Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/20/2012 RSeptember 20, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 20, 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: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Phillip Brougham .ABSENT: William Vonier Paul Midney Barry Klein Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Page 1 of 28 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 16,2012, 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PL20110000769/CPSS-2012-2: A Petition requesting a Small Scale Amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series by amending the"Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict",to add a 2.8±acre parcel of land; add Senior Housing, including Independent Living Units, Assisted Living Facilities, Congregate Care Facilities, Continuing Care Retirement Communities, Skilled Nursing Facilities and similar uses, not to exceed a maximum F.A.R. of 0.45; retain medical office use,not to exceed a maximum of 5,000 square feet;revise setback and buffering standards; remove requirement for an outdoor patio; and revise the Subdistrict name to "Golden Gate Estates Commercial and Institutional Infill Subdistrict". The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Michele Mosca,AICP,Principal Planner] 1 B. PUDZ-A-PL20120000303: Mirasol RPUD--An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2009-21, the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit Development, by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 799 to 1,121; by amending Ordinance Number 2004- 41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 95±acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural(A)to the Mirasol RPUD;by revising the development standards;by amending the master plan;and adding deviations and revising developer commitments. The property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,638.6± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 September 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Vonier is absent. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Pm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. We know him as Brad. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. Mr. Klein is absent. And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first item up is the addenda to the agenda. And as all of you should have seen in some of the emails, the first item up is a master plan change to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. After some discussion with the Golden Gate City civic association, it was discovered they had not seen a final draft, and so they had requested that this be postponed until they could. I had asked the agent if -- agent's rep, Mr. Yovanovich, if they would mind, and he agreed at our -- at my request, which I would hope would reflect what the Planning Commission would approve, this would not come back to us till November 1, 2012, so our November 1st meeting is when we'd hear the Number 9A, which is PL- 20 1 1 0000769 /CPS S2012 -2. If that is satisfactory to this board, would someone make a motion to continue that to November 1 st? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 6 -0, and that is at the request of the Planning Commission. The other item that is noticeably absent from our calendar -- and its the first mistake Caroline's made. She's not on today's agenda. Page 2 of 28 September 20, 2012 What happened, Ray? We're used to seeing her with something every day now'for weeks on'end. So kind of a -- we're not -- we're not done. We still had things to come back, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I believe she's got something scheduled. I don't know if it's the next meeting or not, but I think she's preparing for a board hearing, to take some of the items to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's fine. I just noticed she also has had something on an agenda, so -- the next item is Planning Commission absences, and we have a meeting on next Friday. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make that next meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that is the Annual Update and Inventory Report; the acronym is AUIR. We review it once every year, and next Friday's our day, so you -all should have received a three -ring binder with all the information in it. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I note that -- somewhere I read that there's a potential continuance reserved as well on Monday, if necessary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if necessary. In the years past, we've done a joint review with the Productivity Committee when we are at a more expansive time in our county, and the AUIR review got really involved. I don't expect that to happen, so we should be able to finish up Friday and hopefully not need that extra day. Then the next regular meeting, I think, is October 4th, first Thursday in October. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I'm not reappointed, I won't be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we hope you do get reappointed, because we certainly use your expertise a lot on this board. So hopefully that will work for you, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes. The August 16th packet was sent to us electronically. Does anybody have any corrections to those minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to approve the minutes as drafted. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 6 -0. Ray, do we have any recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I'm just -- almost got it pulled up on the screen. The board approved conditional use for Ichthyo Park on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it. Chairman's report; nothing new. We're just going to march through today's meeting and continue on. Page 3 of 28 September 20, 2012 Consent agenda items. There are none. * * *So we'll move into our only advertised public hearing that remains. That would be 9B. That is PUDZ- A- PL20120000303. It's a revision to the -- or amendment to the Mirasol RPUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any disclosures from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As did I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so did 1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just spoke with staff and with Nicole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also talked to Nicole, too, so that's it. And now we'll hear the light version of Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner in this matter. With me today is Tony Scuteri (phonetic) from Taylor Morrison, Don Malarcik, and Dennis Gilkey. They are the group that is under contract to purchase the property. Ron Waldrop with Waldrop Engineering can answer any engineering related questions. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering can answer any planning related questions that I can't answer. Tim Hall is here with -- from Turrell Hall, who can answer any environmental permitting related questions. And, finally, we have Jim Banks with GMB, transportation engineering, who can answer any transportation questions that I can't answer. Today's petition is a request to amend the Mirasol PUD. I have put on the visualizer an outline of the Mirasol PUD. The location is on Immokalee Road just to the west of 951. We -- Broken Back Road is actually the road to the east of our property that someday may become 951, if it's ever extended to the north. As I mentioned briefly, there's a new developer that includes Taylor Morrison, Dennis Gilkey, and Don Malarcik, Dennis Gilkey for the property. We're making some what I think are relatively minor changes to the PUD that I will take you through, and then we'll be available to answer any questions. Are we comfortable? We're good? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Just want to put it north. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anyway, the aerial that is up there for you now in yellow is the existing PUD boundaries. And in -- I think that's orange — is what are the proposed PUD boundaries. We're essentially adding 90 acres to the PUD, 80 of which are in the urban area and 10 of which are in the rural mixed -use district. All -- basically, that is why we're increasing the density from the currently approved 799 units for the project to 1,121 units. It's -- the additional acreage that we're adding results in those 322 units. If we wanted to maximize the eligible density under the Comprehensive Plan, we could ask for 1,946 units. Staff says I could ask for 1,947 units, so I must have rounded down, which is not like me, but I'll -- we could ask for much more than we're actually asking for. The project size increases from 1,543 acres to 1,638 acres, but the actual project footprint is reduced. What we're doing is we're adding these acres, which will basically be preserve acreage, and we're also eliminating one of the golf courses and adding the golf course acreage to, basically, preserve in a non - developable area. So the project shrinks from 809 acres to 709 acres. So there's a decrease in impact as a result of what we're doing, and that results from discussions that we had with various environmental groups. It's referenced in your staff report; that kind of resulted from permitting, core permitting, and Water Management District permitting. So it was an agreement reached, and we're going forward to implement that agreement by amending the PUD and, ultimately, the permits. Page 4 of 28 September 20, 2012 SoJI will put up the new master plan for you to review. Let's see if I get the direction right. -And if you need me to, I could put the old one up for you to be able to see side by side. But if you basically look on the western boundary, you'll see a lot more preserve than was previously on this project and you will see a long -- what we refer to as a long narrow lake that will actually take water from the northern portion of the project into the canal along Immokalee Road. And we previously had a chain of lakes to do that, but we're going through this meandering flowway, if you will. From a development standards standpoint, Kay did a very thorough job of explaining the differences. Essentially, the uses that were previously approved are staying in the PUD. With the development standards table, the only real change -- and I'll go through some subsequent changes that resulted from discussions that I had with some of you. But the only real change that we had originally asked for was a setback related to the single- family type uses. We wanted to be able to go down to a 5 -foot setback for the lots that are less than 70 feet in width. And this has been something that's been approved in, I believe it was, Tuscany Reserve and a few other PUDs that have come through recently where we've reduced the side setback to 5 feet for the smaller lots within a project. And it fits product type that's out there and the market likes, and it also helps us further implement the agreements we made to reduce the building or -- yeah, the footprint for the development. We've asked for some, I will call them, standard or routine deviations to be added to the PUD. All of those deviations have received staff support. We are -- one of the deviations they asked us on the models, to reduce the request for model units from 60 to 40. We're agreeable to reducing that from 60 to 40 and provide for the accounting that staff has requested. There's some confusion. If you will go with me to the ordinance and the PUD document attached to it, on Page 1 of Exhibit A, under Paragraph B, accessory uses and structures, Item No. 4 refers to clubhouse or recreation centers for residents and guests, and we also have an Item 8 that refers to the golf course complex. Those are very different uses, and there was confusion by using that word "clubhouse" in Item No. 4 that perhaps we would be allowed to use the development standards table. In Table 1 we'd be able to use the column called "clubhouse and recreation buildings." So we think the way to fix this is to eliminate Item No. 4, because Item No. 3 directly above that is common area recreation facilities, and that's really what was intended. We will have the golf course complex which will be the major amenity for the community. There will be neighborhoods throughout this project; condominium projects, subdivisions. They may also have a smaller recreational common area facility to serve just those smaller neighborhoods. Those would be governed by the accessory-use standards under those individual types of uses. So if it's in a single - family detached community, those smaller common -area facilities would have to meet the accessory- structure standards that are in the table, not the clubhouse recreation building standards. That would only apply to the golf course complex that's identified on the master plan. So we would propose eliminating Item No. 4 under the accessory-use structures to hopefully address that confusion that I think staff had, and I know that some of you -- some of the people I spoke to from the Planning Commission had regarding, what do you mean by these satellite clubhouses. Can they be 75 feet tall was the question that was generally posed to me. And my response was, no, it can't be, so we need to find a way to make that clear. I mentioned we're fine with the 40 models. There's -- and since we're in the development standard section, let's go to the development standards table on Page 4 of 19 of the PUD that's in your staff report. Under the multifamily dwelling uses, there's a sideyard setback of 10 feet. And I was asked, well, you know, you can go to an actual height of 65 feet. Do you really plan to put a 65- foot -tall building right, you know, within 10 feet of the boundary line? And the individual I spoke to said that just seems a little extreme. So we would propose changing the side setback to be one -half the building height. I think that's been a generally accepted standard for sideyard setbacks for multifamily dwellings. Likewise, that would apply under the accessory use portion of the -- I believe that would apply for the accessory uses as well. Continuing on through the PUD document, if you go to Page 10 of 19, those are the notes on the master plan. Page 5 of 28 September 20, 2012 And we need to make a couple of clarifications. As you can see on the master plan, we've identified where the golf complex will be. It's in this area right here. The question that was posed to me was, can you relocate that golf course complex anywhere within the project without having to come back through the process? And I think we had the same concern on a recently approved project. It may have been Naples Reserve or Hacienda Lakes. I don't remember which one it was recently. But we added a note or a limitation on that it can be located -- relocated consistent with the requirements of the Land Development Code. So we were not intending to ask for any deviation from those standards. So if we could add a note similar to what we've done on a recently adopted project, we would be -- if we did move it, it would be subject to the standards in the Land Development Code as to whether or not we would need to come back to this board or the Board of County Commissioners or whether it would be determined at the staff level. Also, on that, under the special notes where it refers to -- if after exotic removal, the preserve vegetation fails to meet minimum code buffer standards, additional planting materials may be required, we've been changing that word from "may" to "shall," and we'll need to make that change as well on this document. Going -- continuing on through the PUD, when you get to Page 14 of 19, Deviation No. 8, that's where there's the reference to 60 model homes. We would need to change that reference to 40 model homes. Moving on to Page 16 of 19. Under development commitment transportation B 1, we had previously had approved a predetermined amount of $45,000 per acre. There's some question as to whether or not there's a requirement that you have an appraisal before you predetermine a price. We have agreed to revise that language to basically provide that we will convey that property to the county at an agreed -upon appraisal amount. And then I have one other transportation commitment that I'll deal with at the end, because its going to -- it's kind of hot off the presses. It was raised within the last couple of days, and we've reached an agreement on some language with transportation. But I want to address something that's a little less complex before we get to that. There's been a question regarding timing of, basically, the project amenities. And in this particular project, the project amenity is going to be a golf course and a pro shop and locker room serving the golf course. That will be the amenity that basically, the community will be provided, and then individual subdivisions will get what the individual subdivisions would get. The intent is, and the commitment is, is to provide the golf course and a temporary club -- temporary locker room and pro shop complex by the 100th CO, and then the permanent pro shop and locker room facility by the 500th CO. I got that right, Tony, right? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you say that again, please, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We would do golf course and the temporary locker room and pro shop by the 100th CO and then the permanent locker room and pro shop CO by the 500th CO. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: When you say 5 -, Rich, is that completed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Yes, CO. You mean -- yeah, the complex. Yes, the building will be completed by the 500th CO of our project, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think those are the relatively easy ones. Now, I'm going to hand out, and I know -- I don't think Heidi's had a chance to see this at all. But I'll explain the concept, and hopefully the words are consistent with the concept. And I recognize there may need to be some wordsmithing between now and the consent hearing on this. But the concept is this: As you can see on -- well, on the master plan, we have an entrance on our eastern portion of the project that will, basically, connect to Broken Back Road and, eventually, 951 if it's extended. Broken Back Road ends -- will end at a certain point, and we will extend that to our eastern entrance. We would need to do a collector or -- two -lane collector road to meet county road requirements to get to our eastern entrance. That's a site - related improvement. So we have agreed that we will construct that site - related improvement at our expense to our eastern entrance. If the county wants something bigger, if they want an arterial standard or they want something else above and Page 6 of 28 September 20, 2012 beyond what the LDC says a collector road is, we will build it for the county, and in exchange we'll get road impact fee credits for the upgrades. So that's what this language is intended to say — it was written by an engineer -- and I think it does say that. So but that's the intent. I know we spoke to Mr. Jarvi this morning. I know he's comfortable with the language we've proposed. I know you're seeing it for the first time, and Heidi's seeing it for the first time. But that's the concept. And if we need to make some tweaks to it between now and the consent agenda, we'll be happy to work with staff and with Heidi to make sure it implements the intent of what we've written here. With that, I think that is the summary of all the changes we're requesting. We've had many, many, many public hearings on the Mirasol project. So I think most of you may have been actually on the Planning Commission when we went through it the last time. Some of you weren't, but I know some of you were watching it. So if I need to go more detailed, I'm happy to go into any details you need. But with that, that concludes my summary of what we're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple follow -ons, Rich, regarding the clubhouses. During our conversation the other day, you had referenced that at this point your developer is considering this to be developed as an inclusive golf -- what's the word, the phraseology? MR. YOVANOVICH: Bundled golf community. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- bundled golf community, and you're going to have 1,121 units proposed, and if you figure there's one -and -a -half golfers per unit, potentially, et cetera, et cetera, my concern would center around the size of the temporary clubhouse at 100 and/or at 500. "Temporary" can mean different things to different people. Can you just explain more of what's proposed for that kind of a facility? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're actually going to -- obviously, the -- let me take a step back. Usually, when you're talking about amenities that go to a project, they're really not zoning -level type decisions. Those are marketing decisions that the developer will make and figure out what's best, the timing that's best, and then they'll market that to people who are interested in the project. Recognizing that there is some concern from the Planning Commission as to making sure that the developer follows through on these marketing conditions, the last few projects have agreed to include provisions relating to those types of commitments. The developer will size the temporary facilities as they determine is appropriate to satisfy the pace of building and make sure that -- if he doesn't size them appropriately, people aren't going to buy in the community. So I hesitate to commit what exactly that facility is going to be square - footage -wise, what its going to include, but the concept of you have a developer who really needs to make sure that that facility helps him sell units. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, exactly, exactly. MR. YOVANOVICH: It will obviously be something that is appropriate to help sell the community. And in this particular case, you know, you have an idea who the developer is, and that developer has done a good job. So I'm not trying to be -- avoid the question. Pm trying to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's not code, and I certainly agree with that. So okay, I understand your answer. What --jumping completely out of those traces, you're going to put a buffer along Immokalee Road, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There was some concern expressed by email by a resident across Immokalee Road, I believe, as to, are you going to clear out all those trees and we're going to be sitting there looking at construction activities without any buffering? Can you address that as to when that buffer would go in or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to that question is that that is the area that we will be clearing as the first phase of our project. And we will -- unfortunately, it's the way it is. It is what it is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're going to clear it out to build that? MR. YOVANOVICH: At some point you're going to have to clear it to build that and that is an area we will be clearing to do the development, and eventually there will be — the development will be in that area and -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And, at some point, you're going to put in the buffer? Page 7 of 28 September 20, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMIS SIONER BROUGHAM: Just one more, and I think I'm done. You and I had talked about the phasing of the project in terms of where you're going to begin construction and how that construction is potentially going to evolve throughout the development. The golf course, as I understand it is going to be one of the first items to be constructed; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it is. The golf course is going to be one of the first items -- areas to be constructed. What -- I put the master plan back up there, because we have -- we basically have a spine road, a main road, and I hope that this will address your concern is that the way the main road will be set up, projects will go off of the main road. So in doing so, if you look, basically, at the end, you're not going to see every truck go by your house because you're going to be an offshoot from the main road. So you will see development occurring, obviously, in your neighborhood as that neighborhood builds out, but you won't be in a situation where if you're at the end of the project, you're going to be bothered by trucks going by your home every day. So the way its set up is you've got the main road and neighborhoods that come off of it. So any impact that you have from construction - related traffic will be related to your subdivision, your condominium project, but not the entirety of the development. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, just a quick thing. Just running through the PUD, you've taken out the equestrian club, yet we still have equestrian trails in the passive recreation. Where are the horses coming from? In other words, is that for people who live outside the project or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That should have also come out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The multifamily, the setbacks, still a little concerned. Obviously, you changed the sideyard to be one -half the building height. And down at the distance between principal structures, that's still 20 feet. Is that something you will need? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can change that to one -half the sum of the building heights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I, actually, wrote that, and I forgot to point that out. I apologize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have to be careful, because in the building code you're getting into areas where -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- your fire rating, your access is going to really make the building expensive if you want to do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question, but I'll ask Ray, but you can listen. Ray, when you have an accessory building with a zero setback, isn't that essentially part of the principal building? I mean, can you still consider yourself an accessory? MR. BELLOWS: A zero from the property line or track line? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One of the things they're doing is they're removing the 10 -feet distance for the accessory buildings. And I'm sure I know what it was. It was -- at one time they wanted out - buildings that could be side by side. But, you know, the distance between accessory structures on the same lot, wouldn't that be -- aren't they attached then if they're at zero, and aren't they -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, if I understand the question correctly, yeah, they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one below it — Brad may address that. Distance between accessory and principal structures on the same lot is five -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's the one I should be looking at. Page 8 of 28 September 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, the line above that also, though, Ray, doesn't that really -- I mean, if you have an accessory building connected to the structures, they're part of the structure. I mean, unless there's an advantage 1 could see calling the use of that an accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be like a garage that's attached to the main building, then that's -- is that garage, in the case of a townhouse, accessory or principal? I think that's what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be part of the principal building. You can always attach it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's a standard that carries over. That was previously approved, so we haven't changed that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not gaining -- in other words, if we wipe the whole line out, you have the exact same abilities in construction. It made sense when you had 10 feet. It doesn't make sense when it's all zeroed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I think we're fine at putting it back in at zero or 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, then it makes sense, or take the whole thing out, and just -- when you attach it to the principal building, it's part of the principal building. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So wait, how did we decide to handle those two lines, accessory on the same lot and accessory and principal on the same lot? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure where you're up to with the product. Do you see what I'm saying, Rich, because if you are going to push the garages up against the house like Mark described, its part of the principal building; no problem. But there's no reason for a setback or us to fix the dimension. MR. YOVANOVICH: I get it on single - family. I'm not sure on multifamily if you have these garages that are out in -- you know, not under the structure, but kind of out in front. And they may be touching the principal structure. I don't know that that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your solution just to say zero or 10 works. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's what I'm saying is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm saying. Is that how we decided to leave those two lines? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would like the zero or 10 to stay in. I don't want to go right to 10, because the interpretation may be on that particular one how we've done it it's -- that -- you know, it's touching. It's considered an accessory structure versus part of the principal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you can put the 10 back, and that's a minimum dimension. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On accessory structures, again, we have the height, the zoned and actual, to be the same as the principal structure. On multifamily, why would you need accessory buildings to be that tall? I mean -- MR YOVANOVICH: What do we need? I mean, again, we weren't really changing standard there. I mean, it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're not going to do more than a single -story accessory structure, so why don't you just peg the height? You're not going to do a 65- or 75 -foot height? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I understand that. I just want to make sure -- Pm trying to think about what a screen -- how high we might need for that -- if it's a screen enclosure or something like that. I just -- I didn't want to go too low. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you made it the same as townhouses, that would be, I think -- make sense, the 35 and 45. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We'll make that change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the concern I had, I could picture a 65 -foot -high screen enclosure, which wouldn't be -- maybe not that good. On this page, the only last question is, the minimum floor area; is that per building, or is that per unit? Page 9 of 28 September 20, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Pm sorry. I was -- my head was going somewhere on the accessory-use thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The big screen. On Page 4, the minimum floor area, is that per unit or per building? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's for units. Are you talking about where it says "floor area minimum" -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- "1,000 square feet "? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's for units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Can we add that then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because, otherwise, it could be per building. I guess the only question is the flag lights what -- or flag lots. Is the only definition for flag lot going to be this drawing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think these are examples. I can't swear to it, but is there a definition in the Land Development Code for flag lots? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a drawing. MR. YOVANOVICH: In the code -- I don't recall. Yeah. This is just simply, you know, to give you an example of what a flag lot would look like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there is no definition, just that picture, and staff will work from that? MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, it's a carryover from what was previously there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't spend a whole lot of time focusing back on those standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The cul-de -sac deviation, why do we constantly need that? Because the 1,000 foot in the code does have a good reason. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, but we also have the limitations in there that we have to have appropriate -- if it goes longer, we still have to meet the fire code. If there are portions of the cul -de -sac where we have bump -out areas for the vehicle to turn around, we provide for that, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But at a greater distance? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. But, again, the fire department's going to have the ultimate say on whether or not they accept how we do the cul -de -sac. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But unfortunately, cul -de -sac lengths aren't in the fire code. How they do it is in the fire code. But, in other words, so you -- again, 1,200, I think, is a gift; the 1,600, why are you increasing that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, honestly, I think you're talking about the layout of project, how do we lay this out to address all of the concerns that we're addressing with the community, and I mean the community being the environmental community. You're also trying to make sure you're -- you want a product that people like. I don't think -- I think most people really don't — I think most people prefer to live on a cul -de -sac versus living on a street that's a through street. So I appreciate that the code has this limitation on cul -de -sacs, but I don't think it took into consideration the real world when you're marketing projects. Now, the concern was -- is not making the fire truck drive too far before it had an ability to turn around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the only concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we have now -- we've become more sophisticated as time has gone along to include, if you have a long cul -de -sac, an ability to have the bump -out, you know, a mini cul -de -sac turnaround for the fire trucks to turn around. So I hope we've addressed the concern of the fire truck driving too far and having to turn around while, at the same time, addressing the concern of what the residents really want where they live. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this deviation is written well, discussed -- it's the ability to turn a vehicle around. It's not the charming life at the end of the cul -de -sac, because if you want that, you can have a much Page 10 of 28 September 20, 2012 longer cul -de -sac, but you just have to have the ability to turn it around at certain distan ces. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way you've written Deviation 2 certainly describes the ability to have T -turns and everything else. It doesn't have to be a cul-de -sac. So while I'm with you, it is fun to live at the end of one, it's a really long one to get there, is my concern. So do we have to increase that? Can we keep it at 1,200? 1 mean, I'm not sure what you mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We asked for the 1,600 because we want the 1,600 as part of our development standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what do you gain from that? I mean, you could have 1,000 -- or, you know, a 5,000 -foot cul -de -sac, but just along the way you've got to be able to turn a vehicle around. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. So what — so what's the harm with having the cul-de -sac the way we've got it written? Maybe I'm missing the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of looking at why you're needing it why shouldn't he have it? I think that's probably -- what's wrong with it? What does it hurt? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I think -- I guess maybe I'm trapped on the word "cul -de- sac," too. In other words, I don't think you need a cul -de -sac every 1,600 feet. I think you need a turnaround. So do you think this is written to give that? In other words, when we use the distance for cul -de -sac — MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're saying, if we have a cul -de -sac that's less than 1,600 linear feet, we have one turnaround at the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: If we go beyond that, at the different intervals, we'll have another ability for the vehicle to turn around. So if we exceed that number, we'll have the ability to turn around. If we go to 5,000 feet -- and let's just do 4,800, because I can do that in my head -- we would have three, okay. Five thousand would get a little confusing for me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good. You did that one real well. MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's working on my division and multiplication tables. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're saying is you're moving -- the deviation's well written. The problem I'm having is you have the same number in both spots. I mean, I don't care how long it takes you to get to that charming little cul-de -sac as long as people can turn around, theoretically, based on the Land Development Code, every 1,000 feet along the way. So if you look at your Deviation 2, the way it's written, can we change that second number or leave it at 1,200? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- before you answer that, though, are these going to have medians, these internal roads? I mean, I don't imagine at the width you're talking about. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somebody, to turn around, could pull into any driveway and back out, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can't count a driveway because it could have a car in it. MR. YOVANOVIC14: Are we talking about for -- if I live at end of the -- if someone's coming to visit me and I live at the end of the street and they realize they went down the wrong street and they need to do a U -turn, is it for the car or is it for the fire truck we're talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's actually for the guy responding to a heart attack. I don't care about how long your friend gets lost. It's the -- I want the fire department to be able to turn around and get out of there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I could tell you that the fire staff hasn't objected to this request. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I've had conversations with them, and they've supported — remember, because I'm always here fighting over the 1,000 feet. I've never had any of them tell me and actually have answered positive that it is a worthy cause. It's just not in their code; that's why they can't. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, then they need to put it in their code, because at this point we think we've addressed the concern of the emergency vehicle turning around that I would -- I would think that the fire department or county EMS or whomever who thinks that it absolutely ought to be 1,000 feet or ought to be 1,200 feet and thou Page 11 of 28 September 20, 2012 shalt not have a turnaround further than there, they need to get involved in the process of designing these codes. And we haven't had any concerns about a 1,600 feet. If I had a 1,600 -foot cul -de -sac, I would have to have a turnaround at 1,200 and then another one 400 feet later. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. That's not what this is saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- it isn't? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you have a 1,600 -foot cul -de -sac, it will satisfy the turnaround. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where do I get to the end? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: How do I turn around at the end? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The cul -de -sacs, you would turn around. MR- YOVANOVICH: But if we moved it back to 1,200 and I did one that was 1,600 feet long, I would have a turnaround at 1,200, and then at the end I would have another one 400 feet later. So that doesn't make any sense, so the 16 -- the 1,600 feet hasn't met, to my knowledge, any objections from county EMS or any of the fire departments, and we think it makes sense. And since there's been no objections -- we still are subject to fire department review at the end of the day anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but if they don't have it in the code, they can't make you do it. The -- why do we have it in the Land Development Code, then? Let's take it out of there. Why do we have the silly requirement? What did the people before us think about when they wrote that requirement? Obviously, fire and everybody must have been involved in that. Ray, why do we have a 1,000 -foot requirement? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I am the older guy here, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. MR. BELLOWS: My recollection is that there was a concern, as you're expressing, of long cul-de -sacs and emergency service to those long cul-de -sacs. I think over time the LDC was amended to address that by requiring some kind of turnaround at a certain distance. This has been a normal deviation request for many PUDs, especially one that covers two sections or two- and -a -half sections of land. You're going to have longer cul-de -sacs serving a project of this size. But it -- I don't know how the number was derived other than I believe it was in coordination with the fire department and emergency services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, wasn't, also, part of the thought that you have -- if you have a long cul -de -sac, you've got a dead -end pipe for water, and the bacteriological cleansing of that pipe is problematic with a dead -end pipe. So they wanted to limit the number of dead -end pipes of any length, and they -- but since then they've come up with those hydro guards that do self - flushing of the pipes which allow the chlorine to get through the lines and, you know, kill the bacteria. So I think that -- if I recall, that was part of the reasoning for the length, too. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I recall that issue, too, but there -- my understanding was there were other ways to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That have come onboard since the code was initiated. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, so that — so that item might be resolved. And I think its down to your item now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if that was in there and that was the reason they went to a 1,000, that means something. But anyway, from my discussion with fire, and at the state level, too, I would like to see that left at 1,200. And, Rich, you know, a lot of product, a lot of communities are enjoying, you know, the cul -de -sacs, the breaking the roads up and everything like that. I mean, if you had a -- you know, an unlimited length, you know, your development's not going to look as good. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's nothing prohibiting us from doing it more frequently than 1,600. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now we've looked at 1,600. My experience with the multiple fire districts is Page 12 of 28 September 20, 2012 they've never been shy in expressing a concern about a project, so -- and I don't mean that in any disrespect to them. They are very assertive in expressing a concern, and they will express a concern if they have a problem with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem. When I ask them, they support it. When you ask them, I guess they don't. And I do. I asked them as recently as yesterday morning. So -- I mean, they say it's in there for a reason. I mean, I -- it's not a deal breaker for me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'd just as soon we leave it in, and we can end up doing something less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would wish you would come and say, you know, we designed the streets with the -- you know, with the set up with the product we're using, 1,600 feet fits in perfect, but I'm not getting that answer either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that is the answer. We have -- we have laid this project out in pretty good detail. Now, obviously, the reason you don't have it in front of you is, you know, this is what we want to do, but market could change things. But these standards are based upon a detailed, laid -out project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll back off. Maybe you and I can have a conference call with the fire department together sometime. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my only other question is kind of just a curiosity one is -- the outparcel Section 10 is that one outparcel up at the north, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so what would happen there? This has nothing to do with your project. But you would be giving them a right -of -way. And what would they be doing, going through the preserve with a road or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They'll have — right now -- we'll provide them the ability to design, permit, and construct an access to their piece, because right now they're landlocked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it has been since the project was -- yes, since'02. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not for a lack of effort either. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I remember that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, again, that was just out of curiosity. I'm done. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we provided for him, that person -- if its a him or her, I don't know at this point -- to get access to their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, this 20 feet that you're taking the townhouse down to, that is scary. And I know you want to use this other lot phase. I am kind of familiar with this project, being it's been on the books for many, many years. And I understand -- in fact, I kind of feel sorry for the developer, because its like, after you got done with the environmentalists, you just took everything -- because you're now 100 acres less. You just took everything and said, that's it. We're just going to scrunch everything right in there. And I don't see any -- other than your master plan here, which is pretty loose -- to me it's -- I can't see all the planning here. And unless you -- unless I can really see what the planning is -- and I know you don't have to show it. But to me it was, okay, we can't do it this way. We're shrinking everything. So we're going to make a 20- foot -wide lot for a townhouse. And I know you call it now a tag lot. I've never heard of a tag lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. A townhome is a row home, okay. So when we're referring to 20 feet, we're talking about the actual unit will be 20 feet wide, not the lot. But they're sold as individual lots when you do it as a townhome versus a multifamily product. So you have a narrow townhome type -- not — yeah, townhome, but kind of row home is what you would see up north. So that's the type of product we're talking about here for the townhome. And there's product out there that Page 13 of 28 September 20, 2012 fits in this and is very popular with buyers to have these -- this narrow multi -story townhouse similar to what you would find up north and throughout Florida now. But I mean, its like a row house in the cities and other communities, and that's what we're doing, and its a 20- foot -wide wall -to -wall is what we're referring to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, but in here you're saying that you're using it on No. 7. You've got the little asterisk there. And that's the -- kind of the tag lot for the townhouse and, yet, 20 feet is -- I just can't believe that you would take 20 feet and consider that a lot. And I understand they are connected. I do understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's the way the — in order to sell -- let's take -- first of all, let's just take Note 7 out and the reference to that okay. But does that address the issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa. Take seven out of what, all of the -- it appears on almost every single — MR. YOVANOVICH: Just on the townhouses, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just on the — all of the locations on the townhouse? There's one, two, three, four of them, or just one location? I mean, if you're going to do something, we need to make it clear for the record so we get it stipulated right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm told flag lots do not apply to townhomes. So wherever the flag lot footnote pertains to townhomes it comes out. Now, regarding the lot size, is these -- this product is three, four, five, however many units in a row, you convey to them in a fee - simple interest, and interest included in that fee - simple interest is the ground below the unit. Unlike a multifamily product -- condo product where you're buying air, you're not buying the ground; a townhome you do. So in order to do that, we have to call it a lot, and we define it as such, and you -- we convey it as such. It's Lot 1 of an individual project. So that's what we're doing. And it looks like multifamily, if you will, but it is treated as a single- family use for purposes of a conveyance purposes. That's all we're doing. If this were a multifamily building, I could have a -- individual units could be 20 feet wide. It doesn't look any differently to you and I from the road. It's simply a legal conveyance issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many townhomes are planned for this PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, what we're starting to get into here on a lot of this stuff is you're asking me to design my product — my project here at the podium. And if -- it's a market -- it's going to be market driven. The point I have on that is, is these standards are not unusual standards. This is all with -- internal to the Mirasol project. If this is not a product that people do not want to buy, it will not be built. You don't build it and hope they come. So I don't know -- I don't know how many townhomes there will be, because I don't know what the market wants. So I hesitate to — I hesitate to even tell you, because anything I tell you may not be right, and I don't want someone to say, hey, well, you know, Rich, you said on the record you're going to have X number of units of townhomes, and I may have less, I may have more, but it's market driven, and its not an unusual product to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. But when you -- Rich, when you're looking at this -- I remember when I was at the very first meeting before these other people were involved, you said definitely not over 799 homes, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have added acreage to make up for the density. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I understand that. I do understand all that. But you don't know how many single - family homes are going to be in there, you don't know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Don't. Got an idea. I mean -- and I will tell you that most projects that come in front of you don't. I mean, you just can't. You have an idea, but the market changes. And the purpose of this PUD is to come up with standards to give a developer the ability to build a marketable project, not to tell the developer you're going to do this, because the developer is the one who's got to make the decision and make the investment as to what the market will accept. The Planning Commission isn't qualified to do that. Staffs not qualified to do that. I'm not qualified to do that. This is the risk the developer takes based upon their experience in the market. These are accepted PUD Page 14 of 28 September 20, 2012 standards. They've been previously approved. Yes, it used to be 35 feet wide for an individual townhome unit, but the market has changed since then. They are narrower -- I can't say that word right now -- townhomes out there that the market has readily accepted, and that's why we've asked for the change. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And another one here and -- on the clubhouse you have parking not to exceed 50 feet; 75 feet actual height? MR. YOVANOVICH: Two stories over parking, not to exceed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seventy -five feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's -- you know, between actual and zoned, normally Brad said to me it's about 5, 10 feet with that, and now you're going 25 feet. Pretty soon I'm going to ask the Land Development Code to change it back to actual only, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, see, what happens when you have an actual that -- on a clubhouse, you can put bell towers, clock towers, poles -- things like that that are more decorative you wouldn't get on a regular building that is used for a retail, commercial, or for residential. So we've done this before, Diane -- I mean, prior to you coming on the board, of course. But we have done some of this routinely because of the architectural embellishments they add to these buildings. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, then it would be nice to say for the extra, not the roof thing, to, you know CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what actual height means. That's the extra. That's not the usable space. The usable space is the 50 feet, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I use the term "tippy top," and Mr. Schiffer always gives me the look, because we're supposed to tell you what's the tallest thing. And what I've put on is the master plan. This is the master plan that we're proposing today. That's where that use is going to go, okay. That's the golf course complex. This is where it used to be. It used to be actually closer to this development, okay. We've moved it further away. It's basically central to the project. You're getting a huge preserve here, huge preserve here. We're a long ways away from Heritage Bay and the Quarry. I forgot -- I think its Heritage Bay DRIB. So, I mean, from where we have that thing located, the fact that we may have some architectural features on this clubhouse isn't hurting anybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Might be an asset. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer likes them tall, because it gives him the creative -- the ability to be creative and make it look pretty. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Diane, while I stole the floor from you a second, the 20- foot -wide townhouse, you could do a really nice product with, you know, even taking off of the firewalls that they're required. There's quite a few good examples of that. And Rich even pointed out, up north some of those tight little old communities like Allentown, where I grew up, have really narrow townhouses that are beautiful. The thing that I normally look at with townhouses is, should we worry about the length of them, because there's no length. But the bottom line is, Rich is right, this is in the middle of -- no one's going to see this but themselves. If they shoot anybody in the foot, it will be their own foot with a bad design. So if they want to run a freight train of townhouses around this property, it's not going to hurt the community. It's only going to hurt their ability to sell. So I think we should give them, you know, wherever possible -- if we were going to see them from Immokalee, we might wonder about how long they should be. But give them the freedom to do what they want to do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And one other thing on the golf course; is this going to be bundled? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be -- it's going -- it is the amenity for the community. How it will be -- how it will be included with the unit, that final decision hasn't been made, but the ability to access it as the community's amenity. It will be the community's amenity, whether its going to be included in your purchase of your unit or you'll deal with it a different way. So I -- the answer is, it's an amenity to each of the units. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I do understand that, except that you went from 36 down to 18. You increased the amount of buildings from 799 to 1,124. If it's going to be bundled, there's not enough holes of golf in Page 15 of 28 September 20, 2012 there. MR. YOVANOVICH: That, again -- again, I will -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you don't know whether its going to be bundled or not? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I will tell you -- let me tell you -- let me put it this way: That again, is a marketing -level decision, if you're a golfer and you're concerned about all 1,100 units having one -and -a -half golfers or two golfers -- which I will tell you probably is not the case -- and you're not going to get adequate access to that golf course, you're not going to buy here. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, I mean, honestly, people will know how many potential homes that they're going to compete for, and they'll either buy in there or not. We believe that it will be enough to satisfy the demand for the people who want to live here. That is why we gave up 18 holes in exchange for additional preserve area that we're bringing into the community and for the additional units. Before I forget, because -- and in discussing the townhome development standards table, we forgot to do something mathematically. And you'll see the math error we have. In the minimum lot width, when it was 35 feet, it would have been 35 feet by 100, so you would have had a minimum lot of 3,500. When we did -- when we narrowed the size, we forgot to also reduce the minimum lot area correspondingly so. The 3,500 should be reduced to 2,000 because we're now narrower. And so we need to make that change. And I'm glad someone brought that discussion up or else we might have missed it. And I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I mean --did you have more questions? I was just — I was afraid I'd forget. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a whole thing of questions, but that's all for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any more of the applicant, though, you'd like to ask, Diane? I mean, once we get past him, we're going to staff then public speakers, then we're done. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I guess I'll just wait for transportation. And a lot of this stuff is in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I've got a few remaining. One of the questions -- and it's -- I'm not asking probably for the same reason Diane did, but for an understanding of your parking calculation. One of the questions that was asked in a public meeting, it said, will a golf course be an equity course or a public course. The answer was, the developer has not decided yet, but they are considering a bundled golf concept where a membership fee is associated with the cost of the homes. Okay. I'm not really -- I don't really care about your answer. It didn't answer the question. It says, it is going to be an equity course or a public course? And the reason that's important is if you're a public course, your parking calculations may not be as reduced as they should be -- as they are being requested in relationship to an equity course or a bundled course or whatever. But if you're opening this course to the public, I think we need to know that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if -- again -- and I'm song, not again, but we have limited it — if you look at Item No. 7, the accessory uses, it's limited to residents and their guests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but you didn't say that at the public information meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I agree. I didn't, you're right, because we hadn't made the decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just hying to get a clarification to your answer. So you don't intend to open this -- this isn't going to be open to the public. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is not a public golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to know. Okay. In the development standards table, you've got five products, and so I understand the -- and I'm not asking you for a mix, because that's a marketing issue, not a zoning issue, but I just want to comment. You have a single- family product, which is going to be fee simple; you have a zero lot line, which will be fee simple; you have two- family and duplex, which isn't really qualified as multifamily by the building code; and you have townhouse, Page 16 of 28 September 20, 2012 which will be fee simple. You've only got one multifamily product, and you've got four, more or less, single- family type product. So you're --just by the table alone your mix is indicative of a -- you're going to be selling probably more fee simple than you will multifamily, and that's a good thing. But at the same time, the townhouse and the multifamily could have unlimited number, and you describe it as row houses. So you could have 30 of these townhouses in a row. Pm sure you don't intend to do that. And the same with multifamily. What is the maximum units you're thinking you would consider per building, either multifamily or townhouse? Staff asked you that question. It wasn't responded to. This board has asked it multiple times in the past. We're looking at it as a massing, which does come under our criteria for compatibility, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And, again, based upon the development standards table and the fact that these are internal to the project, we have not determined a maximum number of units in any one building. Again, the market's going to tell us -- maybe I should have used brownstones instead of -- I don't know which is the better. But the market's going to tell you how many townhomes in a row they will accept; likewise, they will tell you how many multifamily units in a different building, because it could be a multi -- it could be multiple -- multiple stories. Like, for a five -story building, I don't know how many units might be in a five -story building versus something that's two stories or three stories. So I don't — but we've got the standards there, and the market's going to limit that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the length of the longest building or by the type -- here's where I'm coming fi-om. There's a project on Davis Boulevard here in Naples. It originally sold out as a fee - simple project. Then the developer lost control of it. I think he went bankrupt, and someone else picked it up. The new people came in and put in high - intensity multifamily to suck up the rest of the density that was left on the project. Well, these are flat -wall buildings against a golf course. It looks like a canyon. It has lowered the price points of the people -- for the rest of those people that bought there in good faith in the beginning of the project. I don't want to see that happen here. So all Im suggesting is, give a maximum either lineal foot so we know the massing is taken care of, or units, something that we can peg to a cap that doesn't allow a future developer, if it were to ever change hands, to impose negatively on the people who've already purchased there. I know that's not your intention, but I think it's a safety valve that would be helpful to have in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we going to have a break, do you think? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, we can have a break. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't need it right now. I would like to — I'm assuming there's going to be questions of staff that's going to take us to a natural breaking point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a break. When we get done with you, we'll have a break, then we'll get to staff, then we'll come -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I don't want to -- I'm not in a position to answer that question right this moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll hold that for a break then. Two of your deviations I would like a little more further explanation on. I'm not saying I disagree or agree. I just want to make sure I understand what they mean. You changed the language in Deviation No. 1. You got something new in there called a -- for private spine roads. What is a private spine road? Because that factors into the Deviation No. 14, which is sidewalks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. The private spine road on our master plan -- this is the private spine road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the only road you're going to have then that would be called a private spine road? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would imagine we could extend it within our own project, but it will remain private to the community and privately maintained, and then you'll have — I would imagine we could. I don't know that we plan to extend the spine road; do you know, Ron or Tony, or -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It extends up. Page 17 of 28 September 20, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I mean, it could extend to the -- it could extend to the north. And I understand where you're going on the next -- the question related to the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you have to call it a private spine road if your intention -- and, first of all, is that -- I can't -- I don't remember -- I can't read that close up right now. Is that labeled the spine road so everybody knows what it is you're talking about, since you now are using it as a point? Because if you're going to keep referring to a spine road and -- we just need to make sure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We should label that the private spine road, because it obviously will be wider than the private roads that come off of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why do you want to limit it to a private spine road? You're never going to turn it over to the public; is that your point? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that this is going to be a community that's going to probably be gated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then if that's what you're -- so we're going to label the private spine road as the private spine road -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we know what Deviation No. 1 is referring to. So then let's get down to Deviation No. 14. You and I had this conversation, and after you explained it to me, it made better sense. So I'd like you to explain it again so everybody can get the benefit of that information. MR. YOVANOVICH: What this deviation would allow is for the road that's depicted on the master plan, or our main -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The private spine road? MR. YOVANOVICH: — our private spine road. We would only have to have a sidewalk on one side, and that's because only one side -- there's not residential development on both sides. I mean, if you were to look to the east, you'll see it really makes no sense to put a sidewalk on the east side of that road. Staff agreed with that. And then we've also agreed that for cul-de -sacs less than, I think its 2,500 feet in length, we would, likewise, only need a sidewalk on one side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And single loaded as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you were to extend this spine road north, you would then continue it with -- because there would be residential potentially on both sides, you would have sidewalks on both sides; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a way that you could think we could just clarify that so everybody knows it? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way we did that is by referencing the master plan. So it's only that road depicted on the master plan that that deviation would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the master — okay, there it is. So the spine road is limited to that portion of the main entry road. Now we're talking about a different road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Shown on the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just say, the spine road is limited to that portion of the road shown on the PUD master plan that does not provide the direct access to dwelling units and does not provide direct access to residential neighborhoods? Because if you're going to call it a main entry road, then we need to change the other reference in 1. It's either a main entry road or its a private spine road. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we'll just --we'll wordsmith it to say that this deviation only applies to the private spine road depicted on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when it goes -- right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when we come back — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So automatically then -- when it goes north, then it's not because it's not depicted on this plan. It becomes a sidewalk -- a road with sidewalk on two sides, correct? Page 18 of 28 September 20, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That works, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something else that is a suggestion. You've got an entryway -- one other thing, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I got to clarification. Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything you want to share with us? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And I'm trying to figure -- and I don't think, conceptually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to share it with us after break since you're going to do that again? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, because I'll forget it by then. And I don't think anybody's going to have a problem conceptually with it. To the extent that the spine road is extended from where it is today and there is not development on both sides of that road, residential on both sides of that road, again, we would like to limit it to just a sidewalk on one side. There may be a configuration, I'm told, where the spine road would continue on -- I guess it could be next to that lake in the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they do that, they're losing an amenity that they're going to get a boost out of their sales from, so that's probably not too likely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, rm just trying to think, you know, where it could happen. There could be a configuration where there's not residential on both sides of the extended spine road. We would like, in that case, to only have a sidewalk on one side. If there's residential development on both sides of that spine road, the intent is to have a sidewalk there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I think that's wrong for a couple of reasons. Number one, if you've got the road up against the lake, be a great place to amenitize that side of the road with a sidewalk and some benches near the lake and landscaping so people could better utilize it. It would help your community, not hinder it. Likewise, if you go north from that lake and you've got residential on both sides of the road, you're going to have a sidewalk that dead -ends because it crosses -- it abuts a lake, and then you're going to have to put sidewalks across the road, which will cost you, with signs, probably as much as if you just continued with the sidewalk. So I don't think that's a practical solution, and I think the -- letting you have the no walk on one side for the -- and spine road as shown on the plan is as generous as anything needs to get. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hear what you're saying. We'll talk amongst ourselves during the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next thing I'd like to suggest is, if you -- see where the private spine road goes to the east -- and I think that's Broken Back Road where it comes off of. You're going to use that as a construction entrance — MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and whatever. And thinking of Phil's concerns previously as he stated, why don't you put the request in to put a temporary construction road all the way to the north so that when you build the southern and midsection of your project, you could bring construction in from the north and not have a problem with it crossing those people up there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I've got preserves all the way up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but you could recreate the piece for a 24 -, 20- foot -wide road entry. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I think those are preserves that are part of our permit, and we'd have to deal with impacts to that and we -- you know, this is -- I think that's a Water Management District preserve, if I remember correctly, from the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would have been a good move for the people living to the north end of the project, because -- or for the south end, because once you sell out, as you phase going north and you sell out that midsection, all the construction traffic's going to have to pass them to get up to the north end. But, okay. Your call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you've got some more now? Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You bet. Thanks, Mark. On deviations, Deviation No. 5 where you want to reduce the parking for the clubhouse, you want -- you're supposed to be five spaces. You want only three. And your rationale for this is it's an amenity to be private Page 19 of 28 September 20, 2012 exclusively for -- you will never rent out this clubhouse? I got to tell you, I disagree with it, because if you have a member who wants a wedding or something, every clubhouse will be rented out. You will rent out this clubhouse. I don't know of one that isn't. So when you're trying to say, well, people will come on golf carts and they'll walk and everything, that to me, is not a good rationale at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even if you rent it out, it would still be private because it would be restricted to rentals to only the residents living there, and the people coming would be their guests, as they've stated throughout the document, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that's true. But if you get one person who wants a wedding there or something -- I mean, yes, it's private, but the clubhouse will be rented out and you probably will need the parking areas there. Just a suggestion. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand. And you have to — you have to take into account the normal operation at the facility when determining what's an appropriate amount of parking. And the analogy, you know, that I commonly use — and not to offend everybody who may have a different faith than me -- you don't build the church for Easter Sunday. You build the church and the required parking for the normal services you have, and that's where those standards come from. The normal operation of this clubhouse will be fully serviced by what we're requiring. And I would think that on a -- if you're going to have a wedding there, it's probably going to be in the evening when you're not going to be bothered by the golfers who are going to share this facility with you. So I think parking will take care of itself on those odd special events, if a resident comes and says I'd like to rent the clubhouse for a wedding. I just don't think you need to over park it for special events. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You ought to go to my church. The parking is for Easter Sunday. Deviation 10 where you say you want relief for the signs -- because the rationale was, it sits approximately 100 feet from Immokalee Road. Do you know every project north of -- on Immokalee Road is set 100 feet back, because the county owns that 100 feet and the canal is within that 100 feet. So that rationale doesn't really go. If you go along Olde Cypress or any of those in there, everyone is set back 100 feet, because the county owns that property. So the rationale for the extra signs and everything is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're factually correct. The county owns that 100 feet. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate request because of the distance that we would need the sign deviation we're requesting. And I don't know -- I can't tell you whether any of the other communities have sign deviations along Immokalee Road. I don't know the answer to that. But this is a deviation that's been approved for other projects with similar distance issues regardless who owns the property between the project -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't know either, and I don't know if staff has that answer with them today or not, that they've all been like that. Our sign is not for Olde Cypress. The other ones sitting out there are not at this point. That's just one of the things. The other one — and you're right, the private spine road, I had marked that down, too. That will be all for now that I can see at this portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before we go for break? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to wrap up after this one's done, so we'll take a short break and come back at 10:31; how's that sound? Okay. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone will please resume their seats, we'll continue on with the meeting. We haven't got quite a quorum yet. One, two three. Brad and Diane? Here she comes. We've got to wait till you get up here, Diane, so we have a quorum. Okay. We left off with finishing up questions of Richard. And I'm not sure -- Richard, we can go to staff so that if anything else comes up in your final comments, we can get it all at once. Kay, you want to go forward with whatever you want to enlighten us with? Page 20 of 28 September 20, 2012 MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. We also have staff here from environmental services and transportation planning should you have questions of persons in those expertise areas. You have the staff report. It is a document last revised 8/23/12. And in this staff report we have evaluated the Growth Management Plan issues and the deviations that were requested, and we have provided findings of fact in support of our recommendation. The recommendation is contained on Page 35. And, as noted throughout the discussion with the applicant, talking about limitations for size and massing, and some information about the clubhouse, some of that has been provided and some is pending. And then the changes to deviation -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can't hear. MS. DESELEM: I lost my mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, its -- yours isn't working? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can't hear. MS. DESELEM: -- and changes to Deviation No. 8 that the applicant has accepted. Other than that, if you have any questions, I won't belabor the issue and go into details, as you have the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go into questions of staff. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, let's go to Page 3, please. And I saw an email that came about after you and I talked, so I'm assuming that the City of Bonita Springs — and the reason I'd asked the question, I want the record to note that pursuant to our GNP requirement for intergovernmental coordination, you did contact Bonita Springs, and they didn't have any negative response to your request? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 7 of 36,1 had asked at the -- for a clarification as to E and F on that page. Basically, it's the comprehensive planning density blending analysis. And when they got to E and F, they were talking about environmental issues, and they said comprehensive planning staff leaves this determination to the environmental staff, and they said it on those two items. And I didn't notice where or how it was answered specifically. So I'm glad to see Steve's here, and he's probably prepared to address it. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. Is it on, the microphone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on my speaker. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, natural resources department. The two provisions here are -- one is, the entire product shall meet the applicable preservation standards for the rural fringe mixed -use district, which it does. The preservation requirement is for neutral lands, which is 60 percent of the native vegetation on site, not to exceed 45 percent of the site. And the product will preserve 60 percent of the native vegetation on site. There will be some re- creation, which is allowed by the Land Development Code. As you know, the preserve has quite a bit of exotics, some extensive monocultures of Melaleuca, and they will be restored. Upon project completion, approximately, well over 55 percent of the site will be preserved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: The other criteria is the density to be shifted to the rural fringe mixed -use district from the urban residential subdistrict is to be located on impacted land, which is located on quite a bit of Melaleuca impacted land, or it is demonstrated that the development of the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation, which it has, and/or habitat on site and to maximize the connectivity of such vegetation and/or habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas, which it does. It connects to the preserve very nicely on the PUDs to the east and west and also the natural resource protection areas also to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. And from now on when comprehensive staff refers to a question that's been unanswered and needs another department, could that be included in our packet right below the questions, like they always -- like they have been Page 21 of 28 September 20, 2012 with comprehensive planning, so we have it all as a concise record? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. We'll make sure that we do that in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Kay, the issue you had on Page 16, your concerns about satellite clubhouses, I believe they're taken care of; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: Yeah. The only question I had -- and maybe I missed something when Mr. Yovanovich was speaking, but he wants to remove Item No. 4, the clubhouse and recreational centers, saying that the common area recreation facilities would address it. And I just wonder if we need to make a distinction, because those would still be allowed to be the same height, that 75 -foot tall, and I hadn't really thought about that before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The accessory use -- if they're an accessory use and structure, you're saying that MS. DESELEM: Oh, Im sorry, 35 feet. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. Good. MS. DESELEM: Yes. That issue has been resolved. Sorry for the confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 17, you start with Deviation No. 2 and it carries over to Page 18. On the top of Page 18, the first non - italicized paragraph says, the petitioner has not sought relief, then parenthetical, nor can he, end parenthetical, from any fire code requirements as part of the zoning action; thus, it is understood that compliance as requested above would be required. That's a given. Why did you feel it necessary to add this to the deviation narrative? MS. DESELEM: Just to make it clear that even if we grant a deviation from a zoning requirement, if there's a fire requirement that supersedes it they still have to comply with that regardless. They can't carry over our zoning deviation to allow for anything else other than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that couldn't occur under any conditions. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And other than that -- and the comment I just got from Heidi during break that the -- Richard's legalese in regards to the transportation addition for Broken Back Road in concept will work, but legally it's not written appropriately. So Heidi's going to get with you to rewrite it between now and consent. I've asked her to give you a class on writing legal documents. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It wasn't him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You didn't write it. MR. YOVANOVICH: An engineer wrote it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. YOVANOVICH: An engineer wrote it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: An engineer wrote it okay. Well, I think that's what it looks like, so --just kidding, too, Rich, so -- okay. That's the only thing I had left, and we'll just wait to hear from Mr. Yovanovich on the unit sizing or the building mass. And are there any other questions of staff from the Planning Commission? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I'll wait for Mr. Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to call him. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Already on my way. For the record, John Podczerwinsky, and I haven't sworn in. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't been? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, not yet. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you go over the road capacities for us? Because I see in here that you're limiting them to 781. Can you just, kind of, go over some of this stuff for us, please? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd be glad to. Do you have a specific question on the roadway capacity? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I know they come out and they go down towards I -75. And I already see some of these with our 2011 AUIR. It's just -- you've got caps in someplace, and over here you're saying the impacts Page 22 of 28 September 20, 2012 aren't that bad. Just --if you could just go over the Immokalee Road, because you can't make Immokalee Road any wider. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's true. Immokalee Road is now constrained at six lanes. We don't have room to widen it further unless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think what's important is they're vested by their DCA that was completed for a certain capacity. Anything above that capacity they're not vested for, and that's probably where your cap kicks in to control that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's probably the explanation somewhat in that line she's looking for. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. In the concurrency review -- I shouldn't say concurrency review. The consistency review that was done for this application was just on the additional units. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Three hundred twenty -two. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, that were presented as part of this application, not the entire development as a whole. Of course, you know, we still look at the turn lanes, the intersection capacities, at — you know, with the traffic as a whole. But in this case, specifically, the consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element was reviewed solely under the additional units, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Also on this capacity, which I understand -- just a minute, John. They're in the five -year planning period. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner, was your question about the cap, by chance? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, no. I understand the cap for the other 322. 1 want to get to the -- there's something about a bridge relocating part of the canal or something. Reading in here I just can't find it right now. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right, that's correct. Let me see if I can find that. There was a reference to the developer's commitment that they've already met and the dollars that they have contributed toward the improvements at the intersection of Immokalee Road and 951. Much of that has already been used to basically reconfigure the canal that would be on the northeast corner of the intersection. It's actually Broken Back and Immokalee Road. And that's in preparation for future improvements at the intersection. Basically, the canal will be relocated, and that will give us more room for the intersection as a whole so that it will function better for the entire community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they're going to change the — or you are going to — someone is going to change the canal on the northwest side — MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- of Broken Back and snake it go back further like it is on the east side? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And the multi -use path will still all be there. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. And that's been reflected in some of the other zoning actions that have taken place along the northwest quadrant of the intersection. We've acquired right -of -way additional to the canal right -of -way for purposes of relocating that canal. If we haven't acquired the right -of -way yet, we have commitments for that right -of -way. We also have commitments for future planning for developments over there. As they connect, they will configure their roadway connections with the new canal location in mind. So that's all in the master plan, the process. We do have a long -range plan for that intersection. There's also an interim plan for that intersection. And we're working on acquiring both the dollars and the land for the long -range plan so that we don't have to do it twice. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Page 23 of 28 September 20, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And do we have any registered public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? Nicole? Nicole, by the way, the reason that there wasn't many environmental questions, at least from me, was because I know you and other organizations have reached an agreement environmentally, and I think a lot of us have faith that you guys would look at it as closely, if not closer, than we would. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, exactly. Thank you. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy. And as was mentioned in the staff report and by Rich, and you alluded to, there is a settlement agreement between the Conservancy and other environmental organizations and the owner /developer of the Mirasol project which ends about a decade of litigation on this parcel site. I did review the PUD amendment, and it is consistent with our settlement agreement, so I did want that on the record. And in my conversation with Commissioner Ebert, she had asked, big picture -- and this really doesn't deal with your decision today, but I think that it puts it in a good perspective. Big picture with the three Cocohatchee slough projects, those being Terafina, Parklands, and Mirasol, what did, essentially, a decade of litigation, negotiation, and settlement achieve? And so I did want to just share that with you for, essentially, infannational purposes. And this map is a side -by -side comparison. It's for illustrative purposes only. We didn't have shape files, so this was, essentially, hand drawn on the maps. But it does indicate that pre - litigation. You have the Terafma project, the Parklands project, and then the Mirasol project, and one of the largest concerns that the environmental community has -- had was that the Mirasol project did cut off the wetland connection from the north to the south going toward the Cocohatchee slough. And so through settlement with Terafima and Parklands, we were able to negotiate a good amount of additional preserve on the Parklands site, and through the Mirasol negotiations, we were able to negotiate a western preserve that created a wetland connection all the way down to the Cocohatchee slough. All told, the Mirasol project will be preserving 1,125 acres. That includes an arm of the Mirasol project in this area that is not part of the PUD, but it's part of the Water Management District process, so we include that in the acreage. Parklands, 871 acres preserved, and Saturnia Falls, 545 acres preserved. So I think this gives a good visible depiction of our 10 years fighting, then negotiation, and then coming to settlement and agreement. So just have that for your information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. I'm glad you -all hung in there to get at least a better result than what we could have had otherwise. Actually, it would be better if we just voted no on Mirasol, wouldn't it? MS. JOHNSON: We're satisfied with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good comeback. Thank you, Nicole. Okay. That's the last of the presentations. Richard, did you want to comment on the -- either the maximum length of the buildings or the number of units? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe -- well, we're -- we would be satisfied with a maximum length of a building of 300 feet. And I know we've done that for other projects recently. That number seems to stick in my head. I think I was at the podium saying that number before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as there's something in there. Everybody fine? Is there anything else that anybody on the board would like to ask of anyone at this point? Okay. With that — MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was in length, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, not height. MR YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any -- any rebuttal to anything? There was nothing negative, so I'm Page 24 of 28 September 20, 2012 assuming you're okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope not. I hope that you -all can support staffs support of all of our deviation requests as modified. I hope -- I think it leads to a very good project, and I hope we can get unanimous approval. We've worked hard to do that as you can -- I think as Nicole will attest to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's a good outcome. And from the environmental perspective, that's very positive. So I think that's a good thing. Go ahead. Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray, were you able to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I asked Ray a question on a deviation for the signs, and he was going to check along Immokalee Road. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I pulled up the PUD for the Heritage Bay PUD /DRI, and it has extensive sign regulations in there. This PUD was approved prior to the way we currently list deviations from the code, but it is an extensive five -page list of sign regulations contained in the Heritage Bay, which would allow for boundary markers along -- similar to what's being proposed here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing, and we'll go into discussion on a potential motion. I have a list of 15 items that we discussed as we went through this. If everybody would like, I'll read them all, and we'll get consensus. First item is on Exhibit A to eliminate Item B4. Second one, the deviation on the models will be capped at 40 units, and there will be -- as staff has requested, there will be a tally provided as it goes along. Three, the side setback and the distance between principal structures for multifamily will be half the building height for both principal and accessory. Four, notes on the master plan, we're going to add, the relocations will be consistent with Land Development Code and that the — change the word "may" to "shall." Five, Item B 1 on transportation, we're going to remove the acreage value and agree on an appraised amount as a value, future appraised amount. Six, the temporary clubhouse facilities will be constructed, and it will be the locker room and pro shop by the 100th CO, and the permanent facilities will be completed by the 500th CO. Seven, that new transportation language in No. 6 per the handout, and Heidi will review that with the applicant and bring back some language that's more acceptable to her in legal format by the consent agenda. Eight, remove the reference to equestrian trails in the preserves. Nine, leave the zero or 10 feet in for accessory structures. Number 10, set the height for accessory at 35 feet and 45 feet for all categories. Number 11, add "per unit" to the minimum square foot on the table. Number 12, remove the flag lot requirement in the table for townhouses. Number 13, reduce townhome minimum lot to 2,000. Number 14, label as "private spine road," the road that's on the master plan, and clarify Development 14 language in regards to that. Number 15, the building length will not -- the building length of any style will not exceed 300 feet. Does anybody have anything? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, one thing, Mark. Go back to the multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does -- the side setback we know is one -half the building height. Does that match what you said? Page 25 of 28 September 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that the distance between structures is one -half the sum of the building heights; is that what you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said one -half the building height, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We did agree to, on the principal structures, that it would be one -half the building height, one -half the sum of the building height. Separation of -- separation of principal structures on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Distance between principal structures is half the sum of the building height, not half the building height. That's right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Is there also a change on accessory structures, or are you going to just keep the zero or 10? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we -- I -- that does -- half the setback -- half the building height applies to both the principal and accessory for side yard and -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For the multifamily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — the difference between principal structures? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I had distance between accessory structures on same lot for multifamily, half the building height, and I wasn't sure about the distance between accessory and principal. Is that correct or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that stays — that's the one we changed to go zero or 10 feet instead of zero or 5, so — MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the -- is this -- the principal and accessory is five feet, zero or five feet; isn't that what you have in your chart? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He has it in the chart, but he agreed to go back to zero and 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the one above. I'm on the one below. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I thought it was for both. Does it matter? I mean, it used to be 10 on both. On the one above they put zero instead of the 10, and now it would zero and 10 or 10, and the one below, it used to be zero or 10. Now it's zero or five. And I thought we were going back to zero or 10 for both. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I see nothing we gain by pushing an accessory structure five feet back more, I mean — but if they're happy, they're happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it -- I don't see what it hurts. But, I mean, you've got to have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, if you have -- let's say you have a townhouse -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'll be honest with you, I wasn't thinking about -- I was thinking about going back to the 10 where we had eliminated the 10. 1 had not thought about -- we would like to keep the 5 where we reduced it from 10 to 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll put — MR. YOVANOVICH: — and put the 10 back in where we had eliminated it altogether is what I thought I was saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The only change — but I had asked for clarification; I thought I understood them both to be clarified. But that's fine. I don't have a problem whether it's zero or 5. MR, YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll just — we'll leave the third line up from the bottom as zero and 5, and the fourth line up from the bottom will be the one that we change from zero -- to zero or 10. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any further clarifications? Kay, did you follow all that and the discourse afterwards? MS. DESELEM: I can't write quite as quickly as you can talk, but I got most of them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I can always give you a copy of these or something. MS. DESELEM: rll confer with Heidi. Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Page 26 of 28 September 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward PUDZ- A- PL2012000303 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Ahern. Any further discussions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: With all the stipulations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, all -- you include all the stipulations, and the second as well? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got your wish, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I got my wish? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you got your wish. It was unanimous, so — MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that brings us to the conclusion of most -- any items on the agenda. Is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No new business. Public's comments? None. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 27 of 28 September 20, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. See you -all next Friday. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:56 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION i I ! • itwirwe ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on j 1/1 Qty T_ as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 28 of 28