Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/19/2012 RApril 19, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 19, 2012 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: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 28 REC IVED AGENDA MAY 2 3 2012 Board of Coun Commission COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THUR DAY, APML 19, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. \// Fiala 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Hiller Henning 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coyle Colel-ta Ic 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. BDE- PL20110000300: Stella Maris Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110000300 for a 15 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 35 feet for the benefit of the entire Stella Maris Development totaling 15,707 square feet of dockage and including the addition of two new docks located in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] Misc. Corres: Date: '1 (2 y I 13, item* 11fis21$ 1 Copies to: 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Banks Engineering and Pizzuti Solutions LLC, is requesting a rezone from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District (MH- BMUD -NC), to the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to be known as Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. The 17.89± acre site is proposed to permit 48,575 square feet of commercial (retail, office and medical office) development, a 350 seat theatre, 84,000 square feet of parking garage and 40 residential units. The subject site is located within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 2 April 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonair. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent, or is he not coming? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, he's not here now, though. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain. [a i G1I0uV.-M II1 "Muif`MM COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, are there any changes to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Planning Commission absences. Our next special meeting is the 25th in the evening at 5:01 in this room. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're good. We have a quorum then. Our next regular meeting will be May 3rd. Anybody know if they're not going to make it to the May 3rd meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On May 17th we have an agenda that shouldn't take us past the morning. We have a clean -up of some LDC amendments, but we're also having those on May 3rd, which I would hope we could finish them then. On May 17th, we need to fit in a workshop, finishing the workshop for the master mobility plan. I don't think it will take too long, but that may put us into the afternoon. So unless there's an objection, I'd like to make sure that gets on our agenda for the May 17th meeting at the end. Anybody have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The more we can fit in one day, the less days we'll be having to occupy this room. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Does that mean these two days that they have it on we won't do, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, those are different. THE COURT REPORTER: Ms. Homiak, would you pull your mic closer, please? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. I just asked if these two other meetings for the master mobility plan were going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is a -- no, the 17th will be the completion of the workshop that we had last week. We only got halfway through it. So those two are for the final language that's coming after the workshop is Page 2 of 28 April 19, 2012 complete, so -- ** *Okay, we have no minutes. ** *Ray, any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: On April 10th the Board of County Commissioners had a meeting but they did not hear any land use items during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, there's no Chairman's report. * * *So we'll move right on to the consent agenda. And it's the -- first and only consent agenda item up is 8.A. It's BDE- PL20110000300, Stella Maris boat dock extension. We have it in our consent packet. I think I have one clarification I would ask of Steve. And then Heidi I think had a question or two. And we'll see if Planning Commission has anything afterwards. Morning. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I needed to know, as we left off last meeting, that we were supposed to have some research done to let us know who actually owns the bottomlands. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, just as we anticipated when we reviewed the Appraiser's report, it is with the state, so perhaps -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the State of Florida. So outside that seawall is owned by the State of Florida. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. There is no bay bottom lease to it or anything else, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't too concerned about a bay bottom -- well, maybe I -- see, if you have a -- if the state owns the bay bottom and they're a multi -slip facility, wouldn't they need a submerged land lease? MR. WILLIAMS: Not for what they've got here. If it were a marina, so to speak, or anything else, but these are individual boat docks, so they're not. They're in good shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. No, these are individual residential boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that's not how they -- this is a multi -- because they actually didn't connect them to the uplands docks, I mean, upland residences, remember how they laid that out? MR. WILLIAMS: I know how they've got it but, yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're non - waterfront lots. MS. WILLIAMS: Understand. They are not waterfront lots, but these are the docks attached to the multi - family units. We don't have a severance, and we're very clear in this ordinance that there is no severance of the dock lots from the units. If there were the ability to sever these, I would have great concern, and -- as I think you would as well. But these are, for purposes of each unit as we have put in the stipulations and the conditions, you've got a dock to a unit. Then in terms of what we would need from the state, or if they need a bay bottom lease, I haven't seen a need for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, at the time you would get your submerged land lease from the state, you wouldn't know the arrangement we've made here with our recommendations, because they would have brought that into us ahead of time. So how -- I'm just wondering why they wouldn't have looked at it as a multi -dock facility, which multi -dock facilities and commercial facilities require submerged land leases, single dock facilities don't. Okay. I mean, I understand. I may look into it further. It would kind of be irrelevant, I think the project was fine, but I just wanted -- I'll get with you then Steve, if I -- MR. WILLIAMS: That sounds fantastic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Heidi, you had some comments you wanted to make? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, just a clarification of the resolution, more for administration purposes. But we'd like to insert in the caption on Page 1 and also in the text on Page 2 that it's to allow for a total protrusion of 35 feet to allow for mooring of vessels. So there's not any confusion when staff administers it on the -- even though there's a condition regarding the decking not going beyond the 20 feet. And then just wanted to draw your attention to condition number two. There's just a slight change in that lot -- I believe it's lot 41 does not currently have a dock on the side yard. So we would delete the second line where it Page 3 of 28 April 19, 2012 says except for the existing docks off lot 49 (sic) as shown on the map. So that's a change that you could -- we need to make. And then there's alternative language, if you would like, that you could consider. Because the current language with the modification that I just made would probably allow for somebody to remove the dock that they have on the short side and put it on the side yard, if they stay within the 20 feet. But I think you as a body in approving this layout can not allow the protrusion within the 20 feet, since you're approving the whole layout, if you don't want them on the sides, period. So if that's your intent, I can give you some alternative language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad came up with the comment. Brad, what was your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have no problem if they're within the 20 feet along the side. It's only they don't get the additional -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, so then the language that I read in as modified would be what you would be going forward with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're sure that's enough to make sure that it's only the boat that's coming past 20 feet. Because we do word it here is we give them a 15 -foot boat dock extension of a boat dock. I mean, if you read the thing carefully, especially the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm comfortable because of condition three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, you could say no dock structures if you would like, if that -- or facilities -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- dock structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will cover it, that's good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Dock structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I think if you look in the resolution, it's not as clear, but the condition is definitely clear. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we understand, so number two you're suggesting at the end of the second line we drop the plurality of the word lots and make it lot. And then strike 44 and 41 and make the word "and ". MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that gives us a completed -- and the other reference you made on Page 1, could you tell us that one more time so I make my notes accurate? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. It's the number one on the caption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's number one? Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Her microphone. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The change that I read in at the beginning would be seven lines down in the caption where it says 35 feet would be the insertion of the words to allow for mooring of vessels. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, what page are you on? I'm sorry. Page 1 of the -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Page 1 of the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the resolution. You're in the header? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Capitalized header? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 35 feet. And then you're suggesting we add? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: To allow for mooring of vessels. That just makes it clear that it's just the vessels that's going to protrude out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then on Page 2, the first line, being the same is hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension, and you would delete the words of a boat dock. So it would be: It's hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension over the maximum 20 feet to allow for a 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 35 -foot protrusion, how's that affect the rest of that sentence? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For the mooring of vessels for the entire waterfront exposure of the waterfront Page 4 of 28 April 19, 2012 development. It does -- I mean, you could delete the dockage language in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm saying. So you're saying 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels and dropping the words boat dock facility, and then continuing for the entire waterfront exposure of the development. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that works. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood the language. Is staff comfortable with that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, it's not exactly true, because we do limit that it's not for the entire waterfront. But Heidi, wouldn't the attachments, the exhibits, if it's clear on the exhibit, that's clearly what's going to happen? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I'd prefer not to have a conflict. Because that's where you read in some problems. You could probably delete all the language up to as shown on the proposed site plan. So it could read: Is hereby approved for a 15 -foot extension over the maximum 20 feet to allow for a 35 -foot protrusion for the mooring of vessels as shown on the proposed side plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's better. Ray, are you okay with that? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple questions. On conditions of approval number one, I pressed for this, but educate me on the time frame of that. All docks found to be out of compliance must either comply or remove the existing boat dock. When? Anybody? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, I mean, Ray, what's their time frame on a non - compliant BDE, or just boat dock itself? MR. BELLOWS: That would be determined as part of the code enforcement action, how much time frame they grant to have the dock be made conforming -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is generally done at a code enforcement hearing where they negotiate between the owner and the magistrate the time frames needed to correct the failure -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it does vary. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But who takes the initiative to file a code enforcement complaint to start the process then? MR. BELLOWS: It typically would be a result of a complaint by somebody, or if during some other inspection by county staff a violation is noted -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm still uncomfortable with that. I mean, they've not had C.O.s on a number of those docks for a number of years. MR. BELLOWS: But there is currently, as discussed during the last meeting, a current code enforcement case on all of these, so they are subject to those being brought up. And this whole process is as a result of code enforcement action. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could we add some wording for clarification on that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There was some discussion at the last meeting along the lines of a Site Development Plan and substantial change shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. And that may have come out of your discussion. That's something that you could add, if the Board feels that's appropriate. Page 5 of 28 April 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, whatever is appropriate legally. I'm not trying to mess up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is there any question -- is there any reluctance from staffs concern that code enforcement wouldn't be following up with this project now that it's gone through this process? Because it's kind of highlighted for not just any particular dock, but all 50 of them. So I think what would happen is all 50 now by this action would have to be brought into compliance, and they would stay on it until its done. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think they can -- I don't think anybody could say it hasn't been turned in or it hasn't been brought up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As long as there's an active, quote unquote, code enforcement case that's going to be resolved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will have to go through to resolution completely. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine. Conditions of approval number five, any future changes to the boat docks will require a new boat dock extension. Any changes would require an extension? What if they want to remove a dock or reduce the size of a dock? MR. BELLOWS: Say that again? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It says any future changes to the boat docks will require a new boat dock extension. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they're approved subject to the plans proposed. I also have an e-mail from Mike Sawyer indicating that they've already submitted an SDP for the entire docks to be brought into compliance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But going forward into the future, if this is all resolved and someone decided they want to reconfigure their dock, stay within the granted extension, then they would still have to come back for a new boat dock extension? MR. BELLOWS: Based on that language they would have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's because they testified and we approved what they asked for. They asked for only boats. So we didn't give them a blanket saying all of you can build your dock out whenever you want to. We've said no, what's there is there, and you automatically get the extension for the boats, because that's what they asked for. But the rest of it doesn't happen unless you come individually to see what the impacts are. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not going to belabor it. But I'm a boat owner, boat dock owner. It's a big dock out there. I don't like it. So I want to remove it. MR. BELLOWS: This dock? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Any existing dock. And I want to remove it. That's a change. I'm being picky, I understand that, but -- MR. BELLOWS: In this particular case the dock that is being approved has language that restricts them. Other boat dock extensions don't necessarily have that revision, so there could be some alterations to the dock consistent with codes that do not require it to come back in for -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But that's not what it says here. So if they wanted to make changes within the 20 -foot protrusion, they couldn't do it, based on that condition. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They could not? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, could not. MR. BELLOWS: That's the reason this language was added. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So any changes they can -- I suppose they could remove it but not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up. Now you're saying that if they want to do something within the 20 feet, which they have the absolute right to do without it coming before this board, they're not allowed to do that now? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Not with that condition there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's wrong. Why are we imposing something harsher than the conditions we already have, which are plenty harsh enough in this county? If they have the right to do what they can within the 20 feet, maybe we ought to reword five to -- I'm glad you've picked up on the language, Phil, because this would inadvertently, if Heidi's correct, impose greater restrictions Page 6 of 28 April 19, 2012 on someone for something they already have the right to do. So wouldn't this be any future additions to boat docks outside the 20 feet will require a new boat dock extension? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could put except for modifications which stay within the 20 -foot protrusion limit under section -- and I don't remember the exact number of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have to address something that's already covered by right? Why don't we just leave it by right and just address something that goes beyond the by right status, which is all we are trying to address through the boat dock extension? You're saying so long as they do this. Well, so long as they do whatever they're allowed to do by right, they should still continue to be allowed to do it. We shouldn't be taking that away from them. Wasn't that the intention of this Board? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just prefer not to put by right, because then you've got to figure out what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't suggesting using that language, I'm using that to try to explain what I'm -- my point. We say any future additions to the boat docks will require a new boat extension if out beyond the 20 feet or something like that. Does that get us there? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Or if exceed current code. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I have some language I could propose which I'm comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's try it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It was except for modifications which stay within the 20 -foot protrusion limit under section of the LDC, and does not increase the number of boats, and subject to these conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works. Anybody else have any concerns with it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it needed to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say it -- Ray, did you get the language? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we got it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want me to read it again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he said -- you guys can get together. I understood what you said. As long as Ray's comfortable with it, we're fine. MR. BELLOWS: No, we got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Phil. Anybody else have any questions about this consent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve the consent as directed and amended here at this discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you, Steve. Page 7 of 28 April 19, 2012 ** *Next item up is our regular agenda for an advertised public hearing. It's PUDZ- PL2010 -592. It's the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. It's within the Bayshore Drive mixed use overlay district at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, good morning. It's all yours. MS. JOURDAN: Good morning, Jean Jourdan with the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. We're an agency that was established in 2000 pursuant to a findings of slum and blight. The item before you today is the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore rezone. And I would like to introduce our main presenter, which is Chris Wrenn with Pizzuti Company. MR. WRENN: Thank you, Jean. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Collier County Planning Commission, I'm pleased to be here before you today. Back in 2009 Pizzuti Solutions was hired by the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA to help craft a vision, physical embodiment and plan. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you move a bit closer to the mic, please. MR. WRENN: In 2009, Pizzuti Solutions was hired by the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA to help craft a vision and plan to implement a catalytic development to advance the CRA's goals. The vision for the Bayshore cultural arts district is to become a southern focal point for the city and a beacon of activity and culture, and a potential catalyst for neighborhood revitalization. At its heart, the CRA's 17 -acre site that we are proposing for the MPUD rezoning is viewed as a pilot project for the district, kicking off the potential redevelopment of the area and growing organically over time, helping to drive the culture, creativity and identity of the district. In addition to cultural uses, a combination of retail, restaurant, entertainment venues, housing and community gathering spaces will be needed in the district as a whole, including key destinations beyond just the CRA site to create a regional attraction desired by the county. My name is Christopher Wrenn, as Jean said, Planning Manager of the Pizzuti Companies. We oversaw the planning and the project here for the CRA. We have brought selected team members here to help answer questions relative to the MPUD rezone. Our entire team included Banks Engineering, Bellomo Herbert, Schenkel- Shultz, TG2, AMS, Project for Public Spaces, Dexter Bender and Associates and TR Transportation. To give a little context into the site -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something on your screen that you wanted us to be seeing as well? Because it's not coming through. MR. WRENN: Yes, I do. I don't know how to get that through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you give him a hand? Well, that's all there is to it. The guy in control takes care of it, okay. Thank you, Ray. MR. WRENN: Here's the intro slide, as we said, with the logos of the individual team members. For some site context, this is 17.89 -acre site located essentially in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. The site is located just west of Sugden Park. You can see here from the aerial some of the surrounding uses for the site. And here's a close -up aerial of the site. You can see there's a certain amount of vacated flat land, some existing vegetation that has both natural and exotics, as well as a significant portion of the site being open water between the site and Sugden Park. So as part of our overall process with the CRA, again we responded to an RFP in 2009 and were hired to help create a vision that really -- for a project that really embodies the goals of the CRA. It's been an exhaustive, somewhat, and very lengthy but enjoyable process at the same time. We had some initial project visioning meeting with the CRA, trying to understand their goals, and performed a market study for the project to understand what kind of uses could be supportable on -site. There was a significant community outreach component to this project, including stakeholder interviews in 2009, as well as a place- making workshop in 2009 that was led by Project for Public Spaces. After the public workshop there was a conceptual plan refinement period where we came up with the final Page 8 of 28 April 19, 2012 proposed concept plan that was approved by the advisory board of the CRA, and we began the entitlement process for the MPUD rezoning. To date we have received sufficiency, obviously, from Collier County staff. We have held our neighborhood information meeting on January 18th of this year, where there was significant public support expressed by residents of the CRA. We are here today in front of the Collier County Planning Commission and we are currently scheduled to appear before the Board of County Commissioners on the 12th of June of this year. I would like to point out as well, we did receive the Collier County staff report for the MPUD rezone dated April 19th of this year. We agree with and concur with the findings of the staff report. As I described before, this project is envisioned as a catalytic development here in the CRA to help advance the CRA's overall goals. That being such, it requires a significant amount of thoughtfulness into the place- making of the site as we are trying to combine retail, restaurant uses, along with the cultural arts, including performing arts, physical arts and also art education, as well as some needed community services in the Bayshore /Gateway CRA. In order to do that, it requires some great place- making. So in working with Project for Public Spaces, you know, we had our place- making workshop in 2009 and asked the question: What makes a great place? Typically uses and activities are very important. Again, we've got cultural facilities proposed on sites, entertainment recreation facilities, retail, restaurants and marketplace, art and public education and community resources, as well as we're proposing a relatively small amount of multi - family rental residential. Image and identity branding is very important for any project success, especially in a tough economy, as well as the ability for the project to grow organically in bits and pieces over time. To that end we've crafted a plan that has small and manageable scale with small buildings that can be incrementally developed over time, copious amounts of green space and gardens on -site. We focus on the water element that we have present on -site, turning what could be considered by some to be a detriment to a positive for the development. And we have implemented a Florida architectural style, somewhat coastal style. We'll show some examples of that later in the presentation. Again, consistent with many architectural buildings you have right now in the Bayshore /Gateway CRA. Sociability is very important to have a successful project of this nature, a place for locals in the CRA and outside the CRA to gather to embrace the arts and enjoy their time. A place to meet and discuss community events, create a casual atmosphere, and provision of social services as well. Also, access and linkages are very important to the success of this project, therefore we have proposed a boardwalk connection to Sugden Park and ample parking on -site for community events. With that, I would like to ask Dean Ziegler to stand up just to talk a little bit about some of the existing and surrounding zoning, as well as some of the deviations we have proposed, along with the rezoning. MR. ZIEGLER: Hello, my name is Dean Ziegler with Banks Engineering. And I want to talk a little bit about the location of the site with respect to the current surrounding zoning. The site itself is zoned predominantly mobile home - Bayshore mixed use development NC. In addition, along the frontage of the site we have C -2 BMUD -NC. And there's also a section down at the corner, you can't read these very well. Down in the corner of the site we also have a small section of C -4 BMUD -NCs. So we have C -4, C -2, and the mobile home classifications existing on the site. We're surrounded to the north, mobile home. To the south is an R -3 classification. Across the street is mobile home and to the east is Sugden Park. This shows where Sugden Park takes up predominantly our entire east property line. And then this exhibit basically shows the deviations, as well as this is our master concept plan that is part of the actual -- our PUD document. The use -- it is divided into tracts, Tracts A through F. And basically what we have is Tract A is -- basically is mixed uses divided into 40 residential units, 35,000 square feet of commercial, 350 -seat performing arts theatre, 925 square foot classroom studios and 1,650 square foot of administrative offices, an 84,000 square foot parking garage, as well as an 11,000 square foot commercial community building. These are all as a net result of the market research that Pizzuti did in the beginning to determine how we put the site plan together. The actual site plan was prepared by Bellomo Consultants out of Orlando. We then developed this into the actual master concept plan to become part of the PUD document. The deviations we proposed, I'll just briefly go through those. We have seven deviations. And across the Page 9 of 28 April 19, 2012 frontage in yellow you will see the -- in yellow we have proposed which areas that the ordinance calls for the installation of a block wall or a solid wall as part of that. And that is -- we have amended that deviation to consist of a Type 3 buffer, 3A buffer, which is basically trees that are 30 -foot on center. In addition, we have modified the deviations to, for example that's one, two and three, and then deviation number four, which is in the blue, we have modified that to be clustered trees and eliminated the wall. Because we are substantially a distance away from the property to the north -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you point to that, the blue, please. MR. ZIEGLER: It's right here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. MR. ZIEGLER: We're back away. This is all water to the north, this is all water. So this deviation, basically it was the same requirement of these against the residential, but what we did is we propose to cluster the trees and eliminate the wall. And then the next deviation, which is deviation number two, I'm kind of jumping around here a little bit. But the number two, which is on the north side and the south side, we are proposing no buffer at all because of the substantial amount of water. And likewise, we have no development adjoining the properties at all. And then deviation number six is -- which is basically, this is the proposed location for the theatre, is a proposal for a -- the existing height limitation is 12 feet minimum and no more than 18 -foot for the first floor. We're proposing that to be raised to 42 -foot minimum inside. And that is to accommodate the theatre use only. And then deviation number seven, which is likewise in this -- let me get this arrow to work -- in this area right here, we are -- this would be the parking garage. This is a theatre proposal. And we are proposing -- the ordinance states that we have to have a minimum building separation of -- for multiple story parking structures of one foot of accessory height for one foot of building separation. We are requesting zero separation or to allow the building to actually abut the parking garage, which allows for commercial use to become, which would be the theatre, to become part of the parking garage. So that's the purpose of that deviation. Hopefully I've kind of covered those. I kind of jumped around a little bit. And I think now -- and then we'll be glad to answer any questions, you know, detail. Because I have a couple more slides which I'll not necessarily cover at this time. But these are the details of the deviations, which we can come back to if you have any questions. And then I'm going to turn it back to Chris and he will discuss the site plan in a little more detail. Thank you. MR. WRENN: Thank you, Dean. As Dean mentioned, the site plan was developed initially by Bellomo Herbert, a landscape architecture and planning firm based out of Orlando, Florida. This is the illustrative site plan that we have. It illustrates the artists' live /work village that's currently envisioned as six separate buildings with retail uses ground floor and residential uses on the second story. As Dean mentioned, it's proposed 35,000 square feet of commercial uses and 40 dwelling units. As you can see with the plan, there's a significant amount of hardscape and landscape elements surrounding these buildings. The intent was to create an environment where you could have a number of things, including artists' housing, artists' space for both studio work, presenting and sale of their material, as well as a community marketplace that you could use to handle farmer's markets, as well as have local vendors potentially have a shared space where they can offer their fare. The tract D that Dean was pointing out south of this open water here where we were proposing a landscape deviation with a cluster of trees is essentially a recreation area. So it's open space, pavilions, as well as the entrance into the boardwalk that would connect over to Sugden Park. There is a public performance and participation area that's shown as a great lawn here with a proposed amphitheater that can handle outdoor musical events, other performing arts events. And that is adjacent to the community performing arts center, which is approximately 13,000 square foot, 350 -seat black box theatre as it is envisioned here, with approximately 1,100 square feet of offices and then the parking deck that is attached. And then the community services building that's shown down here, which is proposed as a two -story 11,000 square foot office building that could house both commercial office uses as well as community services such as senior services, meeting rooms, medical office, the CRA office, a post office or potential sheriffs office substation. Following this we just have some examples of the architectural style that we are proposing for the project. Page 10 of 28 April 19, 2012 This here is an elevation looking east from the other side of Bayshore Drive towards the artists' village. This is looking north along the same stretch of the project. This is looking south. This is an interior view of the courtyard at the artists' village so you can see the relationship that we're proposing between buildings. You get a very comfortable, engaging social space that is created on -site. This is a perspective view, bird's eye perspective view of the cultural arts center and grand lawn. You can see the front of this building, we're proposing it's not just to be flat but pretty articulate, with architectural fenestration. And then this just embodies the village character that we are proposing with hardscape and landscape elements, public art, hoping to create an environment wherein, you know, again we attract visitors from both the CRA, Naples and the general area. So that completes our presentation today. If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you could go back to one of the slides you put up that showed the positioning, conceptual positioning of the buildings on the tract, particularly on tract A, which would be the -- MR. WRENN: Would you like the illustrative plan or the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That one. One of your deviations speaks, I think it's number four, to the area to which would I think be the south of the lake on the easternmost side but the south portion -- down, down, down. MR. WRENN: Over here? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, down. Which way is south? There you go. One of your deviations speaks to not having a buffer along that section because it's an existing lake and you don't feel it's necessary. Move further to the east -- west, I'm sorry, where you have the existing mobile homes and then you have street and access into some of your facility there. Now, what buffer are you proposing on the southern border of that entranceway there? MR. WRENN: Excellent question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Adjacent to the mobile homes. MR. ZIEGLER: That will be, as required per the ordinance, where it will have a wall. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It will have a wall. MR. ZIEGLER: Will have the wall. Yes, it will have the wall as well as -- in fact, the way it reads is it's a minimum 10 -foot wide landscape area to include a six -foot high opaque masonry wall, a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center, and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height and three foot on center at the time of planting. And the landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall. So that's per the ordinance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, that's good. Now, as you move down, again directionally to the east, I believe now, and approach that lake, okay, what type of buffer is going to extend up as you -- I would assume that's a driveway or something that comes up towards those buildings? I wish I had a -- there, right there. MR. ZIEGLER: There is no buffer proposed along that side right there. But that will be accented with landscaping. There's no specific buffer inasmuch as the -- we've got a substantial amount of distance to Sugden Park, which we likewise -- so there is no buffer actually proposed. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I guess my -- to be quite honest, my concern is if you're going to put the wall along that stretch that we previously described, have you considered or would you consider extending that to go north to shield that driveway coming in there from those mobile homes? MR. ZIEGLER: We could do some, or some tapering down maybe to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, tome it would be kind of blunt to just end that wall and a buffer there, because you're still going to probably have some view and some level of noise leaking around the corner there. Because that's going to be a loading area and so forth and there's still some homes down there -- MR. ZIEGLER: I think the intention would be that it would be highly landscaped as we go through there. And likewise we'll leave some of that natural vegetation. But there are also a lot of exotics that we'll be removing in that area. But that makes sense to transition that -- Page 11 of 28 April 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just come up -- MR. ZIEGLER: Yeah. Extend the wall around the corner and then transition it down. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Deviation number six, you mention a height but it doesn't show what maximum height you're proposing in here. MR. ZIEGLER: All right, I'll bring you back to -- I'm going the wrong way. That would be this one. That is deviation -- I can't read these on the screen. That is deviation number six. And the way it is written is 12 -foot minimum, 18 maximum for the first floor. And on the right side -- and I'll try to get this arrow to work here -- can you see this side of the building? This is where it shows that on the inside of the building we would go from 12 feet to 42 feet, which is right here, inside the building, and that is for theatre use only. And that's to accommodate perhaps the fly for the theatres that they use and so on, and seating as you go up in the theatre. So that's what that -- that's where that is. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I understand that. I'm asking why it's not -- right now the deviation as written in the ordinance doesn't show a max, so I'm just asking to have that put in the deviation. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, the deviation in the ordinance? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct, the way it is written. MR. ZIEGLER: It just doesn't cover it in the ordinance for the theatre use for that height. And I think that we may have even -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think what she's trying to say is instead of where it says no more than 18 feet in height, if you want to go to 42, say no more than 42 feet in height. I think that's what you're getting at. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. I'm saying right now to read it there is no height limit. MR. ZIEGLER: It says 12 foot to 42 foot max. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mine doesn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does on the -- MR. ZIEGLER: On our deviation it says max. It does not say in the ordinance, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you're -- on Page 19 you have a deviation listing. Maybe that's where we need to -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm on Page 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Fourteen of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always seem to have the wrong pages. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Heidi, are you comfortable with it not listing in the ordinance? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think you can add it if you're comfortable with that. But it is -- the height limitations are in the development standards, so we just have to confirm that the 42 feet is there. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, as long as you're fine. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it should say the maximum 42 feet. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just -- if you look at the drawing that you provide for deviation six, the maximum height, the zoned height of a building would actually be measured to the midpoint of that roof. So your intent is you want to keep the zoned height of the building to be 42 feet, correct? MR. ZIEGLER: The intent is that we could actually go I think higher than 42 feet to the building, consistent with the ordinance. What we are proposing that is within the inside that we go, we go to a maximum of 42 feet. So it's kind of like from the trusses down or if it happens to be a cathedral type ceiling or whatever, it still would be a maximum of 42 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move that mic a little closer to you, if you don't mind. Thank you. MR. ZIEGLER: So it would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're describing the ceiling height then. Page 12 of 28 April 19, 2012 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, the inside ceiling height would be a maximum of 42 feet in the theatre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I would recommend on that exhibit is to get rid of the building height that's showing the ridge of the roof. Because that's actually -- you wouldn't -- MR. ZIEGLER: That is correct -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't measure it to there anyway. MR. ZIEGLER: You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you don't want to cheat yourself of that. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, we will correct that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I do think the first floor building height, 12 to 42 max less roof system, that doesn't exactly describe what you describe. In other words, I think you may want to say plus roof system. MR. ZIEGLER: Well, actually, the 42 feet is less the roof system. In other words, if you look at where our arrows go, in other words, if they have a truss system, for example, it would be from the truss system down would be the 42 height, would not count the actual roof. Now, if they did a cathedral type, open type, it would be to the top of wherever those improvements are for the ceiling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is an interior dimension. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it's an interior. MR. WRENN: Would you prefer to see the language say excluding the roof system? Would that be more clear? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, you call it a ceiling height. I mean, I think you get that. If you had sloped rafters there could be some confusion as to what the height there is, but -- MR. ZIEGLER: Instead of less, we'll change that to excluding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then your drawing does clearly do it. And I would get rid of the maximum building height notation. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, definitely get rid of that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess while I've got the floor, there is that intent when the original Bayshore came through to have this grand street with nice first floor, you know, 18 -foot, 12 -foot, 18 -foot. That is coming up for review for an LDC change. So would you like rather leave it where it's subject to the LDC? Obviously the performing arts, you want to pull away from that. But the stuff along Bayshore, rather than lock yourself into the current, wouldn't you rather, you know -- because if we do change it you would want the option to go with that, wouldn't you? You see what I'm saying is we're reevaluating that 12 to 18 next Wednesday night. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, definitely, I think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the mic when you respond, please. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, we would, definitely. I think we would like to be able to be flexible with those changes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the image you show on Bayshore is not the image that the overlay was written. It was looking for, you know, four -story downtown, you know, not exactly what you showed. And you wouldn't want to be trapped -- MR. ZIEGLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and not take advantage of any changes we make. MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a couple. If you could turn to Page 5 of your PUD. It's -- basically it's pretty simple. I can just read it. You have interim uses for all tracts, excluding Tract B. And it says: Community events such as but not limited to festivals. How do you intend to address the parking for festivals? Do you have enough parking for any anticipated festival calculated into that parking garage based on the uses you have on the site now? Or what will the festival generate that we may not have on -site parking for? Anything? Page 13 of 28 April 19, 2012 MR. WRENN: Well, the parking garage was sized to accommodate outdoor events, as well as overflow parking for the artists' village. I could see there being a parking issue if maybe there was an indoor performance happening in the theatre and an outdoor event happening at the same time. But that's a programmatic issue that the performing arts center and the other co- owners in the development could figure out. The parking deck was sized to handle any events that we figured would be programmed on -site. CHARMAN STRAIN: Okay, the parking was -- parking deck was sized to figure any event you could hold on -site. So when it says community events such as but not limited to festivals, you could have a rock concert out there and whatever number of people could come to that rock concert, you would have enough capacity in that parking garage to handle the parking. The reason is I'm not against you doing that, but see, under normal conditions you would come in for a temporary use permit and you would explain how you're handling the parking. But here it's going to be a permitted use by right and I'm not sure those restrictions would then apply to you. And if they don't, how do we know you've covered the parking? Jean, do you have an answer? MS. JOURDAN: Well, I can just tell you, we had a festival on Bayshore Drive on that site two years ago, and what we did is we worked with Gulf Gate Shopping Plaza and we trollied people in. That was how we accommodated the parking at that time for a large event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did that on your own. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how -- is this facility intended to be always owned and operated by Collier County or the CRA? MS. JOURDAN: No, no. Yeah, okay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm real concerned that someone's going to walk in, have a greater concert than you anticipated based on that. I'm not saying not to do it, I just want to make sure it somehow gets covered and in the process. If you have a temporary use permit requirement for special events and it's looked at, then John and his team and everybody else takes a look at the parking situation, the traffic flow, the need for officers to direct traffic. You don't have that the way this thing's worded now and I'm a little concerned about it. MR. WRENN: I think we would be okay with adding language into the PUD ordinance that requires a temporary use permit for the outdoor festivals on -site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me add, like every other private developer has to do, you don't need to add those words, that's just a comment that if, you know -- MR. WRENN: That's an excellent question. And I hope the solution solves -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. I just want to make sure it's covered. And again, it's a great idea and I hope you have a lot of them. I just want to make sure every time you come in we don't -- the County doesn't get a complaint saying wait a minute, how can they have done this without any controls. Now you've got the controls. Now at least it goes through staff. And like the Italian American Club or the Greek Church and the rest of them have these events, they're checked out and everybody can close the book on them, so -- On Page 15, 2.A under planning, building permits shall not be issued to more than 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area prior to the issuance of C.O.'s for a minimum of 40 dwelling units. But you only are allowed 40, right? MR. WRENN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not a minimum because you can't have any more, and it's not really a maximum, it's just all dwelling units, all 40 dwelling units, correct? MR. WRENN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe minimum should be all 40 dwelling units. Is that what your intention was? MR. WRENN: That was not our intent. That was language that was added in by the staff as a requirement to ensure that the development remains a mixed use development. The concern was that there would be an over supply of retail delivered on -site without the provision of the residential uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But 20,000 square feet is what percentage of the overall square footage? I can't recall without -- MR. WRENN: Within the artists' village there's 35,000 square feet total, so that's, you know -- Page 14 of 28 April 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you want to do 100 percent of -- why is -- staff, Nancy, I could ask you this when you're up, but since this came up with his presentation, would you mind just addressing that one question. Why did we request they'd have to have all of the dwelling units up with only 50 percent of their commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: I can speak on behalf of other staff who requested this. And we just want to make sure that we do have our residential uses and that in fact will be a mixed use development. So that's why we put the trigger points in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we normally -- okay, who have we done that to before? Have we had another mixed use where we've required the 100 percent ratio to 50 percent commercial? MS. GUNDLACH: Heidi, would you remember? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just seems extreme if they're only going to have 50 percent of the commercial, why we want -- why do we -- we can do it in stages and that would make it more economically feasible. Why are we forcing it down them to do 100 percent so early when it may not -- and then the 100 percent of the locations of those units may not dovetail in the best way with the commercial construction. So is there a dying need to do that that way? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe there's a specific need to do that. In regards to the Mercato mixed use there was a requirement to have a certain amount of maximum number of dwelling units that had to be provided on the main street, so to speak, but not that they had to be in place or C.O.'s issued prior to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would be more comfortable just suggesting that we do -- I understand the need to make sure it happens as mixed use, because it's a great idea, but a lot of times it doesn't happen. But I don't think the ratio is good. So my suggestion would be at least to a minimum of 20 dwelling units instead of 40 and let the rest carry out as the project is completed. But it at least shows we've got a foothold into the mixed use. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a good point, Mark. And actually, if you are building mixed use buildings, this thing could kind of tangle you up in your feet where, you know, if you want to do a second floor artist studio, how are you going to do it with these terms? But anyway, I think it would be good to not have it, just so that it doesn't mess up a building that has a mixed use within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that will be one of the stipulations you'll see. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still have some questions for your presentation when we get back to that. I have one other question. At the neighborhood information meeting, one of the things that was stated, it says they also stated the architectural design will go through the public hearing process of which they can be a part of. What did you mean by that? I mean, architectural design is through an SDP process. What public process are you talking about? How is it locked in so we know that what you've said is what can be done? MR. WRENN: Jean, or Dean? MS. JOURDAN: I think where that comment came from was the people said -- they were talking about the conceptual plan and we said this is just conceptual. The actual buildings may vary from -- and letting them know that this was conceptual. And they said well, we have advisory board meetings all the time and anything that we're doing and presenting we always present to the public at the advisory board meetings and those people always come. So it was just a comment saying that they will be part of the process as we're going along. And we were ensuring them that it would be the CRA who would be deciding what the architectural style would be, not the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who made the comment? Was it you? The reason I'm asking is -- MS. JOURDAN: You know, I don't remember who made the comment, I just recall it being made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You worked for the government for a long time, so you know what a public hearing process is. You stood before the public at a neighborhood information meeting and said it will go through a public hearing process of which they can be a part o£ Now, I'm concerned about what you said to the public to calm someone's question or whatever reason it was for and not following through with it. We always toe the line. If you've said something in the public neighborhood information meeting, that's what you do. So I need to get clarification so we make sure the documents are written Page 15 of 28 April 19, 2012 right -- MS. JOURDAN: Actually, I didn't make the comment, so let me find out. MR. ZIEGLER: I think the comment -- I don't know how it was written. The comment was actually about the Site Development Plan, in other words, the final details of the Site Development Plan, not necessarily about the architectural plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SDP's don't go through a public hearing process in this county. MR. ZIEGLER: Well, I think that the -- it was about the Site Development Plan as part of the process of review of the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, and I'm -- by the way, I'm all in favor of this project, I'm trying to do everything I can to cross the is and dot the is to see it happen. But then again, at the same time we can't let you do something we would deny a public applicant from coming through a private residence. And if a developer came through and said something at a neighborhood information hearing, we make them toe the line. I'm trying to get there with you guys. MS. JOURDAN: Well, the CRA advisory board meetings are public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it a public hearing process? MS. JOURDAN: Oh, no, no. Did it actually say public hearing process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone gave me that sheet that's in our packet and you can look at it it's on attachment B, and I don't know who wrote it. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 attachment. And Nancy, who wrote the neighborhood information hearing minutes, do you know? MS. GUNDLACH: I may have just put it wrong in the minutes. Advisory board. We told them advisory board meetings are public meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, it says there's an auto (sic) tape. Did somebody -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, we have an auto (sic) tape, so I can get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, you know the value we put on statements made at neighborhood information meetings. This one -- and again, I'm trying to get this to work, but we can't change the rules because it's Collier County. So where it says that, that last sentence, they also stated the architectural design will go through the public hearing process of which they can be a part of, how strong does that carry in regards to the discussion you're hearing me have right now? Do you know? Is it something -- a public hearing process, is it different than a CRA board meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not really clear on what your question is. I think that, you know, for purposes of the NIM, I think the public was probably adequately advised of what the project that is being proposed today is. I think the language could have been written better. But, you know, if the project goes forward as planned, I would envision that the concept in architectural renderings would go to the Board or the CRA for approval before it sold to -- you know, before a developer goes under contract to build a project or to sell part of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that the public hearing process could be just putting the architectural renderings through the Board of County Commissioners? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I didn't write it, you know, but that is a process that I would expect would go forward in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have something to help? I hope. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. David Jackson, executive director for the CRA. Commissioner, I think that it's one of those things that yes, we do have an audio tape. We had a group of over 50 people in the room. It was a very lively discussion. And in there, what you're looking at there on paper is a summary of transcription of what we recall for those minutes. It's not a verbatim issue like you have here where you get verbatim. The intent in that discussion I believe in which I was a party to was the questions, which they saw the architectural renderings. The public was concerned about what would the buildings look like when they get built. And the conversation was around well, these are conceptual and they do have to go through a public hearing process, which is this meeting and the Board of County Commissioners meeting. And then there will be a follow -on during the SDP and architectural review, that's when it will be determined if it's going to be a certain height or a certain width or setbacks. And that's part of the SDP process. Page 16 of 28 April 19, 2012 So I think what you're getting here is you're latching onto a summary of a hearing that was of a meeting, and in there the discussion had to do with the public was very concerned -- or let's say not very concerned, were interested in am what I seeing going to be built or you the developer come in and build something, solid concrete flat walls? And the answer was no, that the CRA would still have the ability to control, because before we would release the land to the developer, the building type, color, shape, would all be reviewed and agreed to. Does that help you some, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It did and didn't. Here's unfortunately one thing you said in the beginning has caused the problem. You said that part of the public hearing process this may have been alluding to was the process we're here for today. And you actually brought in the renderings that you brought in your presentation today. If that's the case, then those are made part of the record and they become part of what you're required to build to. I don't think those renderings are of a stage that you know that's what you want to build. But if they are and we make theirs part of the record and attach them to this document, you're locked into them. And I would suggest a better solution. Now, maybe we ask that you take your architectural renderings when they're at a stage that is near final and require that to go to the Board of County Commissioners for sign -off, whether it's on consent or summary or whatever manner it goes. MS. JOURDAN: That's another item, Commissioner Strain, is that we, the CRA, our advisory board looks at things. We don't approve anything, even when it comes down to the final architectural details. We will take this to the CRA board for approval. They will see everything. So it will go to a public hearing. They are a public advertised hearing CRA board. They adjourn from the BCC to the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the board that -- there's a citizen's board as well. MS. JOURDAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the board now you're referring to is, the citizen's board will make a recommendation to the BCC, which is the CRA board. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. Yeah, we don't do anything or approve anything without it going back to the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the architectural design -- MS. JOURDAN: We will take that to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the Board of County Commissioners as the CRA board. MS. JOURDAN: As the CRA board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is that a requirement that normally happens or can we just make that a stipulation to make sure that it's consistent then with the neighborhood information meeting? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, when she's referring to the advertised hearing, she's referring to the noticed hearing. So I don't know that it's going to be advertised in the sense that you think of it as a separate ad running for that item, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm only trying to get to the qualification of a public hearing process. And if the public hearing process is in front of the Board of County Commissioners, I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we stand to the plate on what the public was told would happen. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct, the staff doesn't have the authority to approve the architectural design and the project. It would still go back to the community redevelopment agency, which is composed of our Board of County Commissioners. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does it need to be stipulated or is that going to happen regardless? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That will happen regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're done. Thank you very much for the explanation, it helped. As confusing as it seemed, it did help. Now that's all I have. I do have a staff question. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The permitted uses, can I go through those now or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go through anything you want. No, now is the time to go through them. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The permitted uses, on your table on Page 2 of 16, number 23, after drinking places and the SIC code number, there's a listing there. Does that mean that those are the only uses under that number Page 17 of 28 April 19, 2012 or does it include all the listing? MR. ZIEGLER: That includes all of the uses as stipulated under 23, for Tracts A and C -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That you've listed there? MR. ZIEGLER: -- and pursuant to Section 505. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just the ones you've listed or all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What she's trying to say is SIC code 5813 has a long laundry list of different kinds of places that you could have that are considered drinking places. Are you saying that out of all that list you only want the ones printed on number 23, or you want whatever's in the list depending on how you develop? MR. ZIEGLER: All that are allowed under 5813. Because otherwise we would have accepted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think the question is trying to get at. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's a few of these that I'd like to suggest being omitted in the -- throughout the whole table, but on this one. No bottle clubs. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, no? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No bottle clubs. MR. ZIEGLER: Model clubs? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Bottle. And then on -- in number 30, after -- at the top says group care facilities, category one and two, except for homeless shelters. I'd like to see included also except for offender halfway houses. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then number 41, to exclude pawn shops. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And number 52, to exclude tattoo parlors. MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry, which number was that again? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fifty -two. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And on the next page, 4 of 16, number 58, to exclude -- to prohibit adult oriented sales. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you may have to define that a little better. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's the term we've been using. If there's any other term you'd rather use to exclude, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what is the code -- the intent is obvious, but the word adult sale -- oriented sales could be -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We have been using adult oriented rentals and sales for quite some time. And it's not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then on number 73 would be the same, adult oriented rentals would be prohibited. MR. ZIEGLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that's it. But I just have a question on number 15 for churches. You're thinking that you would maybe have a church there or it would be a storefront church with people living above it? MR. ZIEGLER: It's for flexibility. David says we can omit it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, what if you wanted to -- MR. ZIEGLER: It's a flexibility thing I think is what it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if you wanted a church service in your auditorium? MR. WRENN: Well, in the performing -- the Tract A includes the performing arts center, so potentially that space could be used for religious services. But if it's the preference to omit the use, we can omit the use. But the intent wasn't to put churches on the ground floor in the artists' village but to put -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that's what it could be -- MR. WRENN: Right, it does allow that, but that was not -- Page 18 of 28 April 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and they're loud and people would be living above or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's wrong with a -- we go from the extreme, no adult orientated services and now no churches. I mean everything in between we could take out then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because there's storefront churches. And sometimes -- if you're going to have people living above them, sometimes there's loud music. We've had problems with that in the Village Place, wherever that is, on the East Trail. There's churches in there going all night long sometimes. And this is a live /work area. MR. JACKSON: Commissioners, if I may. Again, David Jackson. The intent -- I understand where you're going. I can understand an Easter service on the lawn area or some kind of a facility where religious using the performance arts center, I can understand that. The intent, and I know where you're going, is that we have a quite a bit of problem with this, is that churches can go into a strip mall storefront and they take up the parking and they take up that, tying it. So I think you're talking about a permanent residence of some church facility on -site. I agree with that, because it does become a little bit of a problem when they start coming in and then you hold large services and they take up all the parking and they're there, and there is a noise and disruption factor. We do know that they happen on Sunday, but there's a lot of places that have Tuesday and Wednesday night and Thursday night services. So that could be a thing where you don't get a chance to, as Commissioner Strain pointed out, you don't get to control the crowd, the activity there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you list it as churches as special events only. Then when you want to have a church there, you come in and get a special events permit and you have it. MR. JACKSON: I agree. This is a very good point. It's a very good point. And I think we can get -- if we can get the language in that way, that they're there for special events but they're not on a permanent residence site. If that would be okay with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everybody is fine with that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else of the petitioner? Go ahead, Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is on the use, and this is for arts' sake. But what's the problem with the tattoo parlor, other than there's people with tattoos hanging around, you know? Is that something you really, really don't want? I mean, what does -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, yeah, I'll say yes. In East Naples, I'll say yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, they can say no, they can say no. The Commissioners can say no. But that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they won't have -- I mean, we'll go forward and they'll -- I don't think they'll pull it out. I mean, how about the owners of the CRA, do they have a concern with that? MR. JACKSON: Tattoo parlors, pawn shops, some of those other type of facilities we have plenty of spaces that we could go. There is I think probably a mystique about them more than anything else. There is a health issue, though, but they are controlled because of the needles and that type of stuff and disposal of, you know, tissues and blood and stuff that comes from it. I just think it doesn't really fit with the intent of where we're going. The neighborhood and residents, I think they're not really supportive of it. I think it's a good point in not eliminating it. It's not that we're saying that they can't be anywhere in our CRA, they're just saying just not in this location. So we're not saying they can't be anywhere on the CRA, but just not at this location, it just doesn't quite fit with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you go to Fort Myers, I think the gallery's name is Howl. There's a really nice gallery, has a tattoo parlor in it, and has a lot of contemporary art in it. It does seem to fit there. But you can pull it out. You're the owner. MR. JACKSON: I think it's a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, and then Tom. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Under your permitted uses, three, I'm a little curious about the boat rental, canoe rental, et cetera. Are you intending to use that water in any fashion with boats, canoes or anything else? MR. WRENN: If you look at the screen, this water body here would be accessible for small watercraft. The Page 19 of 28 April 19, 2012 idea was to have some type of small boat, canoe rental opportunity here. Again, in a way to embrace and engage the water that's present on -site. Due to engineering constraints, I don't know that that access will be able to extend beyond this particular boardwalk connection, where this to be constructed is as shown. But yes, that was the intent -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: That green area in the middle of the lakes, is that Tract E? Is that Tract E where your arrow is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract A. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Tract E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but it's Tract A is one where that green area is in the middle. MR. WRENN: Yes, Tract E. COMMISSIONER VONIER: E. Go back to the -- there. MR. WRENN: This space. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Show me Tract E. MR. WRENN: Tract E, okay. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Does your boardwalk run Tract E to Sugden? MR. WRENN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: To the Sugden interface? MR. WRENN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And you do not interface exactly there with the Sugden Lake, however. MR. WRENN: No, sir, there's no water craft access to Sugden Lake from this -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: And that's not intended in the future? MR. WRENN: That is not intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody -- oh, Tom, I'm sorry. MR. EASTMAN: Going back to the use of potential church services. It may be that the auditorium would be a suitable place to lease to churches for Sunday services. And it may help the economic viability of the project. I know with the school district we lease auditoriums to churches on Sundays. And if you needed to get a special permit to lease every Sunday, that may be a hassle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you intend to lease your facilities to churches on a permanent basis? I think that will sum up the question then. Because if you do, then the temporary use permit doesn't work and we have to figure out something else. But is that what your intention is, you're going to take that building and lease it to churches on a long -term basis or a more permanent basis where a temporary special event wouldn't work? MR. WRENN: That is not the intent as the project was envisioned. At current the final owner of the performing arts center could be public or could be a private entity. And that's not currently known at this time. But the intent was not for providing a space for religious services. However, it would be nice to have the flexibility. As you understand, there's an income stream involved with that that may actually improve the feasibility of the performing arts center moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure does change the concept, though. If you're going to have a permanent church there on a regular leased basis every Sunday morning, that's a little different than -- MR. EASTMAN: A lease could run for three months. A lease could run for a period of a month while a church is renovating its current facility. I mean, it's not necessarily a long -term lease. It's just allowing that use to create that income stream to help make the project more viable. And also to give the community an opportunity to have religious service in a nice environment. MR. WRENN: I agree. MR. EASTMAN: They also might want to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your suggestion, Karen, do you have any concerns? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just don't want to see storefront churches. MR. WRENN: Just creatively thinking, is there a way that we can not allow church uses under a square footage so that they would not be applicable to the artists' village component of the site but would be of a size to where they could lease the plus or minus 13,000 square foot performing arts building as is envisioned? Yeah, we could limit it to the theatre or we could add a requirement that it has to be over "X" amount of Page 20 of 28 April 19, 2012 square feet in size just to exclude the artists' village. But I think we would be happy to just limit church or religious services to the theatre and/or the outdoor amphitheater, the component to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just -- could we say just churches as a primary use. And then that means any other use of a church would work, so -- MR. WRENN: That's acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that blocks the store front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a principal use you mean, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Principal, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we limit the church use, to whatever extent they would be, to that Tract A, which is where you said they would have them anyway, because everything else is storefront. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is A and C. I mean, we could -- why don't we take it off of C, because I don't think that would ever be the case. MR. WRENN: Yeah, it would not be the case. We could take it off of C. But Tract A does include both the ground floor retail and residential above and also the performing arts center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Mark, the difference between -- principal use is what we use as an allowable use throughout the code. Primary use would mean that you can't have a function in there that is primarily a church. It's not a matter of being permitted or not, just can't have a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a definition for primary use in our code? I don't recall one. That's what struck -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we go to the dictionary and I think we might be covered there. So Heidi, can -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's why I bring my box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it electronically, but I don't think it's going to tell us anything. MR. JACKSON: Commissioners, does the word temporary or as permitted or -- would help? I think if we find language to say that they will be only in the performance area of the cultural center, not in the mixed use or the commercial building areas, and it would be on a temporary or as permitted use or as -- not permitted, but I mean, as per permit to do it. I mean, I definitely do not want the community to not be able to use it for religious services or events or baptisms or whatever it maybe that would work. We just don't want a permanent church to be there forever and use that space in that intent. So I'm not trying -- I think you understand where we're going. I think we just need to find the words that make it work for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we could -- I think if the church was somehow attached to the internal Tract A, we wouldn't have a problem, because there's no storefront possibility there. MR. WRENN: The internal A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one that you've got your parking garage on. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that cover it? MR. WRENN: Well, would a viable solution be just to move churches as an accessory use pennitted in Tract A and take it off of the principal use table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would you get the approval to use it then as an -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Oh, as a -- well, because it could only then be used where they've got room for it, but then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there has to be a principal use that this is accessory to. And what would the principal use be? I mean, you can use the words only in the performing arts center or, you know, exterior or amphitheater or -- MR. WRENN: That's -- we're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only in the performing arts center, that would cover it then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the adjoining amphitheater. Because I think David's right, an Easter Page 21 of 28 April 19, 2012 service there would be great. MR. JACKSON: Right. I think the word Commissioner Strain used was internal Tract A or you could say in the performance and amphitheater lawn. That helps also with the garage providing parking, etc., for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It kind of would have been nice if you'd have broke Tract A up into two tracts. MR. JACKSON: Too late now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's too late now, you're right. Okay, are we done with the applicant? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go on to staff. Thank you. MR. WRENN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Cherie', this is the only item on today's agenda, you want to run right through this one or do you want a break? THE COURT REPORTER: We can keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And it would be my pleasure to answer your questions first and then I'd like to go through some of staffs recommendations with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I have questions about stairs recommendations. But let's go forward. Anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions from the staffs perspective to begin with? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. Deviation seven, which is the park garage separation, if a parking garage is attached to a building, it's not considered an accessory use at that point, it's part of a primary structure. So why -- you know, this deviation only makes sense if you have a standalone parking garage. And what they want to do is attach it to the building. So wouldn't they then just meet the setbacks and the requirements of the building in which it is part of? I mean, you can have mixed use buildings which part of it's parking, part of it's the assemble use. So why do they need that deviation? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe it's because of the mixed use nature of the garage that wouldn't be solely for the tenants of the building. That's public parking, so to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is -- so it's an independent accessory building. Okay. I mean, I guess let's get the deviation so that's not a problem, but -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, your recommendations. I'm not even going to spend my time on the recommendations that the EAC sent forward. You've cleaned some of those up, thankfully. But the recommendation number two that you left in, can you tell me, first of all, the applicant shall incorporate, and it's capitalized. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 21 of the staff report under recommendations. The applicant shall incorporate, and then the following words are capitalized, low impact development, and it says standards into the design of where appropriate. Ray, or Nancy, do we have standards for low impact development currently in our code? MS. GUNDLACH: Would you like me to answer that, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That are identified as -- Page 22 of 28 April 19, 2012 MS. GUNDLACH: Not that I know of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how can you enforce that? Let's strike recommendation two because I think it's unenforceable at this time with our county. Not that it's not a bad idea. But so many people come up with many ideas on what they think LID is and then end up, how do you enforce it. And so I would rather not put confusion into any more documents. And I suggest number two be stricken. I'm not -- like I said, I'm not going to go back to the other ones, so the only recommendations I would agree with staff that are supportable is numbers now one and three. Lighting will be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. But number three I had a simple question. All required monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for a period of five years following the completion of construction. Well, if there are required monitoring reports, why do we have to put that in here as a recommendation? Don't they have to do it anyway? MS. GUNDLACH: We can ask environmental. I have my specialist here to assist us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's records. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went in there the other day and he's working the records counter. I thought this is odd, but okay. Maximum flexibility, cross training. MR. D'ARCO: Yes, I was temporarily in the records department. For the record, Chris D'Arco, Environmental Services. I'm sorry, what was the question? I was not listening, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the recommendations of staff for this project is all required monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for a period of five years following the completion of construction. Well, if they're required, then why do we have to have it as a recommendation? MR. D'ARCO: Actually, well, the monitoring reports would be for the progress of the wading bird habitat management plan that basically was put together. So it's -- it's actually -- it's actually not a requirement of the code, it was something that the EAC thought would be a good idea to see progress in terms of that management plan being developed to see how it's progressing over time with the wading bird habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's not a requirement of code. MR. D'ARCO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says here -- okay. So the stipulation, the recommendation is that all required monitoring reports shall be submitted. But if there's not one required by code, then what is it they're submitting every five years? MR. D'ARCO: Basically what they would be submitting is resurveying of the nests to see if the -- where the nests are located, if they're still on -site or have they shifted over to the area that the wading bird habitat management plan has encouraged them to shift to, to the east. So it's basically just monitoring that plan to see how it's working out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then again, like everybody else, it's not a code requirement. MR. D'ARCO: No, it's not a code requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we doing it? I understand what it's going to accomplish, but what is the need for? If the birds don't go there, so what? Are we going to change the plan? MR. D'ARCO: No, it's literally just to -- it's basically this management plan is something that was drafted that wasn't required from the state, for example. But basically staff just wants to see based on this design how it would be working out for, say, future projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But staff wants it. This is a recommendation from the EAC. So staff requested the EAC to stipulate this? MR. D'ARCO: No, staff supported it. They made a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff didn't initiate it -- MR. D'ARCO: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that it's going to cost money. Someone's going to have to do these reports for five years to see if some birds moved into an area that we hope they move into. Why? If staffs so concerned, drive out and take a look. I just don't see the need of putting that burden on a developer, whether it's the Page 23 of 28 April 19, 2012 developer being the county or it's the private sector. So recommendation three, I just can't see the need to support it. If we have a code that says you've got to do it, then by God, we all live to the code. But if we don't, then it doesn't go that way. MR. D'ARCO: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You want three -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? My suggestion is three isn't supportable based on the code, so why are we doing three? It's not because it's the county, it's because what's fair for one is fair for all, and it works both ways. Nancy, I don't have -- anybody else have anything of staff? Go ahead, Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, does the boardwalk have limited hours? MS. GUNDLACH: Not that I know o£ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why are we taking the lighting off then? What are we creating there? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm simply forwarding a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know there's nobody with tattoos around, but what's going to be happening on that unlit boardwalk? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They might be, because it will be dark. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Is it safe at night if it's unlighted? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Probably not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, the police do come before architects and discuss crime, you know, deterrents. That's certainly a major one. I mean, I can understand you wouldn't want tall lighting, but maybe, you know, bollard lighting, like only bollard lighting along something would make sense. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't they even build it into the deck -- I mean, into the railings and things just to light the walkway? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can do whatever they want. But I think keeping it dark -- MR. WRENN: There could be a provision of pedestrian lighting along the boardwalk. But to answer the question about access, as the boardwalk would connect to Sugden Park, as designed, the boardwalk would close when Sugden Park closes. I don't know what the hours are of the park, but the intent would be sunset. So the boardwalk would likely -- the access would be closed at that time as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say closed, the gate at Sugden would be closed or would there be a gate on the other end also that closed -- MR. WRENN: The gate to Sugden would be closed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So people could meander down it from your side and meander back. MR. WRENN: I agree. From an access control standpoint, the owner ultimately may decide to limit access to that at sunset as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the boardwalk is accessing Bill's boat rides and all that stuff too. So, I mean, I just don't -- I mean, then why did they not want light on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you know, that's a good point, Brad. Why aren't we simply saying that the lighting -- whatever lighting goes on the boardwalk should be low intensity lighting such that is not over, say, 42 inches high, which is -- so you can incorporate it into the rail or the foot, toe kick. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, that would be consistent, I think, with the lighting proposed for the greenway boardwalk area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that also would then, that would provide for the safety needs should you -- some people get done canoeing after dusk, they want to walk back, you want some minimum safety there. MR. OWEN: Good morning. I'm Paul Owen with W. Dexter Bender and Associates. I'm the environmental consultant on the project. I believe they wanted to remove the lighting because they were concerned about its effect on the potential wading bird habitat and the wading birds. They didn't want to disrupt their nesting, their potential nesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you are an environmentalist? Page 24 of 28 April 19, 2012 MR. OWEN: I'm an environmental consultant, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a low intensity lighting along the -- incorporated into the rail or the toe kick or bollards not more than 42 inches directed onto the boardwalk would disturb wading birds? MR. OWEN: Not in my opinion. But it wasn't my recommendation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That says it all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. Well, I think number one should go to the wayside as well, but I think with some comments that should any lighting be incorporated, it be no higher than the railing of the boardwalk and directed onto the boardwalk and of low intensity lighting. MR. OWEN: That makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, thank you for pointing that out. I -- wow. Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think I have more questions of how this was written than anything else. Some of this stuff in here, the way it's written, developers would love to get away with this. The element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community and it's justified. It seems like we're making exceptions for the county. And in reading this, I underlined several parts of it where you also have the evaluation, the extent, the development standards and deviations -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Diane, where are you reading from? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm reading from Page 16, number eight down there. The criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this mixed PUD depart from the development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning. I guess it's the way it's written. And it looks like it's favoring; it's okay that the county does it, a developer can't do this. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I can assure you, this is boilerplate language that we often write into private sector developments as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, a PUD, Diane, is supposed to incorporate creative language specific to that zoning district with the intention of departing from a conventional zoning district. That's why we allow PUD's. So as long as they are not consistent with the conventional zoning district they're what we are trying to promote. They're creative districts. Though it's just the opposite of what I think you're trying to get at with regards to they're not similar to conventional zoning districts, and that's a bad thing. Well, they're not supposed to be. If they're conventional then they could go conventional. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I guess it's just the way that it's written. I've never seen this in a PUD written like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't want you to think that there's no -- there's no unbalanced privileges provided here. In fact, the scrutiny that this is being provided to is probably equal to or greater than what you would get in the private sector simply because it is the county. At least from my perspective. So I don't think there's a problem between the PUD and the conventional zoning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any people from the public who would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy, did you have any more you wanted to add? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is just one deviation that I wanted to clarify. And we had discussed it earlier in our hearing this morning. And it's in regards to the ceiling height, deviation number six. I just wanted to clarify that that would only apply to the theatre use. Page 25 of 28 April 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Anything else, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: And that we're recommending approval, of course. I just had to state that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now your recommendations have gone kind of by the wayside, with the exception of some corrections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, on that last point, in their little exhibit they do show commercial and/or residential use. I think they should take those words out and use theatre use in that diagram. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Thank you for that catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with that then, is there any rebuttal needed by the applicant? I would hope not. Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing. I have a list of deviations we talked about, in case the motion is for approval, at least. Maybe whoever makes it would like to incorporate these. First one would be that they would move the south wall up along the loading area, it would continue up along the loading area to buffer those residences to the south. Number two, the inside ceiling height, it would be at 42 feet regarding the, what do you call that, the amphitheater? MS. GUNDLACH: Theatre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Theatre. Regarding the theatre. And the detail would be corrected to reflect that. They're going to provide current changes -- the upcoming changes to the Bayshore overlay, should they pass, they'll also be applicable to this particular PUD. They're going to add temporary use permits as a requirement for the special events in item, I think it was 2.A under the planning. I'll get the number just to be accurate. Actually, no, it was on Page 5. After the table of permitted use, it was D.1. The minimum number of mixed use residential uses, they'll have to construct with the first 20,000 square feet on Exhibit F.2 -A will be 20 instead of 40. The following change will be made to the permitted uses table, 5813, which is number 23, will have no bottle clubs. On number 30, they're going to eliminate the halfway houses -- offender halfway houses. Number 41, excluding pawn shops. Number 52, excluding tattoo parlors. Number 58, excluding adult oriented sales. Number 73, excluding adult orientated rentals. Number 15, the churches will be only in the performing arts center or in the adjoining amphitheater. That's all I had on the permitted uses. Number seven, boardwalk lighting will be permitted but to be limited to a height not greater than the boardwalk rail, and it must be directed onto the boardwalk. Number eight, deviation number six will only apply to theatre use. Those are the notes I made. Does anybody see any additional ones or corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion from anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll,make it, Mark. But let me -- I kind of lost the -- I move we forward PUDZ- PL2010 -0592 with the stipulations you noted and a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, one stipulation I forgot to make -- or comment I forgot to make, I need you to confirm it, is that we are not accepting any of staffs recommendations, or the EAC's for that matter. Is that so moved by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I accept that. Page 26 of 28 April 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane -- okay, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you very much. It's a heck of a good improvement for East Naples and I'm Pleased its going forward. That's a good thing. Thank you all. ** *Okay, that takes us to old business, of which there's none listed. New business, don't have any. Public comment? We're gone. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brougham, seconded by Melissa. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 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 10:38 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK PI STRAIN, Chairman Page 27 of 28 April 19, 2012 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on — ( 7 —f L , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 28 of 28