, so you want it in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- the GMP is a stand -alone document. I'd hate to see someone else come along and says, hey, it says that in the GMP. We don't have to do any more. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to reinforce what was said, because I remember we were very clear about making it a predicate. So should it be included in the GMP? Yeah, sure, why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? to it -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I think the petitioner agrees, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby -- Corby don't have a problem with it, so let's just -- let's add that clarification MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. C14AHZXIAN STRAIN: -- pursuant to -- okay. Then we'll be off and running. Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Corby or the applicant regarding the CP- 2006 -11? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This was the one we can get past. So with that, why don't we vote on it and get it over with, then we can throw the books back at David or whoever comes in and wants them and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would make a motion -- MS. ASHTON: Could Rich read back one more time the language that we're inserting at the end of the sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's going to come back on consent, but go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just -- why don't we just say, "Provided it meets county construction standards." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you'll see that it does through the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think you need to get into the specifics of what they may be in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how much -- what's your stabilization thickness and how much -- what's the thickness of your asphalt? You don't want to do all that here? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're killing me here; you're killing me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a motion to -- MS. ASHTON: I'd prefer that it read something like "provided it meets county road right -of -way standards for a business park." MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's perfect. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's going to come back on consent. I figure between now and then you guys could work it out, and we'll see it. We're just saying it needs to be clarified, and how you do that is whatever right way you come up with. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Mr. -- oh, Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll move that we proceed on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You recommending approval of CP- 2006 -11 with the clarification involving the Lords Way and with the -- as transmitted? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You take credit for the -- you take credit for the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your motion. Who wants to second it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. Page 73 of 99 6 1 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN Bob seconded it. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. So at least we are done with the GMP on this project today. I'll leave these books here for anyone -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, so far we're one for three, and if I was playing baseball, I'd be a millionaire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, we left off on Page 21, which is the notes -- it starts with the notes and goes into detail of your terrace setbacks, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I flew right by all that stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I had on -- well, that's Page 21 and 22. Anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure what those pages are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it starts with Figure 1, terrace setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, your Note No. 2 up on the -- that I'm seeing here, it says, " Firewall protrusions into required yards are permitted up to 3 feet. I had that circled and said that's not an LDC issue. And you were -- I know we talked about it. I can't remember the outcome of our discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Apparently what happens is when -- your firewall can protrude out into your front yard and up -- is that right, Mr. Schiffer? -- up through the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It can. It doesn't have to. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't have to, but it can -- to separate structures that are in a line. And that -- and so if -- that protrusion towards the front can go 3 feet into the setback, is what we're trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fire code or an LDC condition? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a method of how you could construct the residence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A firewall is a pretty precious thing, because it does separate two units. It has to be designed so the one side could collapse without taking the other side down. It can go past the front of the building. That's actually the code minimum, but then there are alternate ways of closing paths. Because some of these units are so tight, you're never going to be able to fireproof, you know, the four feet to the side of the fire, because you have five- foot -wide courtyards. So I do see no problem in letting them count the firewall coming past the setback as not being part of the setback. We do in the code have supplemental things where, you know, columns and things like that can do that; not quite three feet but they can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm getting at is, are we looking at a provision that's trying to get a deviation from the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it has to be done differently. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be -- it would be the supplemental. And Ray can pull that section Page 74 of 99 161 4 August 4, 2011 up. But there are assessed -- things that are not measured in the setbacks. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're just making it clear, just like you have in other instances, maybe on a roof overhang or something -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that that can encroach into the setback. Same thing. That's not a deviation. That's just an exception to a setback rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If your roof overhangs are already addressed as an exception and if you want to go different than what's already being addressed, you'd have to do a deviation, I would think. Ray, do you know anything about this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The LDC has provisions for roof overhangs into required yards. And if they are differing from it -- it's kind of like coming up with a different development standard. I wouldn't treat it as a deviation, but you would note it as a change from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing, Ray, balconies have a different requirement, overhangs have a requirement, pilasters, you know, have a requirement. I think this is exceeding, essentially, the wall parts, which a pilaster or something would be. So he is asking for more dimension than I think that part of the code would give him. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The question is whether it should be treated as a deviation. I don't believe so, since it's a kind of a setback dimensional standard, and we don't treat those as deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then are they variances? MR. BELLOWS: It would be if they did it after the PUD was adopted and it was different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a bad thing, Brad, from your experience in the architectural world? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they're going to need it. When we go to the next couple pages, they have some really tight units that are going to be very difficult for them to protect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if it doesn't hurt anything and it expedites the process -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not really against that. So why don't we move on to pages -- the next two pages, which my pages are 23 and 24, but whatever you guys -- wherever you want to go from there. Richard -- or, Brad, if you have -- we're into those architectural standards, so why don't you talk about those to whatever extent you need to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Figure 7, I think, is my biggest concern. Those little side areas there, what is the dimension that courtyard's going to be? And I think if you really look at these units, hopefully you're not going to design it in that exact footprint, because these would be pretty miserable places to live. MR. NADEAU: Again, good afternoon, Dwight Nadeau for the record. We have 24 feet. This is just atypical that was taken from some of the designs that were done over in Lely's Ole', where you have paseos and courtyards to try and get vehicular use out of the front yards. So it's more of an alley served attached single- family use. This is providing for the opportunity to do a plat to allow for lot lines that run between units very similar to townhomes. So the paseo can vary, but we're just showing minimums in there. So it would be 20 -- 24 feet that would be permitted between those two areas between the units that provides the paseo or the walkway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my real question was, if you look at the typical unit, there's -- and you note it side, side, and there's a courtyard going back into the unit, how wide is that? Is that the 5 -foot setback? So these units have zero or five feet, so I assume that's probably five feet, right? MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially the front yard, you come into an alley, you pull into five feet, which I assume would have a garage door there -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then you go into this unit. The windows of this unit are looking at a wall five feet away. The wall -- MR. NADEAU: No windows on that side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the wall on the property line can't have windows by code, so there's no windows in that notch? MR. NADEAU: There may be some light coming in. I don't have the actual architectural design for this. Page 75 of 99 F August 4, 2011 This is just a footprint design. But typically they're not going to have a window that close to look at the face of another building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And unfortunately they could. And then you go back to what's marked as the rear. Is that the front door there? If I was to visit you and you lived in there, which door -- MR. NADEAU: That would be -- typically it would be the front door. What happens is, when you pull in your car off the alley into the garage, you just enter your unit through the door in your garage. The fire district also required us to put man doors on the back side of the alleys as well; however, the paseo is more of a social area, getting to and from a community amenity or something like that, greeting your neighbors. It's just open space between the fronts of the units so you don't have cars in the front yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the units -- and then off of that rear wall you're 24 feet to your neighbor. So you're going to be greeting your neighbor a lot. I mean, you're going to be -- MR. NADEAU: But these are minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- saying hi to them while you brush your teeth. MR. NADEAU: These are minimums, Commissioner. They certainly can be more than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean -- and is the intent -- these units will be sprinklered buildings? MR. NADEAU: I can't respond to that. While we have had communications and meetings with fire- review staff at Growth Management Division, I cannot tell you whether these would be sprinkled. That would be up to the architect and NFPA standards. You probably could tell me better than I can tell you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'll tell you they're going to be sprinkled. MR. NADEAU: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- I mean, the problem I have is these are really kind of -- I mean, and maybe a designer could really make these look good. And I know that this is the footprint of the building and there could be notches and things that make these really nice places to live, so -- but it's really tight in there. I mean -- and the reason we're doing this -- because here we have this huge amount of land. Why are we cramming this kind of product on it? MR. NADEAU: It's just providing for some sort of neo traditional design, provide some open space, get the vehicles out of the front yards to the greatest extent possible, provide some community feel within these little development enclaves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dwight, those are nice things, I mean, but it's really tight units. Unfortunately, the neo tradition is kind of not good, you know, housing; they're from the past. The next page, Figure 8 -- and you said you've worked this length of this alley without a turnaround with the fire department. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Actually, they've mandated the 40 -foot clear area. They mandated, as I said earlier, the man doors. There's certain distances that the emergency vehicles need to be away from a door, and so these remedial measures are shown on here. And, again, these are minimums. It could be much wider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they didn't request the turnaround at the end, okay. MR. NADEAU: And they didn't request the turnaround because we were limiting it to less than 150 for backing distances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. I mean, I measured it; it's longer than that. But if they're cool with it, that's their world. Again, these units are really -- I mean, are you going to do a lot of this kind of product or -- MR. NADEAU: We don't -- all this is is an option. All this is is to provide some guidance to a staff member that might be reviewing a plat that looks like this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think -- the only other comment. You may have an area where you show 40 -foot minimum. I think that arrow should go to the front of the house. MR. NADEAU: Actually, they wanted it -- not to contradict you, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. NADEAU: -- but this is separation from the eaves, 40 -foot separation from the eaves, not from the face of the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the dimension below of 30, and then 5 and 5 -- MR. NADEAU: That's -- Page 76 of 99 16 1 1 A 3 August 4 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- are pointing to the exact same spot, so the -- MR. NADEAU: I have a 5 -foot minimum that goes from the front of the building out to beyond -- to where the access easement is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially the property line. MR. NADEAU: Effectively -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have a 5 -foot front setback. Okay. God, I hope you don't do much of this. I mean, because it really isn't -- you know, this is not -- these are citizens that are going to be living in these things. I mean, unless there's something happening in the design that makes this wonderful. MR. NADEAU: There are similar situations in Ole' of Lely Resort; however, they didn't do any platting. I can tell you that this is unique, and I am -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. NADEAU: -- trying to break new ground here to plot these types of units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you might have some trouble. You know, there's some issues with the building code. I think you will fall under the building code. You won't be able to do this with the residential code, my prediction, because of the configuration. But anyway, that's a good thing because that will be the sprinkler requirement and -- MR. NADEAU: Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- those setbacks will become courtyards, not setbacks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: On all of these figures, there's a note that says "building massing," and for Figure 5 it says no more than eight units can be combined into one structure. What does that mean? MR. NADEAU: Well -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the length of that little strip mall of houses? MR. NADEAU: No more than eight units combined in one structure. Effectively what we're looking at is a townhome unit. So how many units could we fit? Eight. COMMISSIONER CARON: Eight is what you've said here. MR. NADEAU: I've seen townhome units as small as 23 feet and as wide as 32 feet, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, could I make a comment? MR. NADEAU: Could be 256 feet wide -- long. Could be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think a good thing about this is, we've done a lot of townhouses where we've never put a limit on them. So, I mean, I think this is at least going to stop it at eight units, which shouldn't be too big a run for -- MR. NADEAU: And these were recommendations of staff, the building mass. I mean, I didn't write that. COMMISSIONER CARON: So for Figure 6, would that be about the same length, 256 feet? MR. NADEAU: Yes. We can estimate that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about for Figure 7? MR. NADEAU: No more than eight, so we may be in the same situation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And the same -- well, no 8 -- you're up to 16 units. MR. NADEAU: Yes, but that retains the eight -unit width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about your multifamily? MR. NADEAU: No massing was required by staff on that one. It would be flat over flats, garden apartments, whatever the market could bear. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Dwight, do these units -- when they're built, do they come with a shoehorn? I notice that you indicated they come from -- you guys copycatted Paseo over in Lely Resort. MR. NADEAU: Well, the designs came from -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I gotcha. Page 77 of 99 A 3 August 4, 2011 MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course, they also have an ice -cream parlor and a movie theater and fountains. What are the amenities that are the relatable to this? MR. NADEAU: Well, these are just typical type of units to be able to demonstrate setbacks, separations between units. The amenities would be coming out of the accessory uses that are permitted in the residential -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have none contemplated? MR. NADEAU: I haven't quantified them, but we have provided for individual recreation tracts in every -- all of the communities that we've anticipated within the DRI/PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you expect that these particular type units would be more for people who are seasonal? MR. NADEAU: They could be second homes. In fact, I've been told that probably none of those attached units that Commissioner Schiffer and I were discussing would ever be built because, as I've been told, pioneers get shot. But up in the Panhandle they're very well -- very well received. So in this community this may be an -- entirely a single - family subdivision property. All we're doing is providing for the opportunity to take a look at it should a developer wish to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could do the arithmetic, I suppose. But what would you say, in a unit such as the one on Figure 7, how many square feet is that going to end up being for living space? MR. NADEAU: Those units will vary anywhere between about 1,200 square feet to almost 1,800 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point out for me, if you will, the ones for the 1,800 squares. MR. NADEAU: They would be the long ones, the larger ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at Figure 7. Should I look at another figure? MR. NADEAU: If you look at Figure 8, the long ones along the back of the courtyard, the vehicular -use area, they're longer than the interior units. Those are the ones that were larger. MR. TORRES: They're normally two stories as well. That's how you get up there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will just say it scares me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the --still on the figures. Anybody have any questions on the figures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. It says, "Detached single- family or townhouse units." So these can be fee- simple single- family? MR. NADEAU: They could be, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said they're about 1,200 square feet with maybe the smallest ones in the middle, and then up to 1,800 square feet, approximately? MR. NADEAU: They could be, yes. The ones that we've worked with, they were ranging between 12- and about 18 -. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on your 1,200- square -foot single- family fee simple ones, what would be your starting prices? MR. NADEAU: Oh, my goodness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a guess. Would it be over half a million? MR. NADEAU: I would hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be over 200,000? MR. NADEAU: I don't believe that it would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did -- I know what you -- I know you're trying to cover -- you know what I'm getting at. Your DRI says you did know. It says your single - family sale price would start at 350,000. Now -- MR. TORRES: He's got a small product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Then that's another -- then there's where I was going next. If these are single - family fee simple but you're going to count them as multi, how do we judge that in regard to this total of 760 in the mixture's supposed to have, and how do we do the conversion ratio that you're supposed to have between the multifamily and the single- family? Nick probably knows this, because he deals with it every day. Page 78 of 99 b 1 1 A 3 Y August 4 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We consider those multifamily units. MR. NADEAU: Yes, by definition, any unit -- any building that has three or more units, it's multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a single- family fee simple is considered multi? MR. NADEAU: No, no, no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the purposes of the sale, which is not what we deal with, they sell them as fee simple because they put that partition wall. But when they're built together, both for the Building Department side and for the planning side, they're considered multifamily units. That's a multifamily building, even though it's sold off as a fee - simple parcel. Heritage Bay came back and replatted multifamily buildings and put the zero lot line between them because they couldn't get mortgages from banks to purchase condo units, so they sold them off as platted single- family or single units, but they're considered multifamily from everybody's perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does a DRI look at them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: How does the what? MR. YOVANOVICH: Multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the DRI look at them when you go to count? MR. YOVANOVICH: Multifamily. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Multifamily, sir. I would consider those multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's a single- family attached? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A duplex. MR. NADEAU: It would be a single - family -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you have standards for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's called -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You've got two- family duplex, but you also have single - family attached. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you're selling the individual units and the ground below it, two or less, that's the single- family attached. A duplex is when you're selling a half, correct? MR. NADEAU: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, now you got me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything more than three -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's the difference between a duplex and a single - family attached? MR. YOVANOVICH: Semantics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how do we judge on your development standards which one to use, and how do you judge in your reporting period which ones the DRI goes by? MR. YOVANOVICH: Three or more -- as I understand it, three or more is multifamily. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Two or less; two, one, would be considered single. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think we put a line in there that we define it that way so, no, there is no ambiguity. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that how we're doing it mathematically? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Yeah, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building code definitely defines it that way. There was an attorney general -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I think it was Charlie Crist when he was attorney general stated in the 90s that anything with three or more is a multifamily, has to honor the building code. It's not in the residential building code. They can call it whatever they want, but it is a multifamily building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it run under an HOA or a condo association? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No different than if it were single - family, if it was an HOA or condo association. The way they do the docs are almost identical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To what? Is a four -plex, fee - simple single- family a condominium or an HOA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand they've done them both ways, sir. The way staff would treat that Page 79 of 99 August 4, 2011 right now -- and if we need to put it in the document, I would agree with you -- anything above three family or more would be considered multifamily for the purpose of the document. I think we need to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is going to have a bearing on your cost per unit when we go to analyze your single - family versus multifamily in the spread that you have in your cost, because your single - family start at 350,000. So I'd be curious to see what you now consider single - family at that price because, I mean, all the single - family is really multifamily for everything else. Wow. That's hard to understand. I guess we'll just -- I mean, probably -- now that I've got that understood, now that you've made that point, I really need to re -read these documents again to see what it means. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What -- Commissioners, just for clarification, what's happened in the past year or two in the market, and you -- probably some of you are familiar with it -- banks stopped lending money to condo units, and they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Heritage Bay came in for that reason. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but I don't think ramifications of that across the board may have all been thought out, at least by me. So I certainly want to review it under that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- aspect too, because when you re -read the documents and you realize that these are single- family but they're in a multifamily building, if that has bearing, it's something we need to know as we read. MR. BELLOWS: Townhouse. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think we need to put that language in the document when it comes back to you that defines it. MR. BELLOWS: The LDC also defines it as a townhouse, which is three or more dwellings in a building. So it might have fee - simple lots associated with a townhouse, but it's -- from a Building Department review, it's a multifamily structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so they can finance, because of the firewall -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is in the building code too, townhouses with firewall. They can finance it as an individual building, individual unit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple questions just for understanding purposes. I know what a 4 -foot walkway is, but what's a 4 -foot paseo walkway, or paseo, however you say that? MR. NADEAU: Semantics, Mr. Chairman. A paseo is just a fancy word for a walkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a 4 -foot walkway walkway? MR. NADEAU: It's a 4 -foot walkway walkway. It may have some trellis and some garden feel to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the Figure 8 -- and Brad started talking about this, but I'm not sure his answer -- I understood the answer you gave him. You have in the middle of the page a dimension that says 40 -foot minimum. Do you see that? MR. NADEAU: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the top of the -- towards the top of the page it goes to the line that's five feet off the front of that top side unit. MR. NADEAU: It appears -- it does appear as though it's going from the right -of -way to the front of the building rather than the right -of -way to the right -of -way. The intent was to provide the 40 -foot clear area between the eaves. If the arrow needs to be moved to the front of the eave so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that on the overhead so we can talk from the same page? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See the 30 -foot "AE," that goes from that line that's inside the word -- from that line to that line. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Page 80 of 99 b 1 A .1p, Sri August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the 40 -foot? It goes from the line on the top, but it goes to the front -- by the word "front" on the bottom, and that's where my -- that's where I don't understand the difference. See the 40 -foot where its measurements go from? MR. NADEAU: In my opinion -- is this on? In my opinion, Commissioner, that -- this arrow should not terminate here but should terminate here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you do that, then how's the 30 -foot work in the same area? Can't be both dimensions. MR. NADEAU: Oh, okay. This arrow should move to here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you just said you had to do the 40 -foot clear and those -- that's why the eaves -- you've only got 30 foot clear now. So what is it the fire department wants, 30 or 40? MR. NADEAU: Forty feet -- the fire department was looking for the 40 feet eave to eave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then you just acknowledged then you've only got 30 by this plan. MR. NADEAU: We will change the labeling on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 30 becomes 40, and the 40 becomes 50? MR. TORRES: We would have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I mean, I don't want this wrong. If this is what you're telling us you want staff to understand your plats and stuff coming in by, it needs to be accurate. MR. NADEAU: Yes. This 40 -foot dimension will go from here to here, from eave to eave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 30 foot then becomes the 40 foot really; same thing then? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so now the dimension that the 40 foot was going to be, which was front to front, is really going to be 50 feet? MR. NADEAU: That's accurate as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've just got to change these drawings. Okay. That's what I needed to understand. MR. MULHERE: That's a good catch. MR. NADEAU: Yeah, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're done with the figures. Anybody else want to play with the figures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think there's a 5 -foot setback from the lot line on that unit, and I don't think you can cantilever the overhang of a building five feet into the setback. That would be 100 percent of the setback. So there's more going on in there than just what we talked about, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so you guys are going to rework that. Please try to take as much as you can into consideration what we just talked about so it makes it a little clearer. Richard, we're on to Table 2, which is the commercial public facilities and care -unit development centers. Actually, care unit would be senior housing development standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And I think there was a change to -- under principal uses, minimum yards measured from tract boundary. I think we add a note "or as provided for below" in Roman Numeral III, and -- I'm sorry, in Footnote * * *. I think that was an add related to comments from staff. And then we wanted to add to Footnote ** that the minimum 600 - square -foot requirement doesn't apply to kiosks, because we had talked earlier that that's going to be 200 square feet. We changed the reference to senior housing. So in the -- under minimum floor area, we need to change the reference from care unit to senior housing, and then we were supposed to strike the iii, because it's already in the code. So I think that highlights all the changes. Whoop, I take that back. We added -- and it doesn't show as underlined here because this is a more recent version, but the language under commercial and mixed -use building setbacks is in version -- July 26th, and that was in response to staffs comment about human scale. So we tried to define what human scale meant. And I can't remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you say that again? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Page 81 of 99 6 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's a good thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commercial -- the commercial and mixed -use building setbacks -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that language was in response to Comprehensive Planning's comment that buildings over a certain height needed to be sensitive to human scale, correct? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we included this provision to address that comment. I believe staff is okay with that language. MS. ASHTON: Actually, let me just comment then. I haven't -- I don't understand this language, frankly. What does "buildings oriented on a private driveway" mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we have -- if we front our own internal private road. MS. ASHTON: So it's a road, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Road, driveway. MS. ASHTON: So they're facing the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Facing. The portion facing the private access. MS. ASHTON: Okay. So it's facing the private road. Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think we have a picture that might help. I think we're groundbreaking here, because I don't know that anybody's had to deal with this before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what it is we're dealing with yet, because I can't figure it out either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a picture's worth three or four words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At least. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, look, the wedding cake. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you get to the -- above the third level, we have to be a minimum of eight feet back, and then 16 feet back for the fifth floor, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're telling us that paragraph forces you to be right on top of the road with your big building; is that what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. This paragraph addresses staffs comment about human scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what happened to the parking lot with the islands of landscaping before you have to see a building and the buffer and all the other stuff? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's going to be behind -- it would be behind the building now. Now you're talking almost like a Fifth Avenue when you have the structure up close to the street and the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is out on 951, though, six lanes of road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is for both the -- yeah. This was a staff comment that we're trying to address. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corby maybe can help us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't need your jacket, Corby. We're -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He loves you, Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, I don't even think it's right, though, because the fourth and fifth floor can be eight foot back, above the fifth has to be 16, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but how does -- Corby, how does this make a better place? MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt with Comprehensive Planning section. A number of ways. The staff provided in a staff report to the project team a number of suggestions from which we expected them to develop a number of responses. What we did get, however, is this, and this one is partially their idea, partially ours. Not quite sure where the five feet came from, not quite sure where this drawing came from. But what we're asking for is when something is taller than three floors, beginning with the fourth floor I have some setback. Two floors of setback, minor setback, once more at the top. Scary if it looked like that, that's true. This looks like eight -feet setback to a five -foot story height. So the Page 82 of 99 169 August 4, 2011 dimension's not there. So be not confused by that. But what your human -scale requirements are in the mixed -use activity center should have presented you a set of offers to meet those requirements. This is the one, and this is one of the suggestions that staff had for them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Corby, you may or may not know this. Is the mirror image of this -- this building, if extended out, would have the same tiering effect on the other side, or are we looking at a building exactly as structured as this? MR. SCHMIDT: This would be on both sides of one of those internal drives or roadways in the commercial area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So without being facetious, it does come back to my recollection of a wedding -cake type of format, which I thought the BCC prohibited. Now, I may be stretching it and I may be wrong in this, but that's my awareness of it. MR. SCHMIDT: That may be, but that's what they came back to you with is this simplified approach. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we were to put this -- MR. SCHMIDT: A number of offers -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- up to the mirror, we would have this extended out? We would have this, correct? MR. NADEAU: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? That's what I'm trying to ascertain if -- is that the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the entire building? MR. YOVANOVICH: The back end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, you need to be on record. MR. SCHMIDT: This is -- in the provision you have written now, it takes place on the fronts of the building that face the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, Rich or you, if you -- I mean, if you get on the fifth floor, a person's got about 400 square feet to live in, based on that, if that's the entire building. MR. SCHMIDT: I asked once already, ignore the scale of this poor drawing. The scale does not give you an idea of size or shape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that, and I can live with that part of it, but I'm trying to visualize what this building would look like. And if that's the way it ends up and there's, I presume, then an alleyway and then a building of like character adjacent with the same kind of effect, tiering effect coming down. I don't know. I understand, I think, where it is. But Mark asked a very pointed question. Whatever happened to -- I think it was Mark. Whatever happened to all the landscaping and all the other parts of it? If the back is what we see as the straight line down, and it's an alley -- it looks pretty barren. Somebody ought to help here. MR. MULHERE: Let me just try. For the record, Bob Mulhere. Okay. So this all started about -- it came about as an exercise of addressing this concept of having human -scale development in a mixed -use project. And that's language that's used, I believe, in the Comprehensive Plan. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. MULHERE: I don't know exactly where it came from, but it's there, and community character as well. Okay. So this type of scenario would occur in a kind of a high -- higher density mixed -use, kind of a main street concept -- Fifth Avenue was used as an example. MR. BELLOWS: Or Mercato. MR. MULHERE: Or Mercato. We're not necessarily trying to -- we wouldn't be necessarily trying to recreate Fifth Avenue, but any kind of mixed -use development that's in a commercial area, the residential units would likely occur on the -- maybe the third, fourth, or fifth floor. You might have retail on the first floor. You'd probably have office on the second floor. Page 83 of 99 16� August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fairly standard stuff. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, so, because -- you know. So to answer your question, it wouldn't be mirrored in the back. It would be straight in the back. The wedding cake -- the setback -- try to use a different word than "wedding cake." This offset setback would occur on the street- facade side. And the -- so what else is human scale that isn't addressed here, since staff indicated, well, we really only addressed one thing. Well, everything else is human scale that you do. The sidewalks provide for walkability. The bike lanes provide for mobility in another way besides a vehicle. The alleys provide for vehicle access but not on the main street. Everything else you do, your streetscape, your furniture, all the things that you do add to enhancing human scale. Everything you do when you design a project like this enhances pedestrian human scale. I don't really think we need to address it at all. It's already addressed both in the Land Development Code and in this PUD and DRI. This was an exercise in futility, excuse me, to be quite honest. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your futility or mine? MR. MULHERE: Mine, ours, collectively. But, you know, to offset the building a little bit to have balconies, if you think --just think about Fifth Avenue, and I was just down there taking some pictures just the other day. A lot of the three -, four -, and five -story buildings are set back very similar to this so that you'd have some balconies, you would have some visual relief. I don't know how that relates to human scale, but it's very attractive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob, I'm extremely familiar with everything you've just said. In the past when people have come before us with petitions, very often, certainly not always, but very often they've come with beautiful pictures as representations of it, might look like this. I'm just trying to figure out, you know --I'm not trying to belabor this, believe me. This is a long day. MR. MULHERE: I understand. But so -- let me just suggest, this is only going to apply in a mixed -use scenario. It's going to be a limited scenario. You know, that's where that -- where we do mixed residential and commercial development, perhaps on the periphery of the activity center or slightly within the activity center where we're already required to do some residential in there anyway for those mixed -use activity centers. It's not going to occur if we do a traditional shopping center. You're not going to see this. It's going to have to be something that's less traditional than that. And to do that on a scale that's marketable, it's going to have to be pretty big. So, again, the whole concept will incorporate these pedestrian human -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's an awful lot of prayer and trust in this whole thing. But I guess if I bought the fifth floor I could say I lived on the penthouse, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, you know, Bob, before you came on this, you were head of a committee that did mixed -use standards for our code. We've studied mixed -use projects before. Why aren't we bringing that knowledge into this thing? This is pathetic. Nobody in America would ever build that, a road, a curb, a five -foot sidewalk, and the face of a building. What -- there's nothing in our code that would even allow you to get near that. So why don't you go into our code, find our mixed -use standards, and incorporate that stuff? I mean, it's almost maddening to show us something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- that's a minimum. There wasn't really any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on Bob's last day. He was the one that championed that code. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we were -- we had already said we have to meet code, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say something, and Ray said it earlier, is that you're establishing the code in this PUD. What if somebody saw that drawing and thought they could do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That drawing's not part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, that was a big mistake, showing that drawing. I'm borderline MR. YOVANOVICH: It was not intended to show you a pretty picture. It was intended to show you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't pretty, okay. Page 84 of 99 A 7) August 4, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know that. It was -- you know -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what it did. It showed us that you guys have no idea what mixed -use development's all about. MR. YOVANOVICH: No -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the scary part. MR. YOVANOVICH: It shows us that when we asked staff to define for us what they wanted for human scale, that's what they wanted as an example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what they wanted as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's staffs fault that you were caught speechless here a few minutes ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We didn't know what it was. I asked, give me an example. It's not defined. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, 30 seconds. I think both the applicant and staff are at fault here. I sat down with Corby and I said, "define human scale," and he obviously had a challenge because it's not in the GMP. But I know what his intention was; it's exactly what Commissioner Schiffer was talking about. And the applicant said, we'll just refer to the code, and we'll build it to the code. Corby's intention was, try and show me something that shows what a good mixed -used development, human scale, which we can't define, comes forward -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and the applicant says, we don't know. We want to deal with it later. So I think both parties kind of butted heads on this item, and that's what you got. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you totally lost my trust that you guys are going to build a good job out there. Between those floor plans for the houses and that drawing -- a five -foot sidewalk from the curb to the building, and that's a mixed -use project, human scales. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's sad. That is really sad. MR. MULHERE: I don't think -- I certainly didn't say that. What I said, this has got to be a much bigger -- if you're going to do something like that, it's going to be a much bigger design, it's going to include the main - street concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can say all the words. The words are right. It's the pictures that are wrong. MR. MULHERE: But there's no -- there's no -- we're agreeing to meet the code, so there is no -- there is no -- we're not asking for any relief. We're not asking even to build that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you just told us verbally what you considered all the elements of human scale. You threw a whole bunch of stuff in. A picture reflecting that would have done wonders to offset the concerns that staff would have expressed here today about human scale. The picture that you've developed and shown us does everything just the opposite. So that's all I think we're trying to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: All we were asking for, Commissioner Strain, is when we have a project that is in a mixed -use project that we're ready to bring forward, let us define it based upon the code. We were -- we were asked to go design something today that we don't know if we're ever going to build. We will put all of the code requirements into a mixed -use development, but let us do it when we're ready to submit a site plan, not now at PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand your comment, but you don't want to put your worst foot forward when you have to do something. If you were asked to do something and that's what you put forward, that's what we have to evaluate, and that's probably where the mistake was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I would have preferred is simply to have a reference in here that if we have a mixed -use product, we have to meet -- we need to meet code requirements for the mixed -use product, including human scale or whatever that is. I mean, right now we were kind of -- we were kind of backed into a corner to come up to a solution when we're not ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's -- I think we've -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate your position. The community character, smart- growth thing was never really approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Page 85 of 99 August 4 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was agreed to as an accepted principle. It's a fine principle. We have Ave Maria. We have Immokalee. We have a number of examples that could be used. And I agree, you've done yourself a disservice irrespective of what your intent was. It would have been far better to appreciate -- this is a likeness, a rendition of something we'd like to do. I look at this and I see things that trouble me as to what the potential can be, and I worry that we're not going to do service to the community by having -- I mean, this is, what, 2,200 acres? There's a lot of building here. There's a lot of money involved. And you want people for permanency -- that's why I asked who these things would be built for. There are -- I mean, you -- I don't want to belabor it -- I'm frustrated. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should strike this paragraph. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to disagree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, did you want to -- Bob, Corby was waiting in line. Would you mind letting him -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. MR. SCHMIDT: Because this is what the applicants showed you and this is the provision they wrote into the PUD -- and it is problematic. It's focused on just one of the items that staff suggested to them. And even in your staff report you had examples of suggestions for a number of different things. What we could use, instead of this statement or even that drawing, is an entry that indicates at time of SDP they will do those things regarding human scale. It could be the streetlighting, it could be the sidewalks, the landscaping, the building styles. It could be all those things, and yes, it could be at that time. A general statement covering that would have been just as satisfactory, and more satisfactory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Corby, if it's in the code, they've got to do it. So why would we want a statement that says they've got to do what's in the code? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The smart- growth principles, many of them are not directly right now in the code, are they? MR. SCHMIDT: No. We've even -- we've even, in your staff report, suggested some of those you have approved in the past or were to approve in the past that the county has supported. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: And those are things we could look for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that would be one of the issues there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the corresponding problem then becomes, if we just put the language in there that isn't defined in the code, how do we know who defines it and what temperament they have at the day they look at it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait. MR. SCHMIDT: This was why the problem the reason why staff desired to see something in the PUD, some specificity, and why we've offered so many suggestions. But you don't have it, and this one isn't -- doesn't seem to be working for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad might like it. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. I don't like it. But you know, one thing is, first of all, let's cross the "or provided below" and that whole sentence, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table 2, which is where we started to get in trouble here. And in the code we do have standards, the architectural standards, all that stuff. There's perimeter planting, there's all that good stuff. So here's what I think. Let's cross that off. It leaves 25 feet. And after I saw that picture, I can't trust you guys closer than 25 foot to the road, so I think that's the best thing. Leave it at 25 feet. That gives you room -- you know, you can go down to Fifth Avenue, but Fifth Avenue isn't a five -foot sidewalk from the curb to the face of the building. And, you know, to say you're going to make it look like that is -- you know, we're not that stupid. Page 86 of 99 161 A , 3) August 4, 2011 So let's just stay 25 feet. You'll make it look good with the architectural standards. MR. MULHERE: Didn't I say we weren't designing this to look like Fifth Avenue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I thought -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You told us Fifth Avenue looked good just like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: It does look good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, that was my position when I walked into the meeting. I said, we have to meet the code. You've got architectural standards. I asked -- I want to know -- at the end of the game when I submit something, how do I know I've satisfied you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the architectural standards, pedestrian concerns were a major part of those. MR. YOVANOVICH: I -- and that's what I -- that's measurable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's measurable. When I saw the comment, you need to do something to meet human scale, I wasn't being flip. I said, just tell me what I've got to do to satisfy you. The code is clear. We can do that. We thought that that did address human -scale concepts, the architectural standards and all those things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It doesn't? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it doesn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I thought you just said it did go a long way to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That little picture you mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not our picture. No, no, the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, the code is fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: The code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stay with the code, 25 feet back. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we -- that's what we advocated originally. Stay with the code, 25 feet back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Good with me. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what we asked -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boys and girls, are we done with that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not this picture, the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's get past Table 2, with the exception of the note on the bottom. Any independent living unit, parenthetical, care unit. You don't want to redefine -- you don't want to define care unit as an independent living unit, do you? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to have to do the global search -- I've got a ring in my ears. We're going to have to do a global search on that and make sure it refers to senior housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to Table 3. And I -- business park and school development standards, emphasize the word "school" for a certain member of the Planning Commission. Hi, Tom. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, I think the only revision we're proposing here is to -- on the version -- the 26th version we had reduced the height, maximum zoned height to 35 feet from 50 feet, which is consistent with the Land Development Code for the business park zoned height; 50 feet for the actual height. And we were striking Footnote, again, iii because it's already in the code, and we -- it increased the setback for the business park from 25 feet to 50 feet to be, again, consistent with the Land Development Code to address staffs comments regarding the business park. Now, we had already gone through the list of permitted uses and, I hope, struck the more intense ones that didn't make sense in this location. So we believe the combination of removing some of the uses and going to the code allowance for height and setbacks should satisfy staffs concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Rich, on the previous page, my Page 19 -- and I'm going back here. You have the school Page 87 of 99 n +ter August 4, 2011 development standards, and the line says, "The development standards for public educational plants and facilities under the purview of the Collier County School Board shall be defined through the Collier County School Board review process." And then with this table for Table 3 you seem to add in additional requirements. And I'm wondering if you could amend this so that you could remove "school" from that and we could just rely on the agreement that the county and the school district have for building facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: From the development standards table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had already deleted the section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. The school development standards on Page 19 has been deleted for specifically the reason you just mentioned, Tom. There's already an agreement there, so we don't need to reiterate it here. And my suggestion, I thought, had been to remove the school from the development standards table because you already have schools addressed with the school board review, and that's a separate ordinance. So what are we messing with it for? MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. I misunderstood that, and we'll take that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, does that work for you? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. That would be very much appreciated. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on. My bad. This tract is for the private schools. Remember, the school board tract is a totally different tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We better define that then. Where -- MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the business park tract where we can either do a school or a business park. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I thought schools got taken out of the business park. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. The business park is an alternative. If we don't do a business park, we can do a school. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Private school? MR. YOVANOVICH: Private school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's called flexibility. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but that's always been -- that's always been in there that if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry to laugh, but it does strike -- I guess a surprise. It seemed a surprise. MR. YOVANOVICH: It shouldn't. It's been in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I grant you. Maybe it's because we're wrapped up in the thing all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry, wrong -- Tom, wrong site. Doesn't apply to you. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Then for clarification, this table relates specifically to private schools within the business tract if you choose that option. Can you, before each word that school's referenced, can you put in private school? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? MR. EASTMAN: Just so there's no -- years later I don't want a county staffer pointing to this and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I gotcha. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Then I have an issue I have to raise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have probably on the page following the Lords Way access improvements in the event that Tract BP is developed as a business park, and it goes on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Down here. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's all right. There it is, yeah. I think you're going to have to add "in the event the Tract BP is developed either as a business park or a private school." MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Otherwise that doesn't fly, if I'm not mistaken. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The last sentence, I think, handles it. Page 88 of 99 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shall be improved. Let's see. In the event -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, "In the event -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Can you read that again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. It says, "In the event that BP is developed as an educational facility, the Lords Way shall be improved by the developer as generally depicted in LDC Appendix B3, a local street, typical roadway section." So there are two different development standards for the road. One higher -- thickness, I couldn't tell you. But more substantial if it's a business -park road versus an educational - facilities road. And that was supposed to address both scenarios. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read it, and I see it, and I'm just thinking about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If it could be clarified, we'll -- (Commissioner Midney is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's advantageous to the developer, but it's not advantageous in the long term to put a road that's -- there are bound to be other vehicles that should not transit that road that will transit that road. And if it's made to a lesser level, if you will, all the rest of the issues of soil, I think you -- if we agreed to it, I think you get out from under, but it's not a good thing to get out from under. So I don't know if anybody agrees with me, but that's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I'm song. I was checking something else when you were making your point. I should have paid more attention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't mind repeating myself, if I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Briefly. What my argument was here is if you're going to have two different quality -- for lack of a better term, qualities of road because you're going to have a school and they don't anticipate the same level and that traffic -- the amount of pavement push, as it were, they want to be able to build a road that would be cheaper, and I thought that that was a disadvantage to the public and a disadvantage, ultimately, to the project. You build it to what is likely to transit that road. There will be -- there are loop roads in there, isn't there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioner, if you want me to comment, I can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sony? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would you like me to comment on those two designs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like a little help, because my supposition is based on the idea that something will probably happen. You might know what is possible. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Commissioner Caron wanted to say something. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. I want to go back to two things. First of all, if you go back to No. 11, Tract S is the only place in this document that says schools. You go to the staff report on Page 2 of 26, underneath the land -use summary it says, "Note, since this document was prepared, the designator BP or S has been changed to just BP." So there -- I mean, I'm not making this stuff up. There hasn't been a school on the BP tract. MS. ASHTON: Actually, that's not true, and it's under the text -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh my. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi, I got an -- I got something that we need to do, and that is let's take a break for ten minutes and come back at ten after four and try to get our thoughts together because we are going to leave here at five o'clock -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and wherever we are, that's where it ends up. And so between the -- in the next 50 minutes that are left, you better pick the best subjects you want pointed on before you come back in September, so MR. YOVANOVICH: Why can't we come back the 18th9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, if we come back on the 18th, we'd like to have some of this stuff corrected by then so I haven't got to ask and reiterate all the staff report questions that I have that aren't really pertinent now because we're redoing the whole document practically. Lookit, I'll talk to you at break. Let's come back at ten after four and resume and finish up. Page 89 of 99 6 A -3 August 4 2011 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on record for 50 minutes. So let's try to move forward and get whatever parts of it are most pertinent to get before we meet again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. What we really would like to do is get in a position to where -- I think we've shown all the changes that we're proposing. I think we've gotten a lot of nods as to, I think we're on the right track, staff wants to look at our language to make sure. I think generally, unless I'm misreading the Planning Commission, they've -- you've generally agreed with the revisions as I've shown them subject to staff review. We will get staff a document between now and the 1 st. Hopefully we can come back on the 1 st with a document that at least staff can say they're happy with subject to your -- you -all's review, but I know there's some issues we've got to get through real quick to make sure we get appropriate direction. On the business park, the reason the S went away is because we used to have a BPS on there, and that got confused with the school district's S, so we were asked to drop the S from the BPS to show the alternative as either business park or school on the business park tract. The text of the business park still says "business park or school use on the property" under the -- under the Exhibit A description of uses. So that's where that confusion came from, and that's why there's no longer a BPS list of uses on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave that thought, what kind of school were you figuring on putting there if you were to use it for a school? MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be -- MR. TORRES: Group 82, which allows -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, David, before you go too far, you started, though -- you didn't use all of Group 82. That's why I questioned it. You started with 8221, which eliminates any elementary or secondary schools, and you're going right into colleges, university, and professional schools. I'm just curious, is that what you intended when you left educational services in under principal uses of the BP tract? MR. TORRES: My recollection is we intended to have all of Group 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if that's still your intent and you're going to work some way of using that site for a school site in addition -- let's say in contrast to a BP site, I just think we need to kind of spell it out very clearly in the text of your document as to how and when that happens and what occurs and what doesn't occur when that happens, because I think all of us today were -- that was another thing that surprised us. MR. TORRES: I'm not seeing it here. But what I recall is that we had said that if it was going to be developed as an educational facility, it would use the standards of Tract S, and Tract S allows all of the group. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. It's -- MR. TORRES: Is it still there? MS. ASHTON: Yeah, it's still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where is it exactly? MS. ASHTON: It's under -- it's under, you know, Section 1413P, and if you go to -- it's actually in that first paragraph. It's three lines up from the bottom. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I must have the wrong one. MS. ASHTON: -- or three. It's "This tract shall be permitted to be developed for either a business park or an educational facility. If the tract is developed as an educational facility, only those uses permitted in Section X1 below shall be allowed." And actually that change was requested, the labeling change from BP or S to just BP, it came from me because I was concerned, is it going to be a BP tract or is it going to be an S tract. And then you had another section that was labeled just S tract. So I thought it created confusion. So that's why we did it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- and, Heidi, where I'm coming from, if you look on Page -- my God. We've got so many versions. If you look on Page 4 of the version that was in our packet, it has educational services under A 10 as part of the BP tract, which I thought was where they were trying to go when they said they wanted to be able to use it for a school site. The only concern I had is that if they wanted to use it for something below college, that you needed to have 8211 in there and not start at 8221. That's all I was trying to say. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And you go -- if you -- go to Page 15 where you find Roman Numeral XI, under principal uses it says, this is what we can do if we do a school. Page 90 of 99 161 August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what has that got to do with the BP tract? That's for Tract S, schools. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It says, if we develop this as a school use only, we get the uses allowed in Section XI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now point me to where that's said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am on Page 4. MR. YOVANOVICH: Second paragraph that starts with Tract B, even though it's not indented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go about halfway down where it starts with the word "developed." That sentence says, "If the tract is developed as an educational facility only" -- "educational facility, only those uses in Section XI below shall be allowed. And then XI is what I just pointed you to, Mr. Strain, on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying, if you do a business park, you can do a business park with all the educational service groups from college on up, but if you don't do a business park and you want them to be a school -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you go to Section XI, and then all the uses of schools are applied? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and that's clear as a bell. Richard, there's got to be a better way to write this thing. I mean -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is carte blanche. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on. MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't have any other changes to the rest of the tables. The master plan question came up about what about the preserve portion of the Junior Deputies site. It was kind of shadowed in but not actually marked, so we put a P over where the preserve is on the Junior Deputies site on the master plan. And to clarify, there was a little triangular piece that actually was an R. It kind of looked like it was No -man's Land, so that's the only change I believe we made to the -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that little R tract even developable? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a bigger version. COMMISSIONER EBERT: These are so tiny. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where was I? Here's the P tract I'm talking about right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We labeled that because it was kind of shaded but not really identified. And that is R -- that's potential R. Whether it's developable or not, I really don't know. More than likely not but, you know CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you make it P so you've got some park property? At least you qualify then and you can say you've got a park on site. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I put it as P, it becomes preserve and it's not a park, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put PA for park. MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I've got to come up with development standards for the PA tract, so I'm kind of -- let's just -- if we -- please let me just leave that an R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, yeah. You've worn us all down today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I've worn you down? Exhibit E was the deviations. We deleted deviation -- the first deviation pursuant to staffs request. I've already -- the commitments, I don't think we were making any changes to it; were we, Dwight? I've already taken you through all the traffic requirements. If you'd go to Page -- I will show you -- I mentioned this already as part of the DRI development order. But these last two paragraphs address the two bus stops, one in the commercial center and one in the business park. Those were added since your version of the Page 91 of 99 -� August 4, 2011 documents to address those comments. And I think at that point I've hit -- nope. We had one more that I call the "Nick provision," which is Section XA which we added, because Nick wanted to make sure he only had to deal with one entity for purposes of monitoring this entire PUD from beginning to end, and we've agreed to that, and that's going to become policy from this point forward, according to a mass email I received earlier this week, I think. So there's a provision here that there's one responsible entity for making sure that the PUD commitments are satisfied. And if we want to change who that entity is, we have to notify the county. So I think it's a good provision. It really helps with PUD monitoring. And with that, I think I've gotten through all of the PUD documents, all the DO documents. I do know, Commissioner Strain, when we met there was an issue regarding how do we value dedications -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- both right -of -way and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you said we've gotten through. Again -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've gotten through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you've gotten through. Let's just hope that out of today's meeting most of my questions have been answered, if they have been, and when I read everything I won't have the remaining ones. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I would like to do, if we were -- if we were on the right track for the Planning Commission -- I didn't hear a whole lot of negatives to the language that I presented -- we'll get the revised document to staff, hopefully massage it to a position that we're on the same page, get it to you -all as soon as possible for hopefully -- maybe finish this review up on the 1 st subject to anything that may come up based upon language that you've got to see and study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't make any guarantees, but we'll try to make it work on the 1 St. Now, Mr. Murray, you had something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm not satisfied because I think the question I raised regarding the quality of roads, Nick was going to try to answer me, I think. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Your question was regarding Lords Way and the collector road and local road versus a business park industrial -type road. There are definitely two standards. When you look at what you had asked, if it's a school with school buses, would it meet that standard if they only went with that local road. The answer is yes. That's what we hold the school to, and they seem to be holding up okay historically. So the business park is meant for the really industrial heavy vehicles, fully loaded, you know, with the tonnage. The buses aren't putting that kind of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're answering my question in the reverse of my intent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's my question, and I failed you. My question was to try to find out or to determine -- it was my opinion that the BP road, because it would be built to a better standard, was the only road that should be built regardless of whether there will be a school or as business park simply because I made the assumption, and I think it's realistic, that other vehicular traffic of another sort, heavier traffic than even school buses, are likely to access or ingress and egress through the Lords Way. And why build something to a standard that will break down and require maintenance greater than what should be forecast? That's the basis of my question. If it's excessive in what I am attempting, I want you to tell me that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, without being disrespectful, it is excessive. The industrial park roads are really heavy duty. The local roads that are designed with a local collector, if it's not an industrial park, hold up very well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. That's good. That's what I needed to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Nick, they come in to put a school there, private school. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Private school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After a little bit of time the private school goes belly up, they decide to take advantage of the additional uses on the site for flexibility in the market. Happens to be business park uses. They go in and switch -- the same building, they just put BP uses in the former big school uses. How does staff realize that that road is now not -- it's not the road that was supposed to be there pursuant to an obscure passage in the PUD that allows two different types of roads for the same parcel? Page 92 of 99 1 161 August 4, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unless staff read that PUD document on that conversion, they wouldn't. But if they do read it, then they'll have to upgrade that road to go to the business park use, because the PUD's pretty clear about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the transportation staff reads every PUD end to end every time they get a request for a new use on an existing facility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could only wish they did, and I hope they do, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, therein lies the problem. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somehow we need to resolve that issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And I don't have a -- you know, other than making sure that we read every single one when they come through for the commitments. But if they went -- if they built the school first and then converted it to industrial park, we should be reading that and catching that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But how much of a significant difference is there in the cost to build A to B, you know, school to BP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You mean roadwise? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could tell you by the time we come back on the 1 st, if you want me to. I could give you that breakdown. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I won't be here, but I would think that it would be a good answer to have. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that, you know, this is, again, 2,200 -plus acres, and this is a very significant activity, and I think that you want to have it first class and, you know -- will that be a county - maintained road then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be -- if it goes through to Benfield, if it dead ends at the business park, then it becomes a county road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's to the county's advantage to have maintenance as minimal as possible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me -- why don't I come back on the 1 st when they come back, and I'll give you the two cross - sections and the cost. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm also more concerned about -- regardless of the cost and the cross - sections, if we go with this flexibility, how do you cover it in the future -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the other factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 10, 20 years down the road when things get changed over? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a good comment. I mean, if it's not -- if we can go through with the applicant and we're agreeable with Planning Commission and the applicant, we go to the bigger cross - section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my recommendation. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not there yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just talking, trying to figure out solutions. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your request to keep the maximum flexibility on all levels is just where it's hard to fathom, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the -- we have to -- as part of the annual PUD monitoring report, we check off conditions that we've satisfied. If we're going to change the use, we're going to be telling you -- because we're going to be coming forward with building permits and all that stuff, and we're going to tell you that, hey, here's where my building park square footage is -- business park, sorry -- and we've got to upgrade the road. To force us to build to something we may not need to do because there's a theoretical chance the school's going to go broke and we're going to convert the use to satisfy other users beyond us, that should be a -- and we've worked this out. There are some costs in this where it's 100 percent on the developer's dime. Page 93 of 99 , " 6 1 1AA 4, 2011 And where we're building improvements that are serving beyond us, we have worked out impact -fee credits. Benfield Road is one of them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- where we're going to upgrade the cross - section from what we would need, and the county pay the delta. We need to be talking in those kind of terms if you're going to ask us to build a cross - section above and beyond what we need. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If, in fact, you were to build to the S level, and subsequent to that the county, whether it or some other means is used to extend it to Benfield and it becomes a county road and you then decide to have the BP activity, the business park, and the road needs to be upgraded, since it's a county road, then what? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to upgrade it. We'll upgrade it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'll -- you're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the party that will upgrade it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to upgrade it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- even though it will be a county road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. We're going to have to go get the right -of -way permit from the county and say, we need to -- in order to do the business park, we're going to have to upgrade the road and do what it takes, correct? Am I missing something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what it says in the PUD. I mean, you know, Commissioner Caron's comment of, will staff catch that? I would hope so; that's our job. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All I'm trying to do is bring up the issues that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I appreciate that. We just don't want to get stuck spending a lot of money because of the fear that someone misses something, and it's just really a waste of money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where do you want to go next, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, our side has gotten through everything we wanted to present regarding the documents. I do know there still are a couple of issues. And I don't want to guess what the issues are for the Planning Commission that they would like to raise so that we can address them appropriately with staff prior to coming back on September 1 st. So I guess, Mr. Chairman, at the risk, I'll just leave it up to you to figure out how you can send the message to us what we need to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the members from the Planning Commission, does anybody have any general item they want to throw on the table now or even specific from the documents? I mean, I have got still a lot of questions, of which you're all aware of. But, you know, with all the changes that have got to be made -- and the staffs got to come back with a lot of items, and you have changed a lot things to the better -- a lot of my questions may be moot at this point. So I'm not sure it's time wise to go into them all. There are two issues, though, that I think are general enough that we may want to make sure are addressed. The first one being the valuation of your right -of -way, because we have a -- our Code of Laws, and I -- and Heidi's aware of the section -- 74.205 -- that addresses when right -of -way evaluation will be used -- will be done if it's going to be used for impact -fee credits. And according to that section, from my reading, it's prior to the entitlements. Obviously, the county would be in a peculiar situation if they approved zoning only to have the right -of -way increased in cost, because they did so, that they have to buy and give impact -fees credits for. And so I'd like to have reading on -- from your perspective, Heidi, as to where we stand on that. Because the document's not written in that way now. The document's written in a manner that gives up the easements and the right -of -way as it's needed down the road, which puts us in a different position. MS. ASHTON: Right. Yeah, this is a little bit different than the typical scenario where we know the exact size of the road right -of -way that we're going to need and that we can actually identify a legal description at the time when we approve the PUD. So there are a couple things that we can do to change the language in the PUD, and one would be that the Page 94 of 99 161 A A 3 August 4, 2011 parties can agree on the value -- the per -acre value of the right -of -way that would be donated in the future, and we can actually put that per -acre valuation in the PUD, and the other thing is to identify an area that would be up to whatever that number would be, 200 feet or 100 feet or whatever it would be, that would be needed so that we can further narrow it and we can determine a value today rather than doing a value that's projected in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I -- and, Richard, the reason I'm -- and, Nick, some -- we need to get that resolved by the time you come back as to how the best way is to handle that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, we've spoken. We're going to get together and see if we can agree on a per -acre value and just put it in ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: And then I'd also suggest that you determine what the width of -- is the corridor that we'll need in various -- up to a certain number. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That might be a little harder, but I think if we get a per -acre value and say approximately as shown in the plan, at least we know if we grow or shrink, it will be in the per -acre number. It wouldn't change the overall value. It would change the overall dollar amount based on the final design. But I'd like to see if -- Heidi, if that's okay, we just get to at least a per -acre value. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. We'll work it out with Rich before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I ask is if you're going to establish a per -acre value, you either establish it by the Code of Laws or, if you're not going to, explain why it doesn't apply -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because there's a process in the Code of Laws on how land is to be valuated, and I just want to make sure we're not -- you know, everything should be equal to everyone. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's in the law, we need to address it. And the second thing is is an analysis of this project's total cost to Collier County versus its assets. And I'm not saying you've got to do a blown -out fiscal- impact - analysis model. I'm just suggesting that we need to have something to know that you're neutral or positive to Collier County as a whole, and I think that wouldn't be a bad thing to do. You've got a series of impact fees and credits and costs to the county. I don't know -- I can rely on staff for this. If staff feels that the requirements are met to show that everything is fiscally as sound as it needs to be, that fine, but I want the record clear that we've at least looked at that issue to make sure that you're not costing this county any money, that you're a generator or neutral in some manner. Is that -- Richard, you're looking at me with this blank face. Not the first time you heard it. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just --as I --we have done the analysis from the capital- facilities standpoint. I mean, I think we've already shown you that we're going to pay more in impacts, impact fees, than our proportional share on capital infrastructure. We have not done an analysis on the day -to -day what I'll call ad valorem tax dollars. We haven't done that. I don't think it's part of the required DRI or PUD process. I'm not saying that you're wrong in needing to know that, but I'm just saying we didn't do it because it's not part of the typical PUD process and, I don't believe, part of the DRI process to do a financial analysis to determine, are you impact neutral? I know you do it for the RLSA, and I know they have a model you can use, and I know you're not bound by that model, but I was not aware, and I'm still not aware, that it's a legal requirement that we do it. We'll prepare to do it if we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't want you to have to do anything that isn't required to do, okay. That's not where I'm going. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that if there is a requirement because it's of a DRI level, which is regional significance, that between you and the County Attorney's Office, you work out whether something has to be done or not. If the county attorney comes back with an opinion it does not have to be done, I'm fine with that. You got probably one of the best people in -- that I know in the State of Florida, Ron Weaver, here who can certainly evaluate all of our statutes and everything else. And if Ron certainly has some contributory opinion on that to deal with the County Attorney's Office, I'd like to see that happen. Page 95 of 99 6 4 , I A 3 August 4, 2011 So -- and, Ron, I'm not asking you to do something today, but at any point with your knowledge you can work with Heidi in the County Attorney's Office to come up with why or why not that is not needed, that's fine. Now, I also got from you an analysis actually from David -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that a valuation of what your impacts were going to be generated versus grow costs and what you're contributing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Potential credits we could get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- and this is kind of where my concern is. The numbers you used in there were inconsistent with the impact -fee study for trip- generation length and things like that. So I'm not -- and the value of the road per lane mile. Those were numbers I've not been familiar with in looking at the traffic impact -- or the impact -fee study. So I think you used a.70 for trip generation. You know that's not what you used in the study; it's 5.88. So some of those things don't fit; that's why I'm not sure that's a good enough thing to use without having staff look at it and verify the numbers are correct under whatever means you found them under. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying they're wrong, but they're wrong -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in relationship to what I understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and I would suggest, if that's what you're going to use as part of your position, which would be helpful for us to know that your impact fees are greater than the credits we're going to be giving you for the right -of -ways, that's a real big help. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure Nick verifies the numbers, that's all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've said that -- to Nick, and we'll say it to you, if for some reason between our road right -of -way dedication -- and I'll use roads for an example because that's, I think, the only one that we're actually doing improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're doing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're doing some dedication for other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emergency Medical Services and schools, which, if I was Tom, I'd be asking you the same thing right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I know that, but our -- if our "in aggregate," if the improvements that we're making or giving, land or improvements, exceed the impact fees we will be paying for this project, it was not our intent to get a check back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that with David's preliminary work just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And it shouldn't be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- verify it, I think we're going to be there. MR. YOVANOVICH: It should be the case, but it was not our intent, and I know that was a concern, that at the end of the day you would owe us money. But I've seen Nick's math, and I'm pretty sure -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's not going to. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- there was no chance it was ever going to be where he was writing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that new house bill that passed puts a different onus on everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that we don't get trapped into that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's my biggest concern, especially you -all referred to it in your PUD, so it's kind of like telling us, putting us on notice that, hey, pay attention to this, because we are, and I want to make sure we're square on that. That's all. Page 96 of 99 16I 1 A 3 August 4, 2011 Anybody else have any -- you guys don't act too peppy and enthusiastic here today. What's going on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Huh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder why. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The preservation -- Steve, can I ask you a question on this? There is quite a bit of this, the native vegetation, the special overlay, the wetland. Who's going to maintain this? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger, for the record, Land Development Services Department. Well, the owner's going to maintain it unless they go for different additional bonus credits, then they have to do a restoration and maintenance plan, and there's also credits. And they can also -- there is also credits where they can donate that land to a government entity. So eventually -- that was, I believe, the intent of the developer, to eventually donate the land to the state as part of the Picayune Strand State Forest. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's how we get enough TDRs through our own property to be able to achieve our own density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any closing comments, anything they want to say? Then we'll be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be the last of the annoying comments. It just occurred to me, we had a gentleman in here, I think his name was Shuckman, who was concerned about lake depths and muck and dissolved oxygen deficiencies, et cetera, and he raised a question about having to ultimately scoop things out. And the presence of aeration, that would be helpful and prolong the life. Curiosity. How deep are these little ponds going to be? Just in time. MR. ROBAU: I missed most of the meeting. I was up in Fort Myers on another meeting. But I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Name? MR. ROBAU: Oh, excuse me. For the record, Emilio Robau, RWA, Inc., P.E. I was sworn in this morning, and I just came back, so I assume I'm still sworn in. We're asking for 20 foot, but we're really limited by the confinement layer, and so we're -- that's the limit. And some of these lakes, a good chunk of them are going to be aerated anyways, because we have to do it pursuant to Corps of Engineers' requirement and Harvey Harper methodology where dissolved oxygen goes below a certain level in the lakes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for that answer. That's going to become a more important issue as time goes by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I think the applicant needs to request a continuance for PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 and DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. Is that what you'd like to do, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: To September 1 st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To September 1 st. MR. YOVANOVICH: First item up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well, it's the only item. We're not going to schedule anything else that day. We already had a discussion that would probably be -- we need to finish this thing up, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is there -- do you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would help possibly get the consent done at the same time, but I can't guarantee it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. You read my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It depends on how well you write your document. If you write it less confusing, it's going to be a -- go a long ways -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to making the day simple. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciated everybody's patience, but I hope the document that we went page by page did simplify things and answer most questions, so hopefully we're on the right track, and that's our goal. Page 97 of 99 fT 161 .0i August 4, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The earlier you get it to us, the more we'd be able to probably have some discussion with you or -- and I urge you -all to contact members of this Planning Commission who have expressed concerns about specific items or expertise in certain areas; it would help you clarify for the meeting that you're on the right track. I'd hate to see us spend a whole 'nother day spinning wheels on this thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will make those calls, and I will also make that request for a continuance. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Request for a continuance of both items, PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 and DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, second by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. We will see you on September 1 st. Unfortunately, we'll probably see you sooner, Richard. With that, there's no old business. The only new business I have -- what's the matter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The letter from one lady who had a lot of questions, but she wasn't here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We can't -- we're going to meet on September 1 st, so she'll be renotified. Okay. The only other new business, I, again want to, Mr. Murray, thank you for your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your dedication to this commission and the time you've put in. Thank you for the time and dedication to this commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry to hear you're leaving. We will -- you have any -- see us doing wrong, just give us a call. I'm sure we'll want to hear your input, so thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've never seen this commission do anything wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good to hear. Tell the board that, will you. Okay. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. -- Melissa. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Brad. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 98 of 99 sir 6 1 August 4, 2011 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:44 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �0 " P Acc-,� MA STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on -41 - I - tl , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 99 of 99