CCPC Minutes 01/17/2013 R January 17,2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples,Florida,January 17,2013
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:
CHAIRMAN: Mark P.Strain
Melissa Keene
William H.Vonier
Paul Midney
Karen Homiak
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
Phillip Brougham
ALSO PRESENT:
Raymond V.Bellows,Planning Manager,Zoning
Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner,Zoning and Planning
Heidi Ashton,County Attorney's Office
Tom Eastman,School District
Page I of 84
@NOREWISH
AGENDA Ati MAR 0 4 2013
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., T DAY, JANUARY 17,
2013,IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,ADMfl TRA hfBUtt-DING,
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 DisbiCt 1 1
District 1
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA District 3
District 4 /-
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES District 5
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-December 6,2012
6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS Misc.Cones:
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Date:
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Item#:
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Copies to:
A. PUDZ-A-PL20120000726, The Top Hat Auto CPUD (Commercial Planned Unit Development), an
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No.
2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from
the Princess Park Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) Zoning District for an 11.36+/- acre parcel to be known as The Top Hat Auto CPUD, to allow
construction of an automotive sales facility with associated repair services, on property located at 6780
Airport Road North in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; providing
for repeal of Ordinance No. 84-34, as amended, the Princess Park PUD; and providing an effective date.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner]
1
B. PUDA-PL20120000111, Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD),
an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance
Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as
amended, by amending Section III, Industrial/Commerce District, to include hotel, motel, senior housing
including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing, continuing care retirement community and
intermediate care facilities as additional uses, establishing a floor area ratio of.6 for the additional uses,
and revising the development standards to increase the maximum height for parcels east of Goodlette-Frank
Road to 75 feet zoned height and 85 feet actual height; by amending Section IV, Business District, to
include hotel, motel, senior housing including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing,
continuing care retirement community and intermediate care facilities as additional uses, establishing a
floor area ratio of .6 for the additional uses, and revising the development standards to increase the
maximum height for parcels east of Goodlette-Frank Road to 75 feet zoned height and 85 feet actual height
for the CPUD property located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 105 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA,
Principal Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
•
NOTE: This item has been continued indefinitely per staff.
A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner]
B. To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to review past staff clarifications of the Land
Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected Staff Clarifications to the
Board of County Commissioners(BCC). [Coordinator:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager]
11. NEW BUSINESS
NOTE: This is a time certain for 9:00 am
A. EAC Stormwater Management Report to CCPC[Coordinator: Gerald Kurtz,Principal Project Manager]
B. Status Update of proposed Settlement Agreement regarding Case No.: 08-6933-CA, Hussey et al vs.
Collier County et al. The Agreement is applicable to 966 acres located north of 1-75, 3 miles east of
Collier Blvd. (CR 951) in Sections 29,32 and 33, T49S,R27E; and,2,576 acres located on the east side of
Immokalee Road (CR 846), 2 miles north of Oil Well Road (CR 858) in Sections 35 & 36, T47S, R27E,
and Sections 1 &2,T48S,R27E. [Coordinator: David Weeks,AICP,GMP Manager]
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp
2
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Good morning,everyone,and welcome to the January 17th collier County
Planning Commission meeting.
If everyone would rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Roll call.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Eastman?
MR.EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain?
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Good to have you back.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Vonier?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Keene?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Homiak is here.
Ms.Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr.Brougham?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Thank you. The fast item is addenda to the agenda. And Mr. Strain is back.
It looks like we are going to have an open seat on the commission for a while. So I would like to--if
someone would make a motion to reappoint officers.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will make a motion.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: I would like to make a motion to reappoint Mr.Strain as chair.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well,that will sure feel good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why,Melissa?
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Not that I haven't enjoyed it,but--
COMMISSIONER VONIER: You've got a second over here.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: I've got a second?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
Page 2 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thank you,and I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: And I move we reappoint Melissa Keene as vice-chair.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KEENE: Mr.Strain,come take your chair.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: I feel so much better back here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do I get the energy drink too?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: No,that goes with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Cheri®was here and I had an energy drink,Terri,she would be very
upset.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,if I may,I'd like to have one item at the end of our
meeting.It concerns a discussion on the delivery of meeting materials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll do that under new business,C.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my first thing I want to do is thank all of you very much. I have
missed this board for the last three months,and I'm very,very happy to be back and grateful to the Board of
County Commissioners for making it possible,so—
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And we have missed you,and I am very glad that you are back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'll certainly try to have an interesting meeting today.
I did--it was noted this morning that we have a--I didn't notice it. Someone pointed it out. We
have a 9 o'clock time-certain. So for those members of the public that I told the schedule was Top Hat first
and Creekside second,we have an interim presentation on an item for the EAC.
***Mr.Dickman?
MR.DICKMAN: Thank you,Mr. Chair,and congratulations. Thank you,board members.
My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm chair of the EAC,also an attorney and an adjunct professor at
Ave Maria Law School.
I'm here on behalf of the EAC just briefly to talk to you about stormwater management. I know all
of you have seen the Collier County Watershed Management Plan.
Pin here with Jerry Kurtz,who you may know,you probably know,of the environmental stormwater
planning section.
The purpose of this is that we have started embarking on taking on certain aspects of this plan to try
to move those forward in terms of policy that will end up being land development regulations or even goals,
objectives,and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
We feel that,while at the same time that we are reviewing development recommendations or
development applications and also changes to the Land Development Code,we have put so much time into
this plan,as you-all have,that we feel that this is such a strong issue,stonnwater management and the
recommendations that are in it,whether they be structural or nonstructural,that we have set up a
subcommittee to do--to put together reports,specific reports--and I think you-all have received that memo
Page 3 of 84
January 17,2013
in your packet. We put it out a while ago--that addresses that and comes up with a couple of
recommendations.
We've decided on the format of this report.And future reports will be,number one,to look at our
county itself and how are we doing on that specific topic. And the first one that you have is stormwater
management,which is probably the main focus of this plan and then,secondly,each one of the members of
the EAC has taken on the task of researching other counties in the region--Lee County,Charlotte County,
Sarasota County,even Miami-Dade County and Monroe County--to see how they handle that specific issue
and what we can learn from them.
Some cases we're doing better. Some cases we're doing worse. But what we want to emphasize is
that we're working in lockstep with Jerry's team to move this forward. We feel that under our--under our
authorization under the code that we are given that authorization to bring those forward,and I would just like
to take a few minutes to walk through this with you,a few items,if I may.
All right. Number one that we have found is that definitely our water,having clean water in the
county,is--absolutely,there's a nexus between our economy,our quality of life,our social health,and our
ecosystems.
So if we don't have clean water,especially in the--in the areas along the shorelines,we are going to
have a problem with our economy and our quality of life.
The estuaries that we have found,Wiggins Pass,Naples Bay,Rookery Bay,and Ten Thousand
Islands,those are the primary estuaries. Those aren't all the estuaries along our coast,but those are the
primary estuaries.
Out of those five estuaries,only one,Ten Thousand Islands,has--is clean of any pollutants. All the
other ones have some type of pollutant in those estuaries. And when you look at the estuaries,those are sort
of like the canary in the cave mine,so that if the estuaries start going bad,you know that upstream all those
canals and ditches and different types of structural engineering projects that are used to deal with stormwater
management,there's something wrong there.
And it could be linked to land development and land planning,and that's why we're here today,
really,because we feel that by linking what you-all do with what we do is going to be really key to the
success of this plan.
The goal,obviously,is that we're required by law to clean up our waters. We have waterways that
are impaired,and we're required under the law to clean up our waters.
And we know,based on the numbers that we were given from the planning department,that by 2020
we're going to have approximately 50,000 new people. And the question is,how and where do we develop--
develop these projects.
And I've given you these numbers,and I've given you these maps. The areas that are most of
concern are going to be the ones that are highlighted in red. And you can see geographically on those maps
that when you look at No.9,especially--and I'll use that as an example--that's--of the planning community
--these are planning communities that are set up by the planning department,by the way. They're not set up
by us.
Corkscrew,which is north of--you can see it up in the north part of the area. It surrounds
Immokalee,and it's along Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. That area is slated to have almost a 370
percent growth rate. We're talking about adding 17,000 new people up into 2020.
Now,the question is,that--where is that and how is that going to affect the watershed and the basins
in there? Because that area will flow into Wiggins Pass. So we know all of these communities flow into one
of the estuaries or another. And what structural improvements are made or what types of structural
improvements are made,whether they're done in the canal areas or whether they're done on site is going to be
key to how those estuaries--and I'm focusing on the estuaries because,again,those are going to be the
canary in the cave mine. Whether they are successful is going to tell whether we're successful upstream.
One of the things--one of the recommendations that we've set out is looking at areas where we can
incentivize development. Now,the boxes that I've listed up in the front are Planning Communities 1 through
4. And if you look at the map--so if you look at the map,this area--this area where I'm pointing to is the--
what I'll call the danger area.
Page 4 of 84
January 17,2013
If you're going to put that amount of people, 17,000 people,in that area,then you're going to really
have to focus on how you're going to deal with stormwater management,because that area is going to flow
into the Wiggins Pass area. I'm just using that as an example,because when you overlay,maybe you should
ask the planning department to take population growth,and where you have slated for residential
development to go,by your watershed and your basins,then you'll have an idea of which estuaries these types
of developments are going to fall into.
But the areas that I've circled in blue are the areas that are already somewhat urbanized. But there
are--there are areas that can be developed and should be developed,albeit there may be a requirement to
have higher densities. I know that's not the greatest word in this county,but there can be a mix of--there can
be a mix of development.
And the reason that we're pointing towards that is one of the recommendations that came out of
Charlotte was to use incentives--not to require,but to use incentives for developers to say,okay,we know
that we have stonnwater management infrastructure in place in these areas,so maybe it would be cost
effective with the incentives to go into these areas,maybe cut that 17,000-- 17,000 population number in half
that's slated to go in the Corkscrew area and,through incentives,drive it into an area where there's already
infrastructure in place.
I just point those out as examples. You can look at them,and hopefully you'll talk about them when
it comes time to deal with your land use element and look at these population projections.Again,these are
numbers that were given to us by the planning department. They're median numbers.Obviously there's high
numbers and low numbers.These are projections. But there are new decennial census numbers out,and these
are the numbers that were given to us.
Finally,I want to go over the recommendations that we've made. These came through a lot of
discussion and debate on the EAC. The first one is taking low-impact development,low-impact
development. That is absolutely something that is not in place now. There is not a low-impact development
manual. There's nothing in the Land Development Code that deals with low-impact development,and there's
nothing in the Growth Management Plan that deals with low-impact development.
One example of low-impact development,if you're not aware of it,would be,perhaps,requiring
using pavers,pervious pavers instead of impervious parking lots,and we've tried to move towards that. So
low-impact development is something that's cost neutral as opposed to all of the multi-million-dollar
structural projects that are being recommended in the Watershed Management Plan.
Secondly,require on-site stormwater management, such as retention areas for new construction in
older subdivisions without treatment systems. So taking--instead of having the water flow into canals
which,ultimately,flow into the estuaries like Naples Bay,Wiggins Pass,and the others,then to have those
dealt with on site.
The third thing is to incentivize new development in urban areas. I've already touched upon that.
Lee County divides itself into drainage ditch--drainage districts where they charge what's similar to
an impact fee,but they charge a fee for stormwater management as opposed to what we do here in the county
which is--across the board in your millage rate you have a stormwater fee,but it's across the board. There's
no internalizing the impact in terms of where it is in the watershed.
So Lee County has taken on that approach,and it's akin to a development. So you're internalizing it
according to what kind of development is occurring in that watershed.
The fifth one is by protecting natural groundwater recharge areas,like wetlands,by preserving the
natural sheet flow. Again,Corkscrew is a major area of sheet flow that ultimately ends up into Wiggins Pass.
Mirasol was a big issue. It probably still is a big issue.Not a big issue? Okay. But either way,that is an area
that you can use as an example of where the sheet flow is.
Then,finally,looking at reducing nutrient pollution from agriculture operations. There was a
fertilizer ordinance that was adopted;however,it did not really address the agricultural runoff,and we feel
that that's something that should be dealt with.
We're trying to keep these reports short and to the point so that it can stimulate discussion at your--
on your forums and also at the County Commission level.
So I just wanted to come here today;the EAC had asked me to come here today. And just so you
Page 5 of 84
January 17,2013
know,our next report that will be coming out will be dealing with low-impact development.
There's lots of new technology out there that will help reduce runoff into our canals and,ultimately,
into our estuaries. We saw some fantastic presentations when the Watershed Management Plan was being
developed with all kinds of great technologies and techniques.
So our next report's going to be on low-impact development. And,again,that's something that is
cost neutral. It can be incentivized,and it needs to be--we need to prepare a manual for it and then,
ultimately,prepare land development codes and goals,objectives,and policies,to have low-impact
development.
So with that,Jerry's here for any questions.I'm here,I guess,to answer any questions. But if not,I
really appreciate the time,and thank you for giving me the time-certain. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We appreciate your report. Thank you.
MR.DICKMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,that was a 9 o'clock time-certain. We need to move back into
our regular agenda.
The next item on the agenda was the Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is February
7th. Does anybody on the board know if they're not going to be here on February 7th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That means we'll have a quorum.
Approval of minutes,December 6,2012. They should have all been received electronically. Is there
a motion to approve?
Mr.Brougham?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have a correction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Very minor. Just on the first page for the commissioners that
were present, scratch Brad Schiffer--he was not present at this meeting--and add Berry Klein and Doug
Rankin,who were present.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a--and is there a motion then to approve it--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as modified?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: --with those changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms.Homiak.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr.Vonier.
All in favor,signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Abstain.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I oppose. I don't oppose;I abstain. I wasn't here. Since I wasn't here,I
sure don't know what happened on the minutes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You have been gone a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,three long months.
BCC report and recaps,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: I have no recap for today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Page 6 of 84
January 17,2013
Chairman's report. Again,I'm glad to be here,so thank you,and I don't have a report because I didn't
know I'd be here today,at least in this chair,so I appreciate it all.
Consent-agenda items. I don't think we--is there any left over from December,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: No,there isn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. Then we'll move right into our first advertised public hearing.
The first item up is PUDZ-A-PL20120000726.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Any of the neighbors that are here to talk, if you are here,now's the time to stand up at least to get sworn in.
Everybody that wishes to speak must stand up,on just this item.
Okay. Terri?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? We'll--hi,Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My display does not work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that will confuse a few people. We already did musical
chairs. Let's start--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Switch nameplates again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start on your end.Any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I did have a conversation with Mr.Anderson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: I spoke with Mr.Hancock.
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Okay. I spoke with Mr.Anderson and Mr.Hancock multiple times. I also
spoke with a group of residents at Walden Oaks yesterday or the day before. I can't even remember now. It's
been a busy week.
Mr.Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No,nothing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr.Anderson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Bruce,it's all yours.
MR.ANDERSON: Good morning,Mr.Chairman. Welcome back. For the record,my name is
Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress.
I'd like to introduce Mr.Tim Zellers,president of Tamiami Hyundai,and Tim Hancock,the director
of planning for Davidson Engineering.
Unlike most commercial PUDs that come before you,this is a proposed single-use PUD. It's an auto
dealership with typical accessory uses that you expect when you bring your own car in for service. It replaces
another single-use PUD. In this case you know exactly what you're approving.Not a long list of potential
uses. Just one.
The Growth Management Plan,its intent is to allow commercial redevelopment of this property so
long as the new use is no more intensive than the existing commercial zoning allows.
The county has issued an official interpretation that the rezoning of this property from an amusement
park to a new car dealership does not represent an increase in intensity use;therefore,it is in compliance and
consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
This project is a relocation of a locally owned Hyundai dealership that has been very successful,and
they need to expand. In this economic times,that's a good thing.
The same family has owned and operated Tamiami Ford for many,many years. Mr.Zellers
Page 7 of 84
January 17,2013
estimates that this expansion will create at least 40 new jobs. Not relocated jobs;new jobs.
This property has been zoned for commercial uses for almost 30 years. The first PUD was approved
in 1984. Next door is the Lone Oak PUD,which has been developed as Walden Oaks,and it was approved
two years later,and it has its own commercial component fronting on Airport Road.
The county has long recognized that commercial uses are appropriate at this location for both the
Princess Park PUD and the Lone Oak PUD. So it should come as a surprise to no one that another
commercial use would replace the amusement park.
The proposed new auto dealership will typically close around 7 p.m.,while the current amusement
park,with its go-carts,bumper boats and more,is open till 9 or 10 o'clock on weekdays and midnight on
weekends. Which would you rather have as a neighbor?
I'm going to turn it over to Mr.Hancock to address land-planning issues and the steps that have been
taken to address concerns that were raised at the neighborhood information meeting.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,Bruce.
Tim,I assume that we'll ask questions of either of you when you're finished your presentation. Does
that work for you?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: Good morning,Mr.Chairman.Welcome back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.HANCOCK: Members of the Planning Commission,my name is Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering. I have the pleasure of being the co-agent for the applicant,which is the Tamiami family of
dealerships.
Bruce and I agreed well in advance that any errors and omissions with respect to this application are
mine and mine alone and not his.So as we go through that,please keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you anticipating?
MR.HANCOCK: I guess if I start off like that,it's not all that good.
But,nonetheless,before you is an aerial of the subject property. The Princess Park PUD,as
currently zoned,is an 11.36-acre parcel. It measures approximately 395 feet of frontage along Airport Road
where you also have a water management canal. So you have somewhat of a bridge or culvert that crosses
the canal and enters the property.
What's being proposed uses that exact same access conditions. No changes to that are anticipated.
The property is unusually deep, 1,250 feet. So not a lot of frontage;quite a bit of depth.Certainly
have some limitations on your site design and your issues that you're dealing with.
The surrounding properties consist of,to both the north and east,the Lone Oak PUD,as cited by Mr.
Anderson,was zoned and developed subsequent to the Princess Park PUD. Lone Oak is a mixed-use PUD
containing approximately two acres of commercial office space along Airport Road.
The balance of the project is 604 residential units,which is a density of approximately 6.89 units to
the acre.
To the south is a commercial PUD known as the Willow Park PUD. It is a mixed commercial office
development. There are a few vacant lots to be built out but,for the most part,it's a fairly dense office
development with a significant traffic generation.
To the west is Airport Road across which is the Keystone Place PUD,an apartment complex
consisting of 404 units on 34 acres;a density of almost 12 units to the acre.
The commercial zoning for the Princess Park PUD was approved in 1984 under Ordinance 84-34.
This predates our current Growth Management Plan. So how is commercial determined at this site? At that
time a point system was in place. If you had access to certain infrastructure,be it roadways,water,and
sewer,you got a certain number of points. And if you built enough points,which was basically encouraging
commercial development to occur where infrastructure existed or was proposed,you could then request
commercial zoning. That was the basis under which commercial zoning occurred on this site in 1984.
At that time--and if you look at an aerial from 1985,if you start at the intersection of Pine Ridge
Page 8 of 84
January 17,2013
Road and Airport Road and you go north,you were in farm country. It was nothing but agricultural
operations and fallow ag land. The Princess Park PUD,in essence,went out to the boonies to do what it
wanted to do. Development subsequently grew up and surrounded this project.
Policy 5 of the Growth Management Plan was created,in essence--and specifically 5.1 --to
recognize commercial zoning that predated the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. Some of us were
here for what we call the ZRO process,a zoning reevaluation ordinance.
When they adopted the Growth Management Plan,there was a recognition that certain commercial
zoning existed out there that may not fit the plan that was being adopted. In other words,the rules are
changing,but we can't take away from those what they already have.
So Policy 5.1 stated that if you have existing commercial zoning,you are,in essence,grandfathered.
You are deemed consistent by policy and allowed to remain.
That policy went one step further,and in Policy 5.9 of the Growth Management Plan it further
recognized that these commercial projects may incur,over time,a change in use. To not allow a change in
use would,in essence,to be taken--would be taking an existing commercially zoned piece of property. And
let's say,for example,it went from a retail shopping center and wanted to develop medical office,that change
in use would have been prohibited if you only grandfathered the use that was there at the time. It would be a
de facto force to residential zoning in this case.
So Policy 5.9 was created specifically for the purpose that we're here today,and that is to look at an
existing commercial operation and propose a commercial business that is equal to or less intensive than the
existing land use. That's the purpose of 5.9 and the basis under which the request is before you today.
The applicant,the Tamiami family of dealerships,is a family-owned business. They've been in this
community since the early'70s in operation. It includes Tamiami Ford,Tamiami Hyundai,and Tamiami
Mitsubishi.
This application is really the result of the growth and expansion of two businesses. Tamiami
Hyundai is currently operated out of a--the former Naples Nissan site on Airport Road right across from
Horseshoe Drive. Tamiami Hyundai and Tamiami Mitsubishi share that site.
Everything occurs on that site you need to occur;new and used auto car sales,repair. But the growth
of the Hyundai line has created a demand for new space and new jobs. By relocating Tamiami Hyundai and
moving it north,which is where the population center is slowly moving,it actually not just increases new jobs
and opportunities on this site,but it actually increases and frees up space for the Tamiami Mitsubishi
operation to grow also. So this is a move that will aid and assist the growth and job creation of two
dealerships.
We filed an official interpretation with Collier County prior or concurrent with filing our rezone. We
did that for the purpose that we wanted to ensure that we had consistency and staff determination of
consistency with Policy 5.9. It was out of an abundance of caution to do so.
We also,at the same time,filed a Growth Management Plan amendment. In the event that the
official interpretation were not favorable,we felt strongly that what was being proposed was equal to,less
intensive,and a better neighbor than the existing use,that we filed the Growth Management Plan amendment
as a backstop.
We asked the board--once we had the official interpretation that we were,in fact,consistent with
Policy 5.9,we tabled the Growth Management Plan amendment. Its still sitting out there. We hope not to
have to resuscitate it and bring it back online.
As mentioned before,there--under 5.9,you can be equal to or less intensive and be consistent;
however,it's a two-part test. The first part of the test is that your zoning itself must be equal to or less
intensive.
The second part of that test is that your proposed impacts to public facilities must be equal to or less
intensive.
I'm confident we'll be getting into the zoning issues here in short order,and I'll be addressing that in a
few minutes.
But going to the impacts to public facilities,as contained in our application for the official
interpretation,the proposed dealership versus the existing zoning represents a reduction in p.m.peak-hour
Page 9 of 84
January 17,2013
trips of 122 vehicles. It represents a reduction in water and wastewater use of 5,920 gallons per day. There's
no change in water management. There's no change in demands on parks and drainage.
Staff indicated in their report that there's potentially an increase in solid waste generation.I've not
seen that calculation. I don't agree with it for the simple reason that the existing facility has got a restaurant
and bar included in it,and the proposed facility will be using compactors and more modern methods of waste
disposal.
So the solid waste generation,I think,is an issue. But as stated in the staff report,it's not significant
enough to outweigh all of the other reductions that are represented by the proposed project.
The current conditions at the King Richard's amusement park are that a variety of indoor and
predominantly outdoor attractions,including batting cages,go-cart tracks,bumper boats,a variety of rides
including small roller coaster,miniature golf,indoor video games,and a snack bar/restaurant,among other
uses,are present.
This petition seeks to remove those uses fully and replace them with a new and used automotive
dealership,including accessory uses such as repair and service in an enclosed building.
The proposed rezone,again,as Mr.Anderson indicated,is very detailed in nature. We have
identified the maximum buildout of the proposed buildings on site at 65,000 total square feet.This is a
relatively low square-foot usage averaging just 5,750 square feet per acre.Certainly not a maximization of the
site.
One of the reasons for that is that we wanted to make ample space available for temporary storage of
inventory. And in doing so,it certainly shrinks the area for the buildings. But,nonetheless,it's a fairly low
square-footage intensity.
The other thing we did in the design of the site is,that inventory,we put a significant amount of it
behind the building to the east. Not typical for automotive dealers. I think if you look at some of the newer
dealerships,and particularly the ones that I'll see in Miami,the building is set way back,and you see a sea of
vehicles between the building and the roadway.
Here we've done somewhat the opposite. We've limited the inventory in the front of the building;put
most of it to the rear. That allowed us to push the building up closer to Airport Road. Yes,it gives the
dealership better visibility on Airport Road because we don't have a lot of frontage there,but it also creates
additional separation between the physical building itself and the residential development to the east.
The building will be designed to meet architectural standards,including landscape buffering adjacent
to residential properties,which the current PUD does not meet.
The current Land Development Code,when you have a commercial use next to a residential use,
requires a 15-foot Type B buffer with a 6-foot masonry wall. Currently,a buffer is there. It is dominated by
exotic vegetation and consists of a chain-link fence. That will be replaced along the entire eastern boundary
and the northern boundary from the northeast corner all the way to where the commercial office exists with a
Type B buffer,which includes trees and shrubs,50 percent of which have to be placed on the residential side
of 6-foot privacy wall,which is masonry or concrete construction. Obviously,this is going to be a far better
sound buffer than the existing dilapidated chain-link fence.
We have limited the land uses in the PUD only to what is necessary. The site plan reflects that.And
a detailed site plan--as we all know,the more detail you put in your site plan,the more likely you are to be
drug back before this body when you want to do an expansion. This is not an overly inexpensive process to
go through.
We do believe what we've shown here is adequate buildout. The building to the north will be the
first phase of development. That will house the vast majority of what is necessary. The building to the south
is somewhat of a placeholder right now that,should there be additional showroom space for,you know,part
of the Hyundai line,we have the ability to create it. Out of an abundance of caution,we wanted to show both
to try and avoid having to come back and go through this process for a minor expansion in the future.
There are substantial measures of increased compatibility when you look at the proposed project
versus the existing zoning. Number one,we've already discussed building placement where you have go-cart
tracks and batting cages just a couple hundred feet or 300 feet from existing residentially zoned property.
The building as you see here is over 500 feet from the eastern property line,which is the nearest residences.
Page 10 of 84
January 17,2013
That was not an accident.
The buffering and landscaping,which we have discussed,is well in excess of what currently is there
today. We've even gone as far as looking at loading and unloading. The beeping of a truck as it backs up can
be an irritant to somebody who's in bed on Saturday morning.
We've created the site with ample circulation so that delivery vehicles can come into the site,go to
the right,circle the site fully,and the loading area is on the north side of the proposed dealership. It does not
require backing into a bay. It's a pull-in lane,and then the truck is offloaded with forklifts into an open
garage door that is then closed when the loading occurs.
Site circulation was important. We did not want trucks sitting a mere 200 feet,or unloading and
loading,close to the residential. That's why the site was designed the way it is.
One of the things--when you look at impacts and the way that Collier County asks you to look at
impacts with respect to the Growth Management Plan,is there are a bevy of impacts that are not evaluated
that we think are important,first and foremost of which,on this project,noise reduction. Currently,batting
cages,roller coaster,go-cart tracks. I think if you ask any of the residents there if they truly love listening to
that,you'd probably get a no.
What we are proposing is a service--a sales and service building,and the service building is fully
enclosed with the exception of a few quick-lube bays for oil changes. Those will be located with the doors
facing south. The only door that would open and close from the service area that--it would be facing to the
east where it's just the predominance of residential,is one--one service door that is raised when a vehicle is
done with service and exits,and closed when the vehicle exits.
This is the same thing we employed with the Naples Nissan dealership at Whippoorwill and Pine
Ridge,and it works very well. There aren't residences right on the other side of the street there,but Hospice
is to the south just a few hundred feet away. And we worked very,very hard to make sure that there wasn't
noise transfer from that dealership to the Hospice site. Hospice is happy with what was done there. As a
matter of fact,they're even considering expanding closer to the dealership.
So we think that employing those same tactics here--there's a good-neighbor policy that was done
there and works. We're transferring from this site and design.
Currently--we've had discussion at the NIM,and there was concern about noise from the existing
community pool area. That's the community pool for the Lone Oak development,or at least one of them,but
the primary recreation area for the Lone Oak development,Walden Oaks.
Currently,the batting cages are 200 feet from that pool deck. The go-cart track is 275 feet from that
pool area. A chain-link fence with no wall and an existing vegetative buffer.
What is being proposed--the area I just pointed to is--are car detail bays where hand detailing is
done,and those are approximately 325 feet from the pool. Again,at development there will be a 6-foot
privacy wall between those bays and the adjacent property.
In addition,those bays are enclosed on three sides and roofed,so the noise is directed in a northerly
direction,not north and east. Again,these are hand-detail bays. These are not service bays where air tools
are used and so forth. This is mainly where cars are prepped for delivery. So there's not the repair function
going on in these bays.
So,again,enclosed on three sides,roof,openings facing north,and a 6-foot privacy wall 50 feet
away. We think this is an adequate--adequate attention being paid to the transfer of noise and certainly well
beyond what exists today.
One of the questions we received was about car washes. Just between that detail bay and the service
building,there will be a car wash. The car wash openings do face east and west but can be oriented so that
the blowers are on the west side.
That car wash is not for customer use. It's used simply by employees. Approximately 75 cars a day
at the most would be going through the car wash.
Car washes are permitted in the C4 zoning district. There's additional requirements in the Land
Development Code for car washes if they're stand-alone commercial uses,and that's LDC Section 5.05.11.
Even though this is not open to the public,this location and design meets every single one of the LDC criteria
for a commercial car wash;as to location,as to distance,and as to buffering.
Page 11 of 84
January 17,2013
The last thing I'd like to clarify before opening up to any questions is--and this was the--this was
the part I referred to where all the mistakes are mine.
We've been somewhat trained,candidly,by this body to be overly open in our disclosures. When I
rezone churches now,I throw everything in but the kitchen sink. You don't want to do childcare,I
understand,but if you want to do it five years from now,it's going to cost you a lot of money and a lot of time
to get that.
So what we try and do is we try and be extremely open and have full disclosure,because the last
thing I want to do is stand up here and have someone say,well,you didn't say you were going to do that.
That's precisely how this PUD was structured.
The dominant use in this PUD and the use we're requesting is Land Use Code 5511,which in the SIC
code is new and used automotive dealerships.
If you look at the SIC code--and I know a copy was included in your packet by Nancy--it explains
that it's new and automotive--new and used automotive dealerships along with accessory repair uses. The
repair uses are part and parcel of an automotive dealership.
I've done several automotive dealerships over the last 10 years. I've yet to do one that did have a
repair department. I've yet to do one that did not detail vehicles. They are part and parcel of the same use as
recognized by the standard industrial classification code.
Where I errored is in the application in the PUD. I indicated C5 intensity uses. That should read C4
intensity,and the reason is that an automotive dealership with the associated repair uses is permitted in C4.
By listing the accessory uses independently,I opened up the door to discussion of,are you doing a C5
project.
So,candidly,this is a C4 project. It should have been listed as a C4 project. Operating on the side of
full disclosure,we listed all the accessory uses. But if we were limited solely to typical accessory uses of a
new and used automotive dealership,fine,we're happy with that.
So Accessory Uses 1 through 7 were an attempt to be open and full disclosure,not an attempt to
increase the intensity of the project.
I can also cite for you multiple examples in Collier County where new and used automotive
dealerships with all associated repair and service uses exist in straight C4 zoning. They've been permitted.
They've been built recently. So I think there is a track record here that what is being proposed here as a
permitted use is,in fact,a C4 use.
There is a glitch in your Land Development Code that provided some interest to us. Under C4 you
can have a new—you can have an automotive dealership,and it says in the LDC new cars only.
When you go to conditional use of C4,it says,that same land use code,5511,used cars only.
Nowhere does it say new and used cars.
And it's interesting because then it says,well,the new car component is C4,but the used car
component may be conditional use of C4. Either way,it's C4 intensity. And Collier County has recognized
in the past that C4 is a zoning district that allows for automotive dealerships that have both new and used and
repair. We are exactly consistent with that.
To summarize very quickly,we think what we have proposed here is clearly a reduction in intensity
to the adjoining neighborhood. It may not be what people want,but asking somebody what they want and
then asking them if this is better than what's there are two different questions.
The measure for us,according to the Growth Management Plan,is are we equal to or less intensive
from a zoning standpoint. The answer's yes. The amusement park uses are only permitted as a conditional
use of C4. The outdoor recreation uses are only a conditional use of C4. A new car automotive dealership is
straight C4.
So the argument there,and the one that staff made,is that those are similar in intensity because our
zoning is hierarchial in this county.Cl is less intensive than C2 and so forth.
So the only measuring stick we have is,where does it fit in? New car automotive dealerships,C4;
outdoor recreation,conditional use of C4.
So the zoning is similar or less intensive.We've provided ample evidence that the public facility
impacts are equal to or less intensive,and I believe that we have addressed the vast majority of the issues
Page 12 of 84
January 17,2013
raised at the NIM that are site related.
The one I didn't hit on is lighting. We got questions from the neighbors about what's the lighting
going to be like. And,candidly,there's a couple dealerships in town that are probably visible from the
Hubble telescope. Extremely bright lighting immediately on the roadway can be a distraction.
We had a discussion with Mr.Zellers. We met with lighting experts,and earlier this week I sent a
letter out to the residents who attended the NIM.The best example I can give you of what the display lighting
for this project will be like is actually going back to that Naples Nissan site on Pine Ridge Road. Granted,we
did that project too,but the lighting there--you're capped at 25 feet in the LDC,but the lights are required to
be shielded from residential glare. Those lights are actually shielded from glare spillover into Pine Ridge
Road.
You also have there a canal between the dealership and the roadway,just as we do on this site. So
the example we've provided the residents that is probably the most--the most similar approach to site
lighting we're going to have is the Naples Nissan dealership. We could call out a couple that may be a little
more intense out there and not as desirable.
But the bottom line is,they asked for an example of how we would handle that,and we've provided
that as a real-world example. And if you stand on Pine Ridge Road at night and look down,you'll see that the
glare is very limited out onto the roadway.
When it gets to the rear of the site,our requirement for lighting is security;it's not display.
Therefore,in all likelihood,we'll have fewer fixtures. There's no point in spending all the money for display
lighting throughout the entire site.
So--but the shielding requirement is still there. And the closest we come to the rear property line is
in excess of 200 feet. The area east of the parking area--the lake area and around the lake area will not be
lighted. So the nearest light structure will be over 200 feet away from the residential property line and almost
300 feet from the nearest residential structure.
With that,Mr.Chairman,I will conclude my testimony and remarks,and Mr.Anderson and I--and
also,Mr.Josh Fruth is the project engineer with Davidson Engineering. He's here and available to answer
any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Tim.
And we'll start with our board's questions. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes,a few questions,and then quite a few questions of staff
later.
If you could look at the master plan;what you have up there is fine. You mentioned in your
testimony that there would be,on the eastern boundary and I assume east of that lake,a landscaping buffer
and a wall,or did I misinterpret what you said?
MR.HANCOCK: You heard that correctly,sir.It's a 15-foot Type B buffer with a 6-foot masonry
or privacy wall.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On your master plan that wall is not shown.
MR.HANCOCK: No,sir. It's a requirement of the Land Development Code. In a 15-foot Type B
buffer,if you're adjacent to residential,then the wall is required. So we've been asked not to be redundant
with the LDC.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: So inherent in that 15-foot Type B buffer,because the adjacent use is residential,
a wall is required.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I think I understand.
Again,going--looking at the master plan,you do show a 15-foot wall and a Type B landscape
buffer on the northern boundary,at least east of the commercial area there. At least I'm assuming that's what
that"expansion"there means. Perhaps not.
MR.HANCOCK: Both call out a 15-foot Type B buffer,but requirement is the same. And you're
correct.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So there will be a wall. I mean,that's the base question.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. The entire length of the northeast boundary from the northeast corner all
Page 13 of 84
January 17,2013
the way to the existing commercial,which is up towards Airport Road,there will be a wall along that entire
length,yes,sir.
COMMIISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Under Exhibit F,Page 6 of 6,development
commitments,you had mentioned lighting and your commitment to having no lighting around the lake.
Could you put that in as a Item No.E;would that be appropriate?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
COMMIISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Just a second.That's all I have for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else of the applicant at this time? Bill,and then Diane.
COMMIISSIONER VONIER: Tim,how many of the seven accessory uses does the dealership have
now in place?
MR.HANCOCK: Let me pull that up real quick.In a standard repair department,while it's a very
small portion,repair to exhaust systems on No. 1 does occur. There's no tire retreading going on;however,
there is tire repair on No.2. Automotive glass replacement,again,something that occurs.Transmission
repair,I would call it minor transmission repair but,again, it is a support repair service.
Six is general automotive repair. The one thing that probably--that doesn't really happen within a
service area like this--and,again,erring on the side of probably overdisclosure,is body repair. That usually
is in a separate building,a separate land use. So currently in a standard dealership,body repair and--you
know,you don't straighten frames anymore at automotive dealerships. So that one is probably not occurring.
And all of those that I listed,in our opinion,are incidental and accessory to the new car dealership.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have a problem with the tire retreading,because that covers a
multitude of sins,and it's--I don't think there's an operation in Naples that does it.
MR.HANCOCK: And we're not going to do it here,and we'd be happy--
COMMISSIONER VONIER: It's smelly,and it's not a pleasant operation. So I would like to see the
tire retreading taken out.
MR.HANCOCK: I think we can do that without affecting the business model.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all,Bill?
COMMIISSIONER VONIER: That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good morning,Mr.Hancock.
MR.HANCOCK: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Number 7 also,does not Tamiami--like you said,the repair shop,is
there not one that he already has set aside in a different location? So if that happens,that's where they will be
going?
MR.HANCOCK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So do we take 7 out of there also?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Another question--thank you for the walls.
The car washing. Being sensitive today and knowing that we've had many water things,will this be
recycled water? Will you be--so it isn't--when you said you had what,75 car washes a day,this will be
recycled water so you won't be using fresh water all the time?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am. As a matter of fact,we've already identified the equipment that will
be put in place,and it has an 80 percent recycling rate.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else,of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim,I have some questions.
Ray,I'm going to give you some paperwork.
That was an unexpected move.
Tim--and I met with you and Bruce,and I also met with the residents. When I met with the
residents,they were concerned about a number of issues that I'm sure they'll express today. I also expressed
to them that we try to find compromise if it's possible. So my intention now is to walk through issues that
Page 14 of 84
January 17,2013
hopefully find a compromise,and we'll know how the residents feel when it comes up.
But I still have an overriding issue that I'm concerned about from the responsibility position that this
planning commission is in. And I showed you mine yesterday,and you showed me yours last night. And it's
not what you think.
So I will give you the opportunity to show us yours and get it on record,and then I'll put mine on
record.
MR.HANCOCK: I appreciate the clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to walk us through yours,because I'm going to do that
with mine,and that's so the board is fully versed on the two issues.
MR.HANCOCK: I've asked Nancy to zoom in on that. Otherwise,unless you're under 25 years of
age,you'll never be able to read this.
In a meeting with Commissioner Strain,we discussed how do you measure intensity of zoning
accurately? Is there a numerical formula that you can assign to zoning intensity? •
One of the problems I have--and I've been doing this for 23 years--is,you know,medical office is
allowed in CI zoning,and it is far more incentive from a traffic standpoint than rock crushing,which is C5,
yet rock crushing is clearly more intensive. There are things you can do to mitigate intensity,so certainly
within our zoning code there are C4 uses that,with certain applications and design,could be less intensive
than C3 uses;however,the Growth Management Plan and the way staff has interpreted the board direction on
measurement of zoning is to use the hierarchial method that we have. If it's allowed in C4,then it's deemed
to be,generally, less intensive than what's allowed in C5.
Using that as a nexus,the question Commissioner Strain raised is that in our PUD we have one
permitted use. That's new and used automotive dealerships,SIC Code 5511. The new portion is allowed in
C4. Used only,as allowed,as a conditional use of C4.
In the Princess Park PUD,they have,I believe, 11 or 12 permitted uses;nine of those are allowed
only in conditional use of C4,two of which are allowed conditional use of C3.
I think we both agree on the uses in the Princess Park PUD and how they fall in the zoning code.
The problem is when you get to the accessory uses for what we're proposing. If you take those
accessory uses out of an accessory condition,meaning they're incidental and subordinate to a permitted or
primary use,and you make them stand alone,their intensities stand alone,in our code,is C5. Therein lies a
reason why I used C5 intensity more than once in describing things out of an abundance of caution.
The question becomes,do we measure those when we look at overall intensity as C5? And my
response to that is that if they were stand alone or if they were individual permitted uses,then the answer
would be yes. If we could come and do a transmission repair shop,stand alone on the site,it's a CS use per
the Land Development Code;however,doing work on a transmission in a service area that is there for the
sole purpose of support of a new car dealership is an accessory use,and it is clearly incidental to the primary
use.
And so Commissioner Strain proposed basically taking all of the uses that could occur,assigning a
numerical value,4 for C4,5 for C5;if you're a conditional use,you'd use a 4 and a half because it's deemed to
be a little more intensive than C4 and less than C5;divide them up by the number of uses,average them out,
and that's your intensity number.
The flaw that I saw with that analysis--and I always hesitate to use the word"flaw"when talking
about something Commissioner Strain has done,but the flaw I saw with that analysis is,if I have a project
that had 90 percent professional office and 10 percent transmission repair,there needs to be a weighted
assessment of the overall intensity of the project;otherwise,CI and C5,you average them out,it's a C3
intensity project.Well,not really,because 90 percent of it is Cl.
And I think that gets to what staffs analysis with respect to the OI was. They looked at the
predominant permanent use of the two projects and made a determination that we were equal to or less
intensive. The reason being--and what you see up here--the area and space allocated to the Princess Park
PUD that are C4 conditional uses is 83 percent of the project,not including water management or parking.
So we're--and I even excluded walkways in between the go-cart track and the batting cages.We
took those out. We even took out the infield on the go-cart track,attributed that to open space.When you
Page 15 of 84
January 17,2013
look at that total area,83 percent of it is C4 with conditional use; 17 percent is C3 with conditional use. We
then used those percentages to weight the intensity of the permitted uses in that PUD.
In looking at the automotive dealership--again,Commissioner Strain took permitted and accessory
uses and listed them all;C4 for the automotive dealership,C5 for the accessory uses.And,again,my position
is that if that were stand-alone uses permitted,then that would be a fair assessment,or at least fairer
assessment;however,Land Use Code 5511 allows associated repair as a function of an automotive
dealership.
And,again,it occurs throughout the county in several locations that we have automotive dealerships
in straight C4 zoning. And I believe that is direct support for the fact that an automotive dealership is a C4
intensity use. And that's why I think I erred in calling out C5 and wish to make that correction to the
document and application today.
If you look at the intensity of new car dealership,what we looked at is we looked at,on a volume
basis,how much of the activity on that site is allocated to new vehicles? And across the board,not just at
Hyundai,but across the board in the Tamiami family of dealerships,you're dealing with,I think,it's 76
percent. Seventy-six percent of the volume is on the new car side;24 percent is in the used car side.
So in deference to the way the LDC is currently written,the new car dealership is a C4 use,the used
car dealership we called out as a C4 conditional use. We applied those weights also.
And the result is that the two uses are fairly similar. The Princess Park PUD,when you use the
weighted approach,is at 4.33. The automotive dealership,when you use the weighted approach,is at 4 point
--I think it's one--yes,4.13.
The difference in the two analyses is twofold.One is weighting. I think without using weighting
you're not measuring the intensity accurately.
The second component is whether or not,because you can fix a transmission inside a service bay of a
new car dealership,that turns it from a C4 to a C5 use. My testimony is that because SIC Code 5511 allows
associated repair,and in support of that Collier County has approved multiple automotive dealerships in
straight C4 zoning,that we are erring in looking at the new car dealership and associated repair uses as C4.
By removing tire retreading and by removing auto body repair,that case is strengthened even further.
So that is the crux of the analysis we prepared. We included the formula there. And to give you a
greater level of comfort,it was prepared by an engineer,not me,so--who's here.And if I tried to explain it to
you,I probably would get lost along the way.
But all it was,basically,is taking each use,multiplying it by the weight,adding it to another use
multiplied by the weight,and then dividing by 100 percent. Did I lose anybody? Okay.
And we ran several tests on it that were simple. For example,if you had a project that was 50
percent Cl and 50 percent C2 and you ran it through the formula,you got 1.5.
And so we ran several tests on it to make sure the formula ferreted out,and it did. So we're
comfortable that it is an accurate weighted measurement of the proposed intensity versus the existing
intensity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Tim.
And now I'll talk to you about mine. But before we do,do you--and I know you're familiar with the
county and you've been in planning for quite a while. Why do you think the new car/used was considered a
higher intensity than new--than a car dealership new? For example,why was it a CU requirement versus a
standard permitted use in C4?
MR.HANCOCK: In all honesty,if you have a lot that sells only used cars,generally you're dealing
with--few exceptions in high end--and there's some of those in this town--a lower socioeconomic
demographic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could it also be contributed to the fact that used cars would probably use
more repair?
MR.HANCOCK: Certainly. Obviously,when the car comes on the lot,things are done to it before
it goes out. Not the case,typically,with a new car. They're more prepped than repaired. That could be a
component,yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy,I didn't want that put up right now. I still want to talk about his,if
Page 16 of 84
January 17,2013
you don't mind. If you could put his back up there. Can you put his back up,please?
Upper right-hand corner--can't quite see it.You need to move over to the upper right-hand--move
it to the left,if you could. Ah,right there.
I think you may want to switch something around in the numbers. The SIC code for used is 5521
and vice versa.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then I would assume if you do that the other columns are consistent with
the switch.
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. I can't even try to blame Bruce for that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you'd move it now back to the bigger table in the middle,Nancy,if
you could.
And so what you did is you applied a weight of 83 percent to a conglomerate of uses that are on that
site listed as principal uses for Princess Park,and then you came back with one score for those of 4.5;is that
correct?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you added the 4.5 to the 3.5s below,and you divided that by
the number of total uses there instead of--and I'm just wondering why you did that versus dividing it by
three,or why your engineer did that.
MR.HANCOCK: We actually didn't divide by the number of uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did you get 4.33?Why don't we go back to that then?
MR.HANCOCK: The formula that was used--and I'm going to take this so I can read from it--so
I can read from it,and then I'll put it back on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR.HANCOCK: For the existing PUD,there were two land uses being analyzed: C4 with
conditional use and C3 with conditional use. Nine of the uses are C4;two of the uses are C3 conditional use.
Therefore,there were really only two classifications that were weighted.
The assumption here,Commissioner,is that if all the uses are C4 with conditional use,then you don't
need to divide anything. It's 4.5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I know they're not all C4 with conditional use. I know that.
MR.HANCOCK: And so there had to be a way to factor the intensity of the non-C4 conditional
uses,and those were lumped together. So there really are only two land uses being analyzed there.
And so the 4.5 times the weight of.834 plus 3.5 times the weight of 17 percent was then divided by
the weight plus weight,which is 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is it your assumption that if you take those first categories of
C4 with a CU,any one of those would take up 83 percent of the site or collectively,altogether their pieces
could take up 83 percent of the site?
MR.HANCOCK: Altogether their components currently take up 83 percent of the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then any one of those wouldn't take up--what percentage of the site,do
you think?
MR.HANCOCK: They're each very different.Go-cart track is the most consumptive use out there
because of area allocation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as a principal use,do you think anybody would build an 11-acre site
with any one of those uses being primary,I mean,being the major part of the site?
MR.HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, I mean,that's what the principal uses could do versus an accessory
use.
MR.HANCOCK: That is correct,and the answer is,no,I don't see an 11-acre swimming pool.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In--and I don't either,and that's why it was important to look at
these as accessory uses and to equally,I thought,look at your request for accessory uses in the same light.
In the period of time that Princess Park was built,which was in the'80s,the accessory use definition
included two words that aren't included today. It said,accessory uses are those needed--are uses that are
Page 17 of 84
January 17,2013
necessary and incidental to the primary use.
Today's code reads--and it was after,I believe,in the early'90s,it was changed so that accessory
uses are now incidental and subordinate to the primary use. Because the burden of using the word
"necessary"became a factor in some OIs that were done back in the early'90s,and they were found to be--
the applicants then were not allowed to do those because they couldn't prove them to be necessary.
So I think the methodology at the time was to include everything as a principal even though it was--
obviously you're not going to build an 11-acre swimming pool. It was going to be an accessory use.
If you take that into consideration,and then you apply the accessory uses for the intensity that they
are,and yours equally,that's how I approached it.
And before we go there,Nancy,the text that I have--that I provided,the LDC text,could you put
that on the overhead?
And I know you've talked about this issue.You need to shrink it down a little bit,and then push it--
pull it down on the page so we can read the top first,and I'll start there.
This is right from the current LDC on MUNI code for the C4 commercial district. And what it says
under the principal uses—there's a whole slew of them. I pulled the pertinent ones,automotive vehicle and
equipment dealers,5511 and 5599,new vehicles only.
Now,when we add verbiage to the end of a referenced SIC code,we do it intentionally. It's done in
many places and in many zoning districts throughout the code. In that same code,or in that same C4 section,
the yellow on the bottom for conditional uses says,automotive dealers and gasoline service stations,and the
one that is most concerning is the 5521.
Nancy,if you can now scroll down. Try to leave the yellow highlighting on the top visible.Yeah,a
little bit further. Okay. That's good.
The C5. The C5 is distinctly different in the way it's worded. Motor vehicle dealers,new and used,
5511 and 5521. So it took the two up above,combined them together in the one down below,and then when
you get into your repair services,all your repair service--or all but one,occur in No. 18,automotive repair
services,7532 to 7539.
And then the car washes,which you didn't specifically ask for,but it's obviously an accessory use
because you show it on your plan,the 7542.
The reason I wanted to show this is in no case did you ask for 5521. You have,consistently
throughout your application,asked for 5511. I can't see,from a Land Development Code perspective,how
5511 in a C4 can stand with anything but new because it specifically says new vehicles only. The only time
it comes under with used is in the C5 district. That's where my concern is.
And--so I ran your numbers both ways just to give the benefit of the doubt of using both C4 and C5,
but I used the accessory uses.
And,Nancy,if you could put that next one up now that we could get into that.
And this is the same I showed you last night.I highlighted it for clarity for today's meeting.On the
left is the base zoning,your current PUD,which I think you said we agree on. And I did mine not by
weighted;by strict average and division.
So if you take the number of uses,which I think are 10 or 11 under the current PUD,and you divide
the total overall intensity score,you get an overall intensity average of 4.32.
If you go to the proposed PUD with the C5 use of 5511,as was applied,you get a 5.0;significantly
more.
If you go to the proposed PUD but you substitute in 5521 and 5511 separately,one is a C4,one is a
C4 with a CU,you end up with a 4 point--now I'm having a hard time reading that little print--4.85.
In either case the intensity is higher. Pm not saying you're weighted average is wrong,but I'm
concerned that we cannot dismiss accessory uses. Granted,I don't think anything in Princess Park,as a
principal use that we've talked about,would gain an 11-acre site,nor do I think you're ever going to have a
transmission repair for 11 acres,but you could go up to 49 percent,and that is the instance that has caused
great concern in this county before.
Stevie Tomatoes. This board found,when that project came through,that we did not want drinking
establishments on that site,and we recommended that to the board,and it got mixed up in the transition.
Page 18 of 84
January 17,2013
Well,they came in with an eating establishment. I think it was 5812. They put that eating establishment in,
and then they built one or two--I don't know how many bars they have there and barstools,bar seats,and
TVs around the whole thing and opened the doors up and put in amplified sound.
So they were serving alcoholic beverages and attracting a large crowd,and they probably still do.
But the immediate neighborhood,just like this,had residential adjacent to it. And that accessory use ended
up legal because it didn't exceed 49 percent of the site,but it was the driving force which caused the
neighborhood the most concern,not the fact that it wasn't licensed or permitted as an eating establishment.
That's why I believe we've got to weigh in on the accessory uses. We can't ignore them.
And I understand the argument that you're not going to use them to an extent that may rise to that
percentage. But as we--but you could. It would be impractical,just as it would be impractical for Princess
Park to put in an 11-acre or let's say even a 6-acre pool. No one in their right mind's going to do that. But
you have to weigh in on them,and that's why I was concerned.
I also am concerned that in this entire application we still have not seen a request to use 5521 to be
consistent with C4 with a CU if that's what you're trying for. You're still saying 5511.5511,with new and
used,cannot be in C4. It doesn't say that. It's clear it's in CS.
I'm sure that maybe staff will have a comment on that when it comes up. And if they do,that's fine,
but that's the code today. And that's the kind of--the stumbling block that I'm having as a member of this
board approving something that appears to be inconsistent with the code for the use--for the zoning district
that was used to determine that. I mean,you guys are saying C4. Staff did the analysis on the C4 use,even
though the application was a C5,and I'm still concerned about that.
So I haven't got past that,but let's,on the--and I met with the residents. One of the things they're
going to be talking about today is their concerns. I'm hoping that they're going to offer some solutions,if
there are any. So maybe hearing some thoughts in the rest of my comments might spur some way of getting
to a compromise on what you've got here,and we'll see as we go through.
But that's the situation that we talked about,and I--you know,I appreciate you spending the time to
put your document together. And when I get more time,I'm sure going to look at it more closely for the
future,because I have a feeling these could come up periodically. But intensity is the issue.
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
MR.HANCOCK: Is now an appropriate time to address some of those comments?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. I want to hear everything you've got to say,Tim.
MR.HANCOCK: One of the values of PUD zoning is to be able to carve out something that makes
sense and is appropriate for a given site. While the Land Development Code allows new car only in C4 and
used car in conditional use of C4,the idea that if you combine the two now you're C5,I think,is an error in
the LDC.
By virtue of PUD zoning,while we listed 5511 as an SIC code and did not list 5521,the reason was,
by listing 5511 and referencing the SIC code,that included new and used. And everywhere within our PIJD
document and our application we use the phrase"new and used."
So what we did is we found one SIC code that addressed both of the uses and simply referenced that
code. Because we're not doing used car only,referencing 5521 seemed extraneous. So the PUD does include
new and used cars,and it uses SIC Code 5511 as the umbrella under which that request is being made and the
definition of 5511 under which is a reference in the document. That's why 5521 wasn't specifically cited.
If we were to cite 5521,allowing for new and used cars,it still would be a conditional use of C4
intensity,not C5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Tim,if this was purely a PUD matter,we wouldn't even have this
discussion. That's not where my concern is. My concern is that it's a--it's a piece of property consistent by
policy through 5.9. 5.9 is very strict. It says you can't have--we cannot approve anything on that property
greater than the intensity that's there now.
Unfortunately,to do that standard as you have elaborated--there are two. There's a level-of-service
standards to look at,and there's zoning standards to look at.
Based on the way the LDC is written for new and used automotive,it concerns me that we've not
Page 19 of 84
January 17,2013
looked at the appropriate zoning standard to compare the intensity,and that's where I'm coming from.
I understand your argument on the PUD,and I don't disagree with you. It just isn't just a PUD in this
case because it's a unique piece of property brought in from the old days back in the'80s prior to us having a
GMP in place,and it does pose complications,and there's little pieces of these properties,as you know,all
over the county.And I'm just still uncomfortable with it,and I wanted you to know that,so--
You had said that there's a--and you can--could we put his site plan back up again? Thank you.
I just want to make sure,you're--the loading area's going to be along the north side.Does that mean
where--just out of curiosity,you're going to just--is that that road that--so they'd come in,the trucks would
go to the left,pull off along that asphalt somewhere,and do the unloading up there?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. And adequate room has been left in that aisle for passthrough traffic and
fire circulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See,what I'm going to do is make notes of the things that you're telling us
on the--as potential stipulations,but I want to read the list prior to the residents speaking,so if it helps the
residents in their presentation,then we will be maybe that much further along.
MR.HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The residential--I heard you repeatedly say it's to the rear and facing east.
That property line along the north,I thought I saw one photograph with some structures not just to the front in
the commercial but as the road looped down. Are there any structures along that wall—that property line to
the north other than the commercial?
I drove there the other night,but it was--I was lost,so I didn't know what I was looking at.There's a
lot of loops around that place. And I've got this big,noisy diesel,and I was trying not to wake people up.
MR.HANCOCK: No. The--as the road comes in and winds around the commercial,once it drops
down to the south,there's a landscape buffer that is on their side of the property line heavily landscaped
between the road and the property line of the project. There are no structures between that road and our
property. The only structure you're going to see is,as the road curves back up to the north a little bit,there's a
clubhouse facility next to the pool and some tennis courts. No other structures that I'm aware of,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's--I just wanted to make sure what was there. You--there's
so much paperwork on this one,so I'm going to try to find it as quick as I can.
The car wash aspect of it,you made the statement that the car wash was for stand-alone car washes.
What did you base that assumption on?
MR.HANCOCK: I based it on my copy of the LDC,which shows it as a C4 permitted use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But did you read Section 5.05.11?
MR.HANCOCK: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In that section,do you see anywhere where it says the--in fact,I'll
just put it on the overhead. And I'm--the way I read that section is that if you're putting a car wash in,you've
got to make sure you have those standards. Car washes are considered a bit more intensive than some other
uses,especially alongside residential. And,yeah,I think you articulated it correctly;blowers are probably the
biggest concern.
Do you--and you said you'd meet these anyway and that you would put the blowers on the west
side. So do you have any concern or problem stipulating that you would meet this standard and put thc
blowers on the west side?
MR.HANCOCK: No,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had mentioned that there's two types of security lighting--I
mean two types of lighting. One is for security and one is for display,and that you would try to keep--or
you intended to keep the display lighting to the front and the security lighting to the rear.
Do you have a line of demarcation where that will occur,and do you have a description of
differences between the two lighting?
MR.HANCOCK: Line of demarcation is fairly simple. It is no closer than the edge of pavement on
the eastern side,which is,by my estimation,over 200 feet from the residential section.
No light poles will be located east of where the edge of pavement is shown on the PUD master plan.
As far as some form of standard,no,we really don't. The county does not have a lumens limitation,
Page 20 of 84
January 17,2013
and so there's really not a benchmark out there other than to say there's no point in installing fixtures we don't
need,so the security lighting would be of a lesser intensity. But,no,sir,I'm afraid I don't have an average
lumens because fixtures haven't been selected yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I wasn't asking for average lumens,but you alluded to the fact that
that would be a benefit. So when we go on break,which we will do in five minutes,or--and as we listen to
other speakers today,before this is all over,I'd like to understand if you can somehow add a definition or a
refinement to that so we could stipulate,if it comes to that,that you're going to limit lighting in certain areas.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't even started on the package yet,so why don't we take a break
now and come back in 15 minutes at 10:40,and we'll resume with the packet.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats,we'll resume the meeting.
We have some housekeeping issues to announce.During the break the residents--some
representatives of Walden Oaks supplied us with some paperwork. It's up here on the front counter.It's an
introductory letter and a petition signed by some of the residents. I haven't counted it,because I didn't get
time.
And,Tim,during the break I talked to Heidi Ashton about our respective presentations,and she
suggested that we enter the--those two documents in the record,yours and mine. So that's been done as
well.
Mr.Anderson,is there an extra copy of--I tell you what,I've read mine,so you can borrow mine.
How's that?
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Okay. And we'll try to get you a copy one way or another before the day's
over.
Okay. Tim,let's move into the--Page 1 of the PUD Exhibit A.
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner,if I may address the question you posed prior to the break--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.HANCOCK: —with regard to site lighting.I spoke with somebody involved with the lighting
component,and I don't see a problem with committing to a minimum reduction,you know,in the average
foot-candles of 25 percent for the area east of the line you see called No. 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So generally from the back,the furthest back point of the service
building as it's shown today,is that where you're--is that roughly what you're talking about;does that works?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes. And at the very top of that you see a pen pointing to a little box that I drew
in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.HANCOCK: That also is an area that would have the lower level of lighting too. So I would--
obviously,the MCP would be revised to show these lines,but the area north of the service and to the rear
where you see that first line,line No. 1,we would commit to a minimum reduction of 25 percent in the
average foot-candles,because we only need security lighting back there. We're also assisted and aided by a
masonry fence for security,which is helpful.
The second item is that No.2 line. I didn't want there to be confusion. I said nowhere east of the
parking area,but that does not include if that little lobe that you see on the north were to be constructed. That
second line,Line No.2,would be where--there would be no lighting fixtures east of that line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And while we're on these kind of issues,the--your
hours of operation,what were you intending those to be?
MR.HANCOCK: Currently the dealerships operate no earlier than 7 a.m.,no later than 7 p.m.,with
Saturday--or Sunday being probably no later than 6 p.m.,and that's a window that has a little bit on the north
and south side of the opening and closing. Our concern is that,you know,from my lips to God's ears,
business continues to grow and some additional hours are added to the existing.
Page 21 of 84
January 17,2013
The typical hours of operation for the dealership are generally eight to six. There's always a
hesitation to put a limited hours of operation in a zoning document because of what it takes to change that.
But I think if we agree to a window of seven to seven,we would not be harming ourselves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I ask is the standard reason I'm listing all these
things,because I want the residents to know where you're willing to move to on these points,because if that
has an impact on their presentation or the--or the pamphlet they handed out,this board would need to know
that,so--
Okay. On Page 1 of 6 under Exhibit A,based on prior discussion,the tire retreading you've agreed
you wouldn't do,and the No. 7,which is top body,upholstery repair shops,and paint shops,you agreed you
wouldn't do; is that correct?
MR.HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2 is your development standards.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,excuse me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On that prior page,are we going to be changing,up at the top,
developed as a C5 commercial to a C4? I'm a little bit confused on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I--yeah,I am too.And I spoke with Ms.Ashton during the break. I
showed her the section from the code. We would probably have to acknowledge some kind of change in the
document,and I'm just not--I haven't figured out how to do that yet,because I can't get--I'm still trying to
figure out how to struggle past the reference that only new and used are under one category as a C5 use,and
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well,let's reserve it for a cleanup at the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was going to get through the rest of my questions and hear staffs
presentation and hopefully find an answer through all that,so--
Page 2,your rear yard is a hundred feet,but you've said in your NIM that it would be 500 feet. Is that
--any reason that wouldn't be corrected to 500 feet?
MR.HANCOCK: My only concern there--and I think we can maybe do an accessory and principal
approach to that,and here's why. If we were to put an irrigation well back by the lake and want to put a pump
house over the irrigation well,it would be deemed a structure. And so if we had a 500-foot number in there,
it would prohibit something small and accessory like that.
So one thing we discussed is--obviously,nothing's going to happen within 200 feet. So no
structures within 200 feet and no principal structure. If we went out to 400 feet,then that would not
hamstring any minor modification to the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But,Tim,I understand your concern about a well,but I think you're
on potable water there,aren't you?
MR.HANCOCK: We are,but for irrigation,for landscape buffers,we may wish to have
groundwater.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the memorandum from you,the last paragraph on the NIM
said,Mr.Hancock then showed a comparison of the existing approved MCP and the proposed MCP,
highlighting the distance between the rear property line and nearest building being over 500 feet.
I somehow need to get that commitment,because you stated it in that meeting to the residents,into
that development standard.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: How about principal uses and accessory buildings are 500,and accessory
structures would be less. Would that address the issues?
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: I think that would meet the intent of what I think you were trying to
communicate at the meeting. Principal and accessory uses will be no closer than--principal and accessory
uses as listed would be no closer than 500 feet of the rear property line.
MR. HANCOCK: My only hesitation there--and this is not a--we're not attempting a bait and
switch here--is if we were to try and move the service building 200 feet to the east,I think staff would
Page 22 of 84
January 17,2013
concur that that would be a significant change in the master concept plan and require us to come back before
the Board of Zoning Appeals in a public-hearing process. So I'm not sure that--that's why the 400 made
sense to me. Commissioner,I'm--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 500,by the way,not 4-.
MR.HANCOCK: Well,that's why i suggested 400 is--a shift in the building of 50 feet,for
example,I wouldn't want to be problematic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I can't undo what was said at the NIM. NIMs are--
MR.HANCOCK: No,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --held specifically to find commitments and seek compromise or standards
that can be incorporated into the program. That has to be incorporated somehow,at least in my
interpretation. So I don't mind going on,but it will come up as an issue before the day's over,so--
MR.HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 15-foot buffer that's to the north,you go from 10 down to 15. Were
you planning to put--and maybe Phil may have gotten into this. I was writing at the time. Were you
planning to put a wall in the north buffer as well?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there will be--and that will have to be,at some point,relabeled
all the way around just to make sure it's consistent with what this meeting--
MR. HANCOCK: We're happy to add the language to the MCP. Again,we're just trying not to be
redundant with the LDC on that.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification,the northern boundary would be--if we
took it literally,would be inclusive of the westernmost part of that,which is bordering to the commercial. Is
what we're talking about the full--
MR.HANCOCK: No. Commissioner Strain referenced the 15-foot buffer.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct.
MR.HANCOCK: The 15-foot buffer goes as far along the northern boundary until it gets to the
commercial.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: Then it goes to a 10-foot buffer,and a wall would not be required,because that's
professional office.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I just wanted--because I heard northern and looked at
the entire plan of that. Okay,fine.
MR.HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just trying to get through the rest of my questions that we haven't
already got into,so--just be a minute.
MR.HANCOCK: While you're doing that,quick clarification. The transportation engineer
indicated to me that I made an egregious error. It's not 122 trips being reduced in p.m. peak hours. It's 119.
So I want to put that on the record and--to avoid any confusion or problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That had to be John Podczerwinsky,or was it Reed?
MR.HANCOCK: Norm Trebilcock. He's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. I didn't know--I forgot. I didn't know yours was here too.
Okay. We've got a whole pile of them.
MR.HANCOCK: Oh,they're all here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've taken care of quite a few of these questions so far.
There was a master site plan,existing zoning concept plan in a traffic impact analysis that is greatly
inconsistent with the plan that we're reviewing today. What was the purpose of submitting that? You've got
both plans in there. I mean,I want to make sure there's no attempt to get both plans as a record plan that you
were intending to use,because that plan is in your--so I only find it in your transportation impact analysis.
I'm not sure why you did a second plan that you're not trying to use. That's why I'm--my question.
MR.HANCOCK: And let me go to that to make sure I don't misspeak,but I do have a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11.
Page 23 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.HANCOCK: Okay. And that's of the TIS in your staff packet,correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.HANCOCK: Okay. Oh,Page 11,okay. That particular exhibit was used during the course of
the official interpretation application. The purpose of that exhibit at the onset of the OI was to show what
potentially could be constructed under the existing permitted uses in a more modem-type facility. Obviously,
the Princess Park PUD and the King Richard's development is an older development.
Currently,if you're doing a recreation facility,including indoor and outdoor,the current model is to
have outdoor go-cart tracks,indoor go-cart tracks,believe it or not,and the facilities average between 60-and
80,000 square feet in footprint.
In the early stages of the OI,I was trying to show that under a redevelopment scenario,this is what
could be built. The response from staff was--and that's why this is specifically an OI exhibit that is actually
somewhat defunct now,because the response 1 received from staff was,no,we need to see your analysis
under the buildout conditions of what is currently permitted and consistent with the existing master concept
plan.
So we really weren't even allowed to take the existing permitted uses and revise the MCP and do an
analysis. We had to use the existing master concept plan. And that goes to a point,Commissioner Strain,
that you indicated a little bit earlier about accessory uses and what you can and can't do on the site.
It's an 11-acre site. And,yeah,there's probably not going to be 11-acre swimming pool,but there
might be an 1 I-acre water park. Probably not now that there's one on Livingston. But there could very well
be a go-cart track facility of 11 acres. They exist elsewhere in the nation. So there are some of those uses
that could consume the entirety of the site;one being go-cart,one being a water park and so forth.
However,this site and the way it's currently being treated,while the PUD seems more broad in
accessory uses than what we currently permit,I can assure you that staff is not treating projected new uses in
that fashion.
If I came in today and asked to do a water slide,I would be back before this board before a water
slide could be permitted. Even though it may be an outdoor amusement use,it's not listed specifically in the
PUD.
And during the course of the OI,we were limited to only evaluating those uses specifically listed in
the PUD. So I offer that only as clarification,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Originally--and I'll--I'm sorry. This is a staff question. There's no sense--
We've gotten to the end,at least for now.Why don't we--and anybody else have any further
questions of the applicant before we go to staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can we have staff report?
Thank you,Tim.
MR.HANCOCK: Thank you.
MS.GUNDLACH: Good morning,Commissioners.For the record,I'm Nancy Gundlach,principal
planner with zoning and planning.
And staff is recommending approval of this petition. It is consistent with the Land Development
Code and the Growth Management Plan.
And I do have one little clarification on this morning's presentation. There is,in fact,a deviation
from the architectural standards. And I have staff specialists here with us this morning to answer any
questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you,Nancy.
Are there questions of staff? Phil,I thought you said earlier you had some?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to start?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 7,Nancy,can you talk to,under Part 2,and go down to
where you start to list the analysis of public facility impacts. Can you talk to me about drainage where you
say there's no change? When I envision this amusement park and the amount of open land,quote-unquote,
Page 24 of 84
January 17,2013
there versus a car dealership,which is going to,my words,pave 95 percent of that,I would think the paving
would have some sort of an impact on drainage.
MS.GUNDLACH: Yes. We have--that is part of our Growth Management Plan consistency
review,and I'd like to invite--there he is--David Weeks to answer that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He kind of sneaks up on you,doesn't he?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Quiet guy.
MR.WEEKS: Good morning,Commissioners. For the record,David Weeks of the comprehensive
planning section.
Commissioner Brougham, in response to your question,the water management standard is a
requirement to retain water from a 25-year,three-day storm event. And the water management staff that
reviewed this petition looked at it under--considering that standard,considering the amount of water
management that is on the site today,and then the proposed water management. And the conclusion was that
it would be the same,that the amount of retention that is on the site today versus what is proposed would be
the same.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Essentially,then,that lake is acting as a retention,and it has
capacity for whatever that runoff would be across all that paved area?
MR.WEEKS: That is correct. For the existing PUD,it was provided both for water management
purposes but also was allowed to have recreational uses. I don't know if it ever was used for recreational
purposes,but that is included in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David,before you leave--is that the last question of David?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. I didn't know if you were done with him. I wanted to catch him
before he walked off.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay. David,on May 29th of 2012 you sent a letter to the applicant.
And it said in the middle of it the following: Comprehensive planning staffs informal determination is that
the overall intensity of the proposed zoning and use is greater than that of the existing zoning and use;
therefore,the proposed rezoning to allow auto sales and repair would not be consistent with FLUE Policy 5.1.
Can you explain to me why you said that then and why you have changed your mind now?
MR.WEEKS: Yes. That initial--that informal analysis was based upon a comparison of what is
actually developed on the site today as Princess Park or,excuse me,as the King Richard's amusement park.
And what Policy 5.1 says is the evaluation is supposed to be a comparison between the zoning on the
property versus the proposed zoning.
The distinction is that what is on the site is not the maximization of the site. That is--let me give
you an example of--different from here.But let's say you have a 10-acre piece of property zoned
commercial,and there's a 20,000-square-foot office building on it. Well,the site can accommodate more
than 20,000 square feet.
So if that property wanted to come in for a zoning change,it would not be appropriate to compare
20,000 square feet of actual development to,perhaps,80,000 that's proposed under a new zoning. It's what
would be allowed by the existing zoning to be placed on the site.
And so,after we communicated that to the applicant,then in their formal submittal they correctly did
an analysis of what could be placed on the site of the Princess Park PUD,not what is just there today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in--May 29th you,apparently,didn't take what you just said now into
consideration because you were supplied different information? Did you rely on staffs information to write
your--I mean,not staffs,but the applicant's information in which to write that letter,or did you do your own
analysis? And if you did your own analysis,with your--I mean,you've got--you're the historian for Collier
County,basically. You understand this stuff from day one.
So why wouldn't you have looked at it the right way the first time? I guess that's the question.
MR. WEEKS: We were reacting to the information the applicant provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's--good. That's what I needed to understand. So you hadn't done
Page 25 of 84
January 17,2013
your own research,and then when you did your own research,you came back with a different conclusion that
was based on your own information,not the applicant's;is that a fair statement?
MR. WEEKS: Correct,that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what I need to know.
MR.WEEKS: I'm not sure where you're headed with this--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nowhere.
MR.WEEKS: --but if there's a question of blame,then possibly--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't—you can admit to a whole bunch of things,Dave,but you don't
need to. I'm not going there. I just wanted to understand how it occurred and how your mindset changed. It
makes a lot of sense based on--that the applicant provided you with information and later on you found out
better information. That happens all the time,and--I mean,I have done that every night that I go home and
read something new. So I fully understand.
MR.WEEKS: Sure. And if you're done with me,I'll be happy to leave.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Phil might--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm just going to throw my question out. And I never know
who's going to pop up. But under PUD findings;is that you?
MR.WEEKS: Probably not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks,David.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's Nancy. On Item No.4 on Page 11 under PUD findings,
on your staff comment,staff believes that this proposed automobile facility will not be any less compatible
than the current indoor and outdoor recreational theme park,"any less compatible." Just can you use a
different set of words to describe your intent there? Will not be any less compatible.Does that imply will be
more compatible?
MS.GUNDLACH: It implies it will be equally compatible.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And then if you read on down to the second sentence,
repair services within closed buildings which will reduce some of the site noise. I pick on--the implications
on these words,"some." To me that's not very definitive. It implies--and you don't even need to respond--
that there were really no measurements taken,there were no comparative analyses made between an
automobile repair shop and go-carts going around a track or whatever. Just--that's good. I just--I just don't
think there were any--there was any analysis on that.
On Page 12,Item No.8,again,wordsmithing.About halfway down,the petitioner has demonstrated
that the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health,safety,and welfare of the
community. How did he demonstrate that?
MS.GUNDLACH: Okay. That's described in the deviation section,okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MS.GUNDLACH: Do you want me to say more?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. Just flip me back there,if you would.
MS.GUNDLACH: All right. That is located on Page 15. And,basically,the deviation is that all of
the facades--currently the Land Development Code requires that all of the facades be treated as front
facades,and the deviation is that only the facades facing Airport Road will be treated as front facades.
But I do want to point out that the other facades that remain are required to meet the secondary
facade treatments,just not the primary.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you.
And I think one final one. Well,I'll skip that because it deals with Item No.6 on Page 13,which
goes to the comparative intensity. So we'll leave that--
MS.GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --for a later discussion.
MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy,on the overhead that's on the machine right now,could you just
Page 26 of 84
January 17,2013
show us where the deviation would not apply? What facades--because this doesn't have a facade that flat
faces Airport--or--yeah,Airport Road.It's perpen--I mean,diagonal. So could you show us what facades
that staff would conceive to be covered?
MS.GUNDLACH: I'll just mark it with my pen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's fine. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
MS.GUNDLACH: And I'm going to mark the ones that it would--it's easier just to mark the ones
that it applies to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MS.GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sales service,that little building to the south,wouldn't you have a
facade on the front there?
MS.GUNDLACH: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. I don't know if I have much else. Nope. Nancy,you did
a good job on a very complicated project. Thank you.
MS.GUNDLACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last of the--oops. David's going to contribute something.
MR.WEEKS: Commissioners,I would like to make a couple of comments about the 5.1 analysis.
You've not asked any questions,so Pm not going to walk through how I had done it. Of course,it's in your
staff report.
First,I just want to note to you that I'm sure you're going to be seeing more of these coming before
you as time goes on. In fact,the very next item on your agenda,a component of that proposal includes a
Policy 5.1 analysis under the Future Land Use Element.
But there are dozens and dozens or,perhaps,hundreds of properties that have been found consistent
by policy as the King Richard's site has,and I'm sure there's going to be some of those coming to you in the
future seeking a zoning change,and we'll be dealing with this Policy 5.1 issues.
Staffs analysis,as you note in the staff report,is a rather simplistic view. There's--the language in
the Policy 5.1 simply says a comparison of zoning intensity. We simply look at the zoning district. We've
never thought of,much less provided,any type of numerical analysis,as you have prepared,Mr.Chairman,
and also as the applicant's agent further prepared.
I would suggest to you that it might be a slippery slope doing a numerical analysis,and what I mean
by that is in this case we're dealing with an unusual circumstance because we're dealing with a PUD with
very few land uses approved,and they're all integrated. And in the proposed use is a single use or,if you
divide it,two uses,new and used car sales. That's atypical. Most of the projects,as you know,that you see,
you're dealing with PUDs mostly,and the PUDs have numerous land uses that are approved and then
typically being proposed.
So this--any type of numerical analysis,I believe,could start getting rather complicated,particularly
if we go beyond just how a use is allowed in the zoning code,whether it's allowed by right or by conditional
use and what zoning district it is allowed within,because in some cases we may be dealing with the business
park zoning,which is a blend of commercial and industrial uses.
Within a given zoning district,there can be different levels of intensity. Should those be weighted
the same? I'll pick out an example. CI zoning district,by right,allows a childcare center and a lawyer's
office. Which one of those sites,do you suppose,generates the most crying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most crime,it would have to be the lawyers.
MR.WEEKS: Thank you. I felt like my joke was falling flat. But I think the--my point there
actually,besides some humor,is the fact that the components of compatibility are many:Noise,glare,light,
dust,vibration,hours of operation,the amount of parking spaces or impervious surface in general,the bulk
impact of buildings that might be allowed,the amount of open space or lack thereof. It can get very
complicated. And those might be appropriate,though,to consider those additional details,and it may just get
to the point where it's too complex.
Page 27 of 84
January 17,2013
The staff position remains as it has been historically,and that is just to make a rather simplistic view
and simplistic comparison between zoning districts without any numerical evaluations.
I think my last--well,no,two more comments. One is about the specific PUD. There's been some
discussion about the car dealership being listed in C4 for new by right and then conditional use in C4,and
then both of those listed together in C5 as if there might be a flaw in the LDC. And I--personally,I don't see
where there is a flaw there. The fact that it's listed together both allowed by right in the C5 zoning district,
but one allowed by right and one by conditional use in the C4,I don't think,is unusual.
I did take a few minutes to look and identify at least one other use that is somewhat similarly treated,
and that would be the amusement and recreation services. If it's indoor,then C4,it's allowed by right. If it's
outdoor,it's allowed in C4 by conditional use. C5 zoning district allows both of those by right.
And I--again,I--my reaction to this is it's not a nonissue,but your perspective may be different.
I think there was one more thing. No,that's enough. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,David,I need rebuttal.
MR.WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all,this property is different than some of the other examples you've
cited. It is--Policy 5.9 brings into another level of scrutiny that we don't normally have when we look at
intensity in the fact that it is limited. It limits the intensity to what is already there and not to exceed that.
I read your dissertation on it in the packet.I was satisfied with what you wrote until I got to the
Exhibit A,and it says it's a C5 use. And I recalled reading yours;you didn't acknowledge any C5 use.
So I went back and looked and checked it. Wait a minute,there's something wrong here. Why would
one--and I have great respect for the abilities of the planner to note that it,rightfully so,was C5,but I also
know your history,and I though,well,you don't make those kind of mistakes.
I went back in and tried to figure this out,and the difference is the SIC codes that are being
requested. If it's a C4 use with a used car dealership,the only SIC code that is allowed under that C4 with a
C5 is 5521. So they didn't ask for that. And the only way I've found 5511 with a used component was as a
stand-alone in C5.
So I couldn't make the bridge that you did,and that troubled me. So I tried to figure out another way
to take a look at it to evaluate it to get the intensity issue to go away,and that's when I developed the process
that I showed here today.
MR.WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern with what you have said is you disregard the accessory uses.
And I understand why you did,but I can't see,after what we learned on some projects--and we even went to
court. The county--I was a witness in that case with the county on the Stevie Tomatoes case. That
accessory use drove the neighborhood to the crisis that we had when Stevie Tomatoes was discovered. And I
don't want to see that happen again. So I think ifs important that somehow the accessory uses are carried in.
That's why I asked Tim Hancock when I met with him,and I told him up front where my concerns
were,to please come back with another idea if you think I'm wrong. And he did. I still don't agree with the
fact he didn't evaluate the accessory uses for the car dealership,because they're important.They could go up
to 49 percent of the site. That's a significant change,and that worries me. I'm not over that yet.
But I appreciate all the input,and I understand everybody has a different way of approaching it. I'm
more analytical,so I like numbers. They kind of--you know,there was a program once called Numbers on
television. It was pretty neat.
But I like approaching things analytically as for—indifference to the way that I saw your analysis.
So that's--and that's that part of it.
The difference in the—I think I already explained,then. The difference in the zoning issue is more
of a SIC code reference in the LDC than how you explained it to be. I understand that you could combine
those two SIC codes under C4 and come back with a new and used car dealership, but you'd have to ask for
both SIC codes,and I didn't see that happening here.
MR.WEEKS: Right. And I'd make one more comment,Commissioner.
I think it's important to separate,notwithstanding possible disagreements in how to view the--and
make a determination on this overall intensity analysis that's required in FLUE Policy 5.1. We can separate
Page 28 of 84
January 17,2013
an analysis to determine consistency with the Future Land Use Element,the FLUE,in regards to overall
intensity from specific parameters of compatibility.
What I mean by that is I don't see it as incongruent to determine that a proposed project is consistent
with Policy 5.1 that there is not an increase in overall intensity yet still have compatibility concerns and
address them,just as you've done today,in discussing specifics about this proposal as to architectural
treatment,buffering,use limitations,et cetera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it,David.Thank you.
Okay. Let's see. We left off with--was the end of the staff presentation and staff questions.We've
had the applicant. The applicant will get an opportunity for rebuttal after we hear the public speakers. And I
--how many public speakers do we have on this issue,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: Okay. Five or six.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on that and the discussion we will probably have,I can't see
us getting to the next item before noon. And I'm going to say this because the Creekside residents may want
to go and--or the--not the Creekside--the Collier's Reserve residents, I'm assuming,and the Creekside
people may want to go to have a longer lunch.
At the rate we're going,we'll probably take a lunch at noontime. Hopefully we'll finish this.We may
take a little later if we want to go into--just to get this one done. But I can't see us coming in to the
Creekside application prior to 1 o'clock.
So I'll make that commitment to you that if you want to take off and come back by one to be--and
whether we reconvene exactly at one or not,it will depend on when we leave,but it won't be any earlier than
one,so--
MR.GRAHAM: Thank you,Mr.Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome.
Okay. As soon as we clear the room a little bit,we'll call up the speakers.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Mr.Chair,will we be using the three-minute timer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I never did like that timer,Heidi.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Just checking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just so the residents who are here,or any speaker who's here,to
talk about the Top Hat application--during the discussion we had this morning--I'm going to read to you
kind of where they're at right now,so if it influences your position,we certainly want to know that.
We definitely have on the table a discussion about operating hours. The rear setback to the buildings
for accessory or primary uses will be 500 feet. The car wash will be--will have its blowers mounted on the
west side of the building,and they will adhere to the standards within the Land Development Code for car
washes.
The lighting will be shielded from neighborhood--from runoff or runover glare to the neighborhood,
and they're going to further reduce the lighting at a certain point on the master plan as we have all seen.
They're going to have walls along the northern 15-foot buffer and a wall along the eastern buffer.
There's going to be no lighting around the lake.They've taken out the entire retreading. They have taken out
No.7,which was the auto body work.
The loading area will be along the north side as they've shown on the plan,and that's where we are
at.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Hours of operation,Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I said that's still on the table for discussion.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where we're at so far. Now,the reason I wanted to reiterate that
to you,going forward from here,if it goes forward with a recommendation of approval with stipulations that
make it more easy for you-all to accept and then it goes to the Board of County Commissioners and the board
feels that it's a viable project and they want to vote for it,generally they accept the Planning Commission's
stipulations,which further protects you as a neighborhood.
If this board votes no based on all the input that you may have and as we hear the rest of the
presentation,we don't have stipulations attached to it. And then when it goes to the board,it starts all over
Page 29 of 84
January 17,2013
again. And I don't know if their stipulations would be as intense as ours.
So we'd have to just wait and see where it goes. I want you to be aware of that,though,before you
speak,because we always have what I call Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is that the outcome that we stipulate is
the right one. Plan B is,if we don't have stipulations,you need to know what's going to happen.
So with that in mind,if you could call the speakers. And you guys can use either microphone.And
we don't have a strict time limit. I ask that you just don't be too redundant.
So,Ray or Nancy,whoever's going to call.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. Howard Williams?
MR.WILLIAMS: Yes,good morning. My name's Howard Williams. I live at 6868 Lone Oak
Boulevard. I've been there for 15 years. And I would much rather see a well-run,well-established car
dealership than the noisy amusement park we have now. I just feel that it would make the living conditions
in our development better and also protect our property values.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with the stipulations that we have talked with the applicant
about this morning--
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --do those make it more compatible for you,or is that—
MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's fine. I mean,especially the wall with,you know,the separation of the
--it would be almost like a separate entity--well,it is--but,I mean,a separate entity from the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Next speaker,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: David Pezzullo?
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: By the way,all the speakers should have risen and have been sworn in
when we started this morning. If you weren't sworn in,just let us know so we can do that little bit before we
go too far.
MR.PEZZULLO: Thank you very much.
I am David Pezzullo,a resident at Walden Oaks,and I've been asked to speak on behalf of the
community by our master board.
Walden Oaks,as you have heard,is directly adjacent to what is now King Richard's.
As you have seen from the maps,we share a border on King Richard's northern and eastern sides.
This fact alone that a proposed car dealership abut a residential community on two sides is exceptional.
Naples You(phonetic),just north of us,will be breaking ground soon building high-end residential,
then JL Homes is in the process purchasing and developing over 100 acres of citrus--Temple Citrus to our
south and east.
So this inconsistency,a car dealership in a sea of mostly residential and some light commercial,will,
over time,only become more noteworthy.
Last spring several of us residents of Walden Oaks were in this room to strongly support the rezoning
application for 6900 Airport Road,which we also border on two sides. That changed from agricultural to
residential use after working closely with the perspective developers.
This time,however,after carefully considering the proposal by Top Hat Auto,we are here to ask that
you not recommend the rezoning of King Richard's and presented the commission members copies of a
petition signed by a Walden Oaks members emphasizing this judgment.
Many of us attended the public hearing in the fall and,subsequently,our master board voted
unanimously to resist this application for a rezoning.
We understand,and it has been repeated here by everyone,Mr.Anderson,Mr.Hancock,that when
Collier County Growth Management Plan came into effect in 1989,King Richard's,as an existing C4 usage,
was allowed to continue even though it did not fit within the plan's logic.
It was stipulated,however,that any new use for this property would have to be equal or of lesser
intensity than King Richard's,and that's what we are here to discuss. Essentially,this has been grandfathered
in.
By that very clear standard,"equal or less intensity,"the application now being considered by the
Page 30 of 84
January 17,2013
board does not qualify. Whether measured in lumens for the outside lamps,decibels,the machinery,hours of
actual operation in a week,number of employee hours,amounts of chemicals used,be it lubricants,paints,
glues,solvents,fuels and other toxins,coverage of asphalt,amounts of machinery utilized on an hourly and
daily basis,the car dealership being proposed would generate far more activity than King Richard's now
produces.
There are two principal reasons for this,and I will be short. It's not much longer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite all right.Don't worry.
MR.PEZZULLO: One is that King Richard's is very--is not very active at all. While its official
hours of operation seem extensive--and you questioned about that previously--hours of actual activity are
limited usually to only a few hours a few days a week.
Most of the time and most days of the week the outdoor rides are not being utilized. And when they
are,most of the noises come from kids screaming happily on the rides or the crack of bat on ball in the batting
cage. Some may judge King Richard's,as the previous speaker did,an unsightly mess,but it is hardly a hive
of semi-industrial activity.
What noise and lighting it does produce is sporadic. We have not been privy to all the information
received from the advocates for this rezoning. But from our very close observation--and several of our
residents have owned,operated,and worked for dealerships--the most moribund car dealership in Naples
would be more active than King Richard's is.
The second reason for this proposed new use would represent far more intensive activity is that the
business planning that motivated and justifies any such multi-million dollar investment has to assume a good
deal of activity to be financially feasible. Any dealership on this 12-or 11-acre parcel surrounded by
residential and right commercial would have to be anthill of semi-industrial and heavy commercial enterprise
to remain viable.
Cars will be delivered,moved,and washed daily. Air compressors for both the body shop and
mechanical shop will be churning. Air chisels,grinders,and sanders in the body shop will be whining. Air
wrenches in the tire shop will be screeching. It will be noisy. And bay doors,as we all know,are not always
closed. In fact,very seldom.
The intensity of activity,and particularly regarding high-powered machinery from lifts to
high-pressure air tools,will be significantly greater than King Richard's simply to cover the investment.
We have admired how the very well-regarded lawyer and engineering firm hired by Top Hat have
created an idealized version of what this proposed car dealership would be like.
We know,however,that in the real world noise,lighting,contamination and,most importantly,
activity will be greater than what now exists.
Perhaps comparing the child's scream to the shriek of an air wrench comes down to a subjective
judgment. But if one enterprise is occasional and mostly light commercial most of the time while the other is
daily semi-industrial and constant throughout most of the day,a comparison of intensity of activity is not
difficult to make.
Some may say this new use would represent an improvement despite the more intensive activity,
actually due to the more intensive activity. It would be better organized and maintained,more secure,and
aesthetically more pleasing. That may or may not be the case.
But based on the criteria for new use set by the Growth Management Plan,namely less or equal
intensity of activity,we would have to hide all real-world evidence and business logic to conclude that the car
dealership being proposed here to replace King Richard's would meet that standard.
So we,respectfully,propose that this not be rezoned. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the issues put on the table by the applicant so far today that I
read before you spoke--
MR.PEZZULLO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --have any influence in changing the way--the outcome of what you
spoke today,what you said?
MR.PEZZULLO: While we understand the logic of Plan A and Plan B,and if this has to go
through,we would prefer a better outcome than a lesser outcome. We still strongly believe that this does not
Page 31 of 84
January 17,2013
meet the standard of less activity.But thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I appreciate it.
And,Diane,did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one question. If the automobile dealership would agree to
have closed doors at all times other than bringing automobiles in and out,would that help?
MR.PEZZULLO: Surely it would help. First of all,I'm not in a position to talk for all the people of
Walden Oaks on negotiating these points,though I do appreciate that it's very important that we try to find
wiggle room and a compromise.
I've worked at a car dealership. We can promise,but it's very hard to deliver. You have to move the
cars in and out. People don't stop working. It's not like,let's say,a golf tournament where they hold up a sign
and say"silence"while they move out cars and bring in cars. That's the nature of the business. I'm not
criticizing it. I think it's a great business.
But this inconsistency,this oddity that it's right next to a residential area,causes the problem. And
we do think there will be more activity. So it would help but that,I don't think,would be determinative.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
MR.PEZZULLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you had more time to work with the dealership,would that help at
all? I mean,say this got continued to a point where they could have a series of meetings with you to try to
figure out how to alleviate your concerns,do you have any--
MR.PEZZULLO: We're more than happy to talk to anybody about the possibility of reaching a
compromise yet we do believe that as it stands and based on being a neighbor,real information next door,
that this still is a much higher level of activity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,there are things like studies and stuff that can be done to
show that the distance may equate to a less intensity.
MR.PEZZULLO: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand if there's any--how hard the door is shut or if
there's still a crack open to have further discussion. And if the applicant ever wanted to do that,they might
want to consider that,so--
MR.PEZZULLO: I think we would all welcome a discussion to see if there is an area where we can
reach an accommodation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.PEZZULLO: We'd be very open to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Melissa?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Has the community had a chance to review everything that is optional
in C4?Meaning,if this didn't go forward,we're probably going to continue to see similar applications coming
through.
I think the odds,just from previous experience of making low-density residential work there,the
numbers don't work. So I think we're going to--if this does not move forward,we're going to see something
similar and could be worse.
So I just wanted to see if that's been given any consideration.
MR.PEZZULLO: That's an excellent point,and it has been. Our analysis,obviously,is not
particularly sophisticated,but we do realize,given the state of King Richard's and its need or desire to sell,
something else is coming there,and it's not going to be,you know,a state park,we understand,as presently
zoned.
So we appreciate what you're saying. And we understand. We're trying to balance what this is next
to what could be,given the fact that the economy is beginning to move again,and options for King Richard's
will multiply over the next couple years.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Thank you.
MR.PEZZULLO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a lot of people are familiar with our zoning codes. C4 has a long,long
list. May be well over a hundred--well,yeah,there is over a hundred listed uses. I-lave you ever looked at
Page 32 of 84
January 17,2013
all those uses?
MR.PEZZULLO: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you had an opportunity to look at those in conjunction with a
reconsideration of this,it might spur some interest at least to take a look at them,because you may find that
any of those could then be substituted for what's there now.
And I just--I just want to throw that on the table because it may help if you want to consider--if
there's any time request to consider this--any further negotiations with your neighborhood.
MR.PEZZULLO: We appreciate that. And the word of caution is well received.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.PEZZULLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it very much,okay.
Next speaker,Ray.
MR.PEZZULLO: Thank you.
MR.BELLOWS: John DeAngelis.
MR.DeANGELIS: Good morning,Commissioners.I must confess,Mark,I didn't know that you'd
ever left,but welcome back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some people think I've left for good in a lot of ways,but I'm here.
MR.DeANGELIS: I'm here to--
CHAIRMAN S l'RAIN: Thank you.
MR.DeANGELIS: --speak on behalf of the Willow Park businesses and association,which is
adjacent to the current King Richard's property.
Our--I actually am in an ownership with several properties that butt up against the go-cart tracks
currently and have been there as my primary office literally sitting at my desk one commercial setback away
from the go-carts for the last 11-and-a-half years.
So I think the statements that were made before that the activity at King Richard's has somehow been
reduced or isn't on a daily basis,it's only a few days a week,I think it actually speaks to support this next use
as a lower use.
The reason I say that is because I can tell you,sitting next to the go-cart track for the last
11-and-a-half years,that there's significant activity on a daily basis. Now,it may not start until 11 in the
morning,but it definitely goes past 6 o'clock in the evening when I leave.
And it's not just the engines from the track,but it is the high-pitched screams that were mentioned.
And I've said it before,I have four children,and I'm okay with high-pitched screams.After that long,you get
used to that.
But I will say that when you're having a meeting and you're on the phone and you do hear these
screams on a very consistent basis--they have this ride here. I don't know what it's called. It's like a fear fall
thing where it drops you,and you feel like you're--I mean,I wouldn't know from using it,but I can look out
and see it.And it elicits screams every single time it goes down. It's,like,guaranteed to elicit screams.
So all I can say is,whatever is placed on this property that isn't what is there now,in my opinion,is
going to be a better use than what's there now. And the fact that the residents may only think that this is
active a few days a week,I think,really supports the fact that this will be a much lesser intensity use from the
standpoint of noise generated from this site.
I certainly appreciate the concerns,though.We've all been involved in other noise issues.
So I will say one other thing. And I don't have a personal relationship with the owner,but I can say
just from being in town for 30 years,a resident of Collier County and watching the Zellers family being very
active in not just business and providing jobs for the local community,which is very,very important,more
important now than ever,and also being very,very generous with the fruits of their labor with charity,
churches,and other charities--most recently,although I wasn't able to attend,they donated a Ford Mustang
to the Salvation Army recent event,and I believe Mrs.Zellers hosted that event.
So they're a family that has great moral authority in this community from what I can see as an
outsider. When I say that,moral authority,what I'm saying is that what they say and what they do are the
same thing,and their actions and their convictions and their beliefs and their behavior are in alignment. And
Page 33 of 84
January 17,2013
when they say that they're going to close doors and--you can say,well,car dealers,you know,they're not
honest,or whatever you want to say,whatever you can say,all I know is,in watching this family for 30 years
from a distance,it certainly looks to me like they have great integrity and great character.
So on behalf of my ownership interest in the property next door and the association at--of Willow
Park,we are--we couldn't be more supportive of this dealership.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: Paul Boileau,I think.
MR.BOILEAU: Close. Paul Boileau.
Good morning,Commissioners. I'm Paul Boileau. I'm a resident of Walden Oaks. I'm going to
make mine real short and real brief,because I know we want to get out of here. And I just want to give you
an overview. I don't know if any of you have seen what the residential area looks like around us and what is
perceived possibly coming in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was lost there last night for quite some time or night before, so,yeah,I
saw it.
MR.BOILEAU: I'll just--can you hear me all right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. Is that okay for the court reporter?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.BOILEAU: In the yellow,which is the Walden Oaks,okay,that's our boundary coming
around,this Airport-Pulling coming through,Naples View is going to be being built this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to interrupt you,but I just thought of something.
Nancy,could you give him that portable mike,because I remembered we are being broadcast,and
they may not be able to hear you,so--
MR.BOILEAU: rm sorry. Hear me now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. My mistake.Thank you.
MR.BOILEAU: Okay. Again,in the yellow is our boundary of Walden Oaks. As you can see,it's
a pretty good-size shape. And in the red is Naples View,which is going to be built this year,and it's going to
be residential, okay.
The orange grove. The orange grove is in the early stage of proposal for residential. That's going to
come all the way from Livingston all the way around the back side of Walden Oaks and along the south side,
okay,and that's going to eventually proceed all the way out to Airport-Pulling.
Now,we have Willow Park,which is right here.It's nothing but office buildings. Of course,no noise
generated.
Above that is where we've got the King Richard's which,yeah,there is a lot of noise,but the noise
don't really happen till latter part of the week.
So--and,okay. I just want to jump up above the map here too. This is a plan--I believe this is still
in the early stage of proposal for the senior rental on the other side. So you can see we're starting to be
surrounded by residential here,here,here,up here. This is the Baptist church. And we have the auto
dealership coming in here.
Now,if you were to look on Airport-Pulling Road,we have 17 auto dealerships. And as far as I can
see,not a one is bordered by residential. So here again,this will be the first one being bordered by residential
on Airport-Pulling. It's not the right fit. That's all I've got to say.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sir,could you please,on--where the red line is,the Naples View
residential,what is to the north of that? Is that also part of that? Is that going to be commercial?
MR.BOILEAU: Right now that's--what do you call that? Agricultural. In this part right here that
goes up to Orange Blossom right here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. But with the Naples View residential, is that not part of theirs?
Page 34 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.BOILEAU: No,not at this time from what my understanding is. Naples View is just this area
right in here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you--so where the nursery is,that is not--that is not going to be
commercial?
MR.BOILEAU: I have no idea yet. It is owned--this is my understanding. It is owned by Pulling,
this area up area.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR.BOILEAU: And eventually something's going to go in there,but it's going to be--we don't
know. We hope it's going to be residential with maybe light commercial.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm thinking of something that was already put through that was
going to be commercial there.
MR.BOILEAU: No,nothing I know of.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One point that I--when I met with three of the people from your
organization or from your community,I got the sense that you-all would like to see residential there,and I
think anybody,naturally,would,as long as it wasn't multi stories looking down on your backyards.
But that property as commercial is going to be much more valuable to somebody. The fact that it
could have C4 there pretty much--pretty easily makes it even more valuable.
I understand the desire to somehow make that happen as residential,but I think that's an extremely
impractical application at this point in time. And you would be far better off working closely with someone
who is flexible enough to work with you than having something go through that you can't get as much
compromise out of,because it's no question allowable in that district.
Right now there's a question over that--of the project that's there,which then allows for more
discussion. But if you are off the books on that at all,you're taking a shot in the dark in regards to what could
go there.
And I just want to make sure you-all understand that,because residential,while that may be desired,
may not be the most profitable with that isolated C4. C4 is a valuable tool. So--and I understand your
argument,and I'm certainly not trying to contradict you. I just want to make the residents keenly aware of
what could go on there.
MR.BOILEAU: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker,Ray.
MR.BELLOWS: The last speaker is Kenneth Poa.
MR.POA: Good morning,Commissioners. My--for the record,my name is Kenneth Poa. I'm
vice president of the Walden Oaks Homeowners Association,and I'm here to represent our group.
You've heard our report. We concur with you.We will try to discuss the issues with the applicant
and so forth.
Yes,our main concern is residential. We accept your report as far as maybe it might not be the
practical thing at this point,but with this type of atmosphere and with this type of business that is--the
applicant's proposing,we just don't feel that it's going to be any lesser than what we have now.
So we just ask the commission to weigh the facts,review our proposal,take into consideration what
we have done with Naples--the Naples View project and so forth,and come to a conclusion that it would be
favorable for our entire community.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. That was the last speaker,Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else who is unregistered who would like to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know who wants to offer any rebuttal,Tim or Bruce?
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner,again,Tim Hancock,for the record.
Just trying to address some issues that have been raised. First and foremost, I'd like to indicate that
subsequent or at the information meeting I put a stack of business cards on the table,indicated to the
Page 35 of 84
January 17,2013
leadership that we are open to meeting with them at any time. I followed up on that last week with a phone
call to one of their officers of one of the associations in Walden Oaks,offered to meet with them.
I know,Commissioner,they chose to meet with you earlier this week. We've not received any
requests for meetings or any correspondence from the HOA in Walden Oaks despite our offer of being
available to do so. That doesn't mean that we're not willing to work on issues centered around compatibility.
One of the primary concerns we heard at the neighborhood information meeting--and it has been as
much as restated here today--is we don't want this use. We would rather it be residential. I would rather
make three million a year playing professional baseball. It's probably not going to happen. So I've got to deal
with what I have.
The references to the Naples View project are not valid,and the reason is simple. That was an
agriculturally zoned piece of property that was being, in essence,upzoned to a residential intensity,and they
worked with them. And that's--that's great,and that's the way it's supposed to work.
Usually that's what we're dealing with.Usually we're here taking a vacant piece of property,and
we're asking for a certain given number of uses,and the discussion becomes how do we achieve compatibility
in what is typically an upzoning scenario.
What you have before you today is different.And,Commissioner,I understand we have a shades of
gray discussion about zoned intensity as to whether--where we fall in that. But for all intents and purposes,
when you look at the myriad of how we measure intensity and impacts,zoning is certainly one of those
measures,but there are a variety of others.
If you look at,for example,parking generation,by itself a parking demand does not dictate intensity.
And I mentioned earlier a rock crushing operation may only have four parking spaces,but it's an intense use.
But if you have retail to retail or you have office to office or office to retail or you have people coming and
going and you look at the required parking,that can be a valid element of looking at intensity.
The existing approved master concept plan for the Princess Park PUD has approximately 227
parking spaces shown on it. There wasn't a breakdown in the zoning of how the parking was arrived at,and
the existing parking field is very similar,although some of the spaces are not striped.
The proposed project has a parking demand of 224 spaces. Of the 224, 130 of them are driven by
service,and the reason is each service bay requires three-and-a-half parking spaces. Now,I promise you
there's not going to be 130 people waiting in the service department for their oil change.
The reason we have those numbers of spaces is because many times you'll drop your car off,it will
be addressed during the day,or may it's sitting waiting for a part. So even in that 224 spaces,a lot of those
are temporary storage of vehicles awaiting service. So even--when you look at those two,we have a
comparable measure of intensity.
When we look at zoning districts,you mentioned,Commissioner Strain,that accessory can be up to
49 percent. And service is an integral part of any new or used automotive dealership. And as I spoke with
Mr.Zellers,how do you measure the percentage of the dealership that the service is?Is it area? Is it funding?
Is it--I mean,how do you--number of employees? I mean,there's several ways to do it. But it clearly is
accessory too.
And I don't think any of us can think of a single new car automotive dealership that has been built in
this town in the last 15 or 20 years that doesn't also have used cars and also have service.They're part and
parcel.
You don't build a new car dealership--and this is where the LDC--when I say it's flawed,to imply
that you could have a new car dealership with no used cars--these businesses take trades. What do you do
with the trade? You could just wholesale it and never have--but in all practicality,it doesn't exist in the real
world.
So a new car dealership,every one I can think of has a used car component,a service component.
Even if we were to take all those service components and separate them,there's a point at which,if they were
to exceed it using the formulas we've discussed,it becomes a wash with what's being proposed. I haven't run
those numbers. I don't know what they are.
But our position,and it's backed up by your staff report and the OI,is that the uses are similar--
similar,equal to,or less intensive from a zoning standpoint as well as other measurements;the ones that we
Page 36 of 84
January 17,2013
can't really quantify.
How do you quantify noise? If I live on Ilex Circle--I'm sorry,not Ilex Circle. Tannin Lane,which
is the closest street to the eastern property line of the project,and I put my condominium up for sale,when the
realtor arrives and opens the door,would they rather hear go-carts and screams or an enclosed service
building 500 feet away? I don't think that's a contest. I think it's fairly straightforward. And that really is the
decision today. It's between two uses. It's not what would you like.
Traffic is another substantial measure of intensity. When we were doing our OI,it was made very
clear to us by Mr.Weeks that the Board of County Commissioners in the past has deemed,with respect to
public-facility impacts,for traffic to be the most significant indicator of intensity.Again,no question. We are
substantially lower than what the existing zoning would allow.
The deviation that was discussed--I just want to clarify. The reason the deviation is in there is a
little bit of a defensive move on my part. At some point down the road,Carolina Valera,who currently
reviews the architectural,agreed that the buildings would not require to be four-sided architecture if there
were two buildings on site,but I was afraid if poor Carolina got hit by a bus,that her replacement would
disagree.
So the deviation was really to say,things that are visible from Airport Road will be treated as
primary facades and those aren't won't. That's the crux of the deviation.
This project was proposed for residential use.In 2007 Toll Brothers came before this body and
requested a residential rezone. The Planning Commission in a split vote supported it. There were no
speakers.
When it went to the Board of Commissioners,they never got to the speakers. The commissioner of
the district at that time indicated right out of the chute he would accept nothing more than six units to the
acres,and another commissioner said,really? I thought three.
So the residential rezone for multifamily buildings in three-and four-unit--four-story buildings
never saw the light of day,and it was opposed vigorously by the residents of Walden Oaks at the board level,
as evidenced by their attendance at the hearing and a show of hands when the commissioner asked who was
there to oppose it.
So you're the property owner. You've tried to sell to someone who was going to build a residential
community and been denied,de facto denied.
So what do you do? You finally fmd somebody who's willing to take the site and produce a viable
business,expansion of an existing company,in a similar to lower intensity. Certainly you would think that
would be well received.
We agree with the staff comparison. And David made a comment that I think is very,very valid.
New car dealerships are C4;used cars,a conditional use of C4. Indoor recreation is C4;outdoor recreation is
conditional use of C4.
We can numerically equate a hundred different ways to evaluate that,but on the face of it,that is
comparable and consistent.
Our proposal--oh,and I want to mention. Someone asked about Orange Blossom Road and Airport.
Actually,at Orange Blossom and Airport where you have the library on the northeast corner,the northwest
corner is mixed-use commercial/residential,and it has been--the Growth Management Plan has been
amended that the Orange Blossom subdistrict on the northeast and southeast corners are mixed-use
commercial with a required integrated residential component typically on the second floor. So there you have
both uses.
On the southwest corner,commercial. The Italian American club has actually been rezoned for
commercial use. The piece to the south has been included in the Growth Management Plan amendment,that
five acres,to be eligible for commercial zoning. I don't believe it's come through at zoning yet.
As you continue south,you have a 10-acre piece that is vacant. It is not eligible for commercial;
12-units-to-the-acre apartment complex.And then you start getting--and then another apartment complex.
And now,if you looked at that aerial,caddy corner to the Willow Park professional project,that area
right there where my pen is indicating,straight industrial. There's a gas station there.The reason I bring this
up is to characterize this as a predominantly residential area with growing residential needs is not an accurate
Page 37 of 84
January 17,2013
assessment.
The Airport Road corridor has existing and proposed commercial uses even north of Orange
Blossom. The 22-acre Buckley project,mixed use; 165,000 square feet of commercial with 330 residential
units.
Again,we need to look accurately at what's there and how this fits into current and proposed.We're
not asking to take raw land and upzone it.We're asking to take an existing zoning district and modify it for a
new use that,by all intents and purposes,is comparable to or less intensive.
The one thing I want to mention is,and I--I believe it was Mr.DeAngelis who made a comment
about the character of the Zellers family. And I have no reason to disagree with him,particularly since it's
my client,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that isn't relevant to the zoning,so try to tie it to the zoning.
MR.HANCOCK: It is not. Well--and that's what I'm doing. That's what Pm trying to do.
Mr.Zellers,as we were getting ready to come back,indicated a couple of things to me. Number one,
the 500-foot primary and accessory building separation,or for primary accessory uses,fine.We're willing to
agree to that;not a problem.
The thing he also said,and this is--I'm used to suggesting to a client that they may have to consider
something in order to garner the support of this body. He proposed something to me that I think helps
significantly. And I wasn't even aware these things existed.
The only door in the service bay that will open and close that faces a residential component is the one
on the east side of the building where cars will exit. The cars come in and they enter the south side of the
building where there will be a door that they go in,and then there's three quick lube service bays. Again,they
all face south. They face the Willow Park commercial project. They don't face to the east,and they don't
face to the north.
So the primary door where noise can come in and out is that door. What Mr.Zellers indicated to me
he'd be willing to install there is called a speed door with automatic closer. What that means is there's a
sensor that as a car pulls up to the door,it goes up quickly,and as the cars exit,it goes down quickly. And
then,yes,the last few inches is a soft close. But it's called a speed door. I didn't even know they had these
things,but,you know,he felt that that would address the issue of someone saying,oh,wait a second,you're
going to leave the door open all day. No. It will be an automated speed door with an automatic closer.
With that,you know,Commissioner,our--the main issue that we see with the adjacent residents is
simply they don't want an automotive dealership there. I can't do anything about that. We can't change who
we are and what we are. We can only make the request based on the facts put into evidence and the
testimony provided.
And with that,I'll turn it over to Mr.Anderson to wrap up,unless there are any questions of me by
this body.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,normally the rebuttal's wrapped up in a shorter period of time by one,
but you and him are tag-teaming,and so that's okay. And I certainly have some comments to both of you
before this is--before you're both done,so--
MR.HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR.ANDERSON: Thank you,Mr.Chairman.
I would initially point out that what the residents of Walden Oaks really ought to fear is what their
own PUD already permits. I don't know how many of them are aware that,as a matter of right today,a
24-hour convenience store with gas pumps could be constructed there.
Let me address the official interpretation that was issued. There was an opportunity to appeal that
interpretation. It was a 30-day window,but no appeal was filed;therefore,the official interpretation is
binding and final on this board,on the County Commission,and on any judge that would ever look at this
case.
And the determination was made that the intensity of the proposed rezone is equal to or less than the
existing zoning. That determination has been made.
The county likes to now claim that they are business friendly. This is a case where we determine
whether that's just a slogan or the real thing. This is a family-owned business that's been in operation here for
Page 38 of 84
January 17,2013
40 years in Naples. They're going to create at least 40 new jobs,and they have carefully crafted their site plan
so that it is considerate of their neighbors,and additional steps have been taken today at the initiative of this
commission,as well as the applicant itself,to further address concerns.
Do we want to encourage successful local businesses to expand and create jobs here in town?I
would respectfully submit that if you do you should vote to recommend approval of this application.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,Mr.Anderson or Tim,or Mr. Hancock,either--you guys,we had a
lot of discussion,and there's probably a lot of new information that was put forth today and a lot of
compromise on the part of your applicant for certain items. You didn't have a--what it sounds like--a
productive meeting with the owners of Walden Oaks other than the neighborhood information meeting.
That's more of a formal meeting. There was no follow-up informal meeting.
I think after all that's been revealed here today,they might take heart to listen to your proposal a little
more closely and see where their major obstacles are and try to work those out.Can't be done any further
today. We're at the end of this rope.
But if this board were to agree to hear a final hearing on this matter combined with a consent hearing
when you could have time to--giving you time to get together with the folks from Walden Oaks for one last
shot,would you feel that would work for you? And this would be at the request of this board.
I'm assuming nobody on the board would object to that kind of request? We much--it's much
preferred to see a project go to the Board of County Commissioners with a compromise rather than going
with a split vote of any kind that throws that particular board into a longer period of analysis and detail that
should have been revolved at this issue.
So I'm desperately trying to give that board a better outcome. And I still don't know if it would be
the perfect outcome. But I strongly believe after what the residents may have heard here today and the fact
they haven't even reviewed the other uses that up to C4 can have,they may want to look closely at trying to
compromise somewhere.
So I'm asking you to consider that continuance until a meeting to be determined by you-all in the
future at this board's request.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: If we could continue it to a date concern,then we wouldn't have an
advertising issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I'm hoping that if they go along with this,then we'll get a date
certain.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner,we obviously have to come back to this board in two weeks on
the consent agenda if an action were taken here today in any event.
Our concern is that we really cannot jeopardize the March BCC date. There are--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't do that if we combine them.
MR.HANCOCK: I agree. It would be helpful for us as the petitioner in dealing with any additional
issues raised by the residents--because I feel like we have been fairly comprehensive in the items we have
addressed--to have a fair understanding of the direction and intent of this body;if not a final vote,a direction
from you as to where you are.
I think that would be helpful in meeting with the residents,because the issues we can't resolve is
being something else. All other issues we're willing to discuss but,you know,we would like to have a
direction of this body,if at all possible,in moving forward in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you want to--until I know that--until--I'm concerned that the
residents haven't had an opportunity to discuss the new issues that they may have learned today.
I still have a concern over the intensity use.It dovetails to the way the residents have expressed their
concerns over the intensities today. Coming back,I would hope that we could clean up your application on
those references that David didn't use in his analysis as a C5 and that you used but,inadvertently,didn't need
to use. And then weighing that would be a--probably different outcome than I may have today,for me.
So if the rest of you want to talk about it,go right ahead,if any of you want to weigh in.
Paul?
Page 39 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah,my feeling is that the project,as proposed,is the same or
lower commercial intensity. So in my judgment,I could see it going ahead as it is.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: If a motion were made,I would probably go along with that also.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And so would I.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: I feel the same way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it looks like you would have the votes today if you wanted to
go forward. It's up to you.
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner,we want to try and address as many issues as we can. Based on
what we've just heard,we would agree to a two-week continuance to come back before this body for a final
vote on this matter,and we would be happy to meet with the residents in the next two weeks to address any
potential further stipulations dealing with compatibility and noise issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that very much.Oh,now I'm getting a no.
MR.HANCOCK: I have been overruled by my client who would ask,based on the timing--
unfortunately,the issues we're under--that we go ahead and have a vote of this body today.
I will convey to this body that we will still meet with the residents of Walden Oaks,and when we
come back on consent,if there are additional limitations we choose to impose upon ourselves from those
meetings,we will offer those up at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's walk through the stipulations so if there's a motion to
approve the stipulations to the extent they have been listed,they'll get on record.
The hours of operation. You need to state what those will be,because they need to be in the
document,or at least I think they do,and the motion maker can decide on that.
Do you have hours of operation that you'd like to offer up?
MR.HANCOCK: If you will continue with your list,let me verify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There will be--the 500 rear setback language will be addressed in
regards to the accessory buildings and principal buildings. The development standards table says 100,so
that's got to be corrected.
The car wash will have blowers on its west side,and it will meet the car wash criteria in the Land
Development Code.
Lighting will be shielded from the neighboring--from the neighborhoods to the--around--
surrounding the property. They will have two types of lighting;one for display and one for more security,
and no lighting past the points noted on the map in front of us. That will be more articulated in the master
plan that comes forth on the consent hearing.
You're going to have walls along the northern property line at the 15-foot buffer mark and along the
eastern property line. And the same kind of wall;I believe it's a 6-foot.
There will be no lighting around the lake.They've deleted the tire retreading as a use.They--or as
an accessory use. There will be no--Accessory Use No.7 will be removed.
Loading area will be on the north side only.The bay door that will open to the east will be a speed
door with an auto closure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I have in my notes. Does anybody on the Planning
Commission have any other?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I might have missed it,but did you include loading on the north
side of the building?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did we have a discussion or any results on the hours of operation?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,sir. I'll do this in three tiers. Operating hours would commence at 7 a.m.for
both sales and service. Monday through Friday,service would end at 6 p.m.,sales at 8 p.m. On Saturday and
Sunday,both service and sales would end at 5 p.m.
This would still allow for,just as the current site has,special events subject to LDC permits. If you
were going to have--you know,so we know there's a special-event provision,and sometimes auto dealers
will do those things,but that's subject to LDC provisions. We just want to make sure that that is not
Page 40 of 84
January 17,2013
precluded,that special events are allowed in accordance with the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those hours will be offered as a stipulation as well. And with
that,we'll close the public hearing.
And,Barry,did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion on the part of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. i--Mark,I did like to say that I have seen automobile dealerships
with the closed door,and it makes a big difference.
Thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: PUDZ-A-PL2012000726,I move that we grant the application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms.Homiak seconded.
Do you also agree to the stipulations that were read as read?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And,Ms.Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I will not be supporting the motion. I do not feel that the
compatibility of the uses as a whole are consistent with Policy 5.4 or 5.1,which means that the PUD Findings
1,3,and 4 would fail,and Rezone Findings 1,6,9, 10, 12, 13, 14,and 15 would fail.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I also will not be supporting the motion. It's--I've read this
application three or four times since I received the material,and I've spoken,as I said,with Mr.Anderson,
and I've listened all day today,and I just can't get around the intent,the original intent of the Growth
Management Plan for this tract of land irrespective of the fact that the amusement park was grandfathered in.
I keep going back to why was the Growth Management Plan very specific in the intent of that land use. So
on that basis,I'm going to vote no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Had the applicant come back with a reapplication addressing the C5 issues,
I would have been more comfortable,but since the 01 was based on C4 issues and the application on C5,I'm
still concerned about that inconsistency. And that's what I had hoped the two weeks would have provided.
But since we aren't going there,it's off of the table.
So that is--any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the motion. This is a motion in favor with--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: One more quick thing.You still are going--Tim,you still are going to
have a discussion with the residents of Walden Oaks?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You will--that was in there. And will you bring up to them all the C4
that could go in there?
MR.HANCOCK: Yes,ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I will call for the motion. This is a vote in favor with the
stipulations.
All those wishing so,signify by--raise your hand and signify by saying aye.
Page 41 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One,two,three,four,five--wow,that's 7--no, six in favor.
All those against?
Aye, same sign.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against. Motion carries 6-2.
Thank you all. I know it's been a long morning,and I certainly appreciate all the interaction we've
had here today.
With that,this commission will take a recess until 10 after one and come back and onto our next
issue.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everyone. Welcome back from lunch. And before we go right into
the next hearing,we have a request by Mr.Hancock to address the board.
MR.HANCOCK: Commissioner,Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering,co-agent for the
applicant that preceded this one.
I'm going to do the unthinkable and ask that our--the vote for approval,the 6-2 vote,ask that it be--
a motion be made for reconsideration with a subsequent continuance to the first--the next CCPC hearing so
that we can address some of the issues that were identified by this board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm grateful to hear that. I think that will be—you'll gain a lot by
talking to the residents a little bit further,and maybe your application can be better addressed in some of the
issues that needed to be.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: P1l make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the--someone from the affirmative side--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms.Ebert made a motion--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: To reconsider.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to reconsider,and so did Mr.Klein,second it.
All those in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Tim,then what we'll see is--you'll be first up on the next agenda in two weeks,and it will be for
both the--finish the hearing and the consent at the same time so you guys won't lose any time.
MR.HANCOCK: And I believe that is a date certain February 7th hearing;is that correct,Ms.
Ashton?
MR.BELLOWS: That's correct.
MR.HANCOCK: In which case,our March 12th BCC date is in no way jeopardized? That is very
important for us.
Page 42 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why it would be,since we--yeah,the consent's held--does--
Ray,do you have a comment on that?
MR.BELLOWS: I just want to have a clarification. The motion for reconsideration is to do it now
so you'll hear it and vote on it at the 7th meeting.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
MR.BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does that,in any way,affect the schedule they have with the BCC?
MR.BELLOWS: No,since they were going to be on the summary agenda that day anyways,it
should not affect their BCC date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,you wouldn't have known if they were going to be on the summary or
not because you wouldn't know what the vote is.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah,but we normally calculate that in in setting the BCC date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the BCC date isn't jeopardized. They're good to go?
MR.BELLOWS: Correct.
MR.HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Please express to your applicants we appreciate it very much. That
would help with a better hearing.
MR.HANCOCK: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Tim.
MR.BELLOWS: With one caveat that that summary's approved on that same meeting day.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no,not us,the BCC,right?
MR.BELLOWS: No. The CCPC consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. We already said that. That's part of the—we're going to do both on
the same day. So when you schedule it through the agenda,he's first up for both issues the same day.
MR.BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,good.
Thank you,Tim.
***Okay. We have another hearing to finish up today. It's--and I'll announce it,and then we'll go
through the process.
It's PUDA-PL20120000111. It's the Creekside Commerce Park commercial planned unit
development.
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: You know,that would have been easier said just to have everybody who's
not going to speak stand up. It's the first time I've seen the whole room rise.
We'll start with disclosures on--down by Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I had a conversation with Mr.Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Staff,Mr.Yovanovich,Jim Johannsen,and Lyn Hunerberg from
Collier's Reserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,Paul?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mr.Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had meetings with Mr.Yovanovich and Mr.Arnold,and then
--oh,the residents. I went to their facility and met with--I think there were seven or eight people in that
Page 43 of 84
January 17,2013
meeting,and I talked to Patrick White a couple of times.
Okay. Ms.Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: None.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich won't spoke to me,so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy,look out. You're going to be getting a lot of calls now.
Okay. With that,we'll move into the applicant's presentation. Richard?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the
petitioner.
I have Dave Borden with Barron Collier Companies with me on behalf of the property owner;
Wayne Arnold with Q.Grady Minor&Associates,the land planner for the project;and Norm Trebilcock,
our traffic consultant.
Keeping in the spirit with the earlier meeting,we,too,will recognize that if there are any mistakes in
this document,they're all Tim Hancock's fault.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that.
MR.YOVANOVICH: On your visualizer outlined in yellow is the Creekside PUD,which is an
existing project of approximately 105 acres. It's comprised of basically two zoning districts within the
existing PUD. There's the industrial commercial portion of the project and the business district portion of the
project.
And I'll put the current master plan on the visualizer for you. As you can see,the business district
portions of the property basically front Immokalee Road,and the industrial commerce portions of the project
are further back from Immokalee Road and also front onto Goodlette-Frank Road.
The existing industrial commerce area is approximately 41.6 acres and allows up to 620,000 square
feet of development. The business district is approximately 19.1 acres and allows for 150,000 square feet of
office and 40,000 square feet of retail.
The purpose of today's amendment is to add three potential new uses to both of these subdistricts,
and they're in addition to the square footage that is already approved in those subdistricts. And as I'll explain
later on,we did that to do a traffic analysis that was conservative as to the potential impact.
The three uses that we're requesting they be added to the PUD is a hotel,maximum of 240 rooms;
group housing limited to senior housing,which is independent,assisted living,skilled nursing,or CCRCs;
and an intermediate care facility,which is similar to a nursing home,but it's more intense. It's for people who
are too healthy to stay in the hospital,not quite well enough to go home. They need some additional care and
some additional therapy. There's no actual surgery or hospital-type services provided in these facilities. It's a
place that you go in between the hospital and going home.
Now,there's a cap of the last two categories that I mentioned of the skilled--of the group housing
and this intermediate care facility of a total of 400 beds.
It may be confusing. I know one person asked me,is it 400 for each of those categories? No,it's 400
for both of those categories. So I wanted to make sure I made that clear.
We've done an analysis and believe that the three uses we're requesting are compatible with the other
uses in the project as well as compatible with the neighbors and uses around us.
As you all are aware,we have the North Collier Hospital across the street to the north and other
medical uses,so the intermediate care facility and group housing is a natural to go along with the hospital.
And we believe that the hotel is a good use for this particular piece of property,keeping in mind that
it would be nice for people who have people staying in the hospital have easy access to a place to say so they
can visit whoever's in the hospital or who may be in the intermediate care facility,as well as having some
natural users already within Creekside or adjacent to Creekside that frequently bring visitors to Collier
County,such as an Arthrex that does a lot of training of medical staff that they're bringing in. It would make
some sense to have a nice hotel nearby.
Page 44 of 84
January 17,2013
So that's the thought process in adding the hotel use to this particular piece of property.And we do
believe that residential neighborhoods in the area will also take advantage of a hotel in that area,but it would
serve both the existing business uses as well as the residential neighbors in the area.
From an overall project intensity standpoint,we're not increasing the floor area ratio that currently
exists in the project. The project has a cap of a.35 floor area ratio in each of the districts,the IC district,as
well as the business district.
So these three new uses,although they're on top of the already approved square footage,will not be
higher than the.35 floor area ratio for each of these three districts. So that overall cap will remain the same.
We have asked for a floor area ratio on an individual parcel of up to .6 for these three new uses,but
that doesn't change the overall project intensity of.35. It would just be on a parcel by parcel basis that we
may be able to go to a.6 FAR.
Likewise,for properties on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road--if I've got my north,south,east,
and west right--west would be--this is Goodlette-Frank. The properties on the west side we're not asking
for any changes to the already approved heights in the PUD. It's only the properties on the west side,which
is basically vacant,except the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: East.
MR.YOVANOVICH: East side. I knew it. I jinxed myself the minute I said something about
knowing my directions.
On the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road,which is mainly vacant other than the self-storage facility
that is on the southern portions of the ICPs--that we're asking a change in height from the currently existing
zoned height of 50 feet with no expressed actual height,because this PUD predated the requirement that you
include it in an actual height--to a zoned height of 75 feet with an actual height of 85 feet.
We are--and that is--and Wayne will get into greater detail as to what--the already zoned heights
around us,but that is consistent with and actually less than other projects in the immediate vicinity of this
particular project,namely the hospital,Collier's Reserve,and the Naples Daily News.
We did a traffic analysis of these three additional uses and how they would impact either Immokalee
Road,Goodlette-Frank Road,and even U.S.41. And if you want to get into a lot of details with Norm
Trebilcock,he's available to answer those questions. But we analyzed it as if we did the 620,000 square feet
of industrial,the 150,000 square feet of office,the 40,000 square feet of retail,the 240 beds of hotel,and the
400 beds of either intermediate care or senior housing. So we analyzed it as if everything was going to land
on that site recognizing,from a practical standpoint,we won't be able to fit it all,but we analyzed it as if it
was all going to be built on the project and the road system and the transportation system function within the
adopted level-of-service standards for those roads.
So we believe we've analyzed it on a worst-case scenario,and everything works out fine,and I
believe your staff agrees with that in the staff report.
We had a formal neighborhood information meeting,and then we had an informal neighborhood
information meeting. Most recently the informal neighborhood information meeting occurred November
19th at Collier's Reserve. They hosted us. I know there were people there from not only Collier's Reserve.
They were from other communities that were invited by Joan,or whoever else from Collier's Reserve. But
we had a meeting at which we explained to them,those attending that meeting,in detail our request and why
we needed what we were requesting.
We made it very clear that we needed these three new uses,and we needed these three new uses to be
above the current 50-foot cap.
Subject to reaching an agreement on setbacks and buffering,it was our understanding that the senior
housing,the group housing,and the intermediate care facility,going to 75 feet would not be an issue,again,
subject to reaching an agreement on setbacks and buffering,but there was an issue regarding whether or not
the hotel should be allowed to go above 50 feet.
Now,people may disagree,but I did ask a couple of times to make sure I was on track as to what the
major issues were. We got done with the meeting,and I requested and I was told I would receive a
comprehensive list of all of the concerns,because I didn't want to deal with it piecemeal. I wanted to know
everything,respond,and do that.
Page 45 of 84
January 17,2013
I followed up by email asking for the list of what are the concerns. I did that on three occasions.
Most recently,on January 4th,I was advised that they had retained the services of Patrick White to advise
them on the process as well as the uses that I'm requesting.
I immediately,that day,contacted Patrick and said,hey,here's what I understand are the issues.Are
there any others? Please let me know so we can respond.
I received a strikethrough and underline version of the PUD,and I think you all have it in your
packet. I believe I received that on the 9th of January. I think it was the day after Patrick went to the Board
of County Commissioners on a public petition pertaining to one of the permitted uses in this project.
And we immediately started a dialogue back and forth as to,you know,did you really mean that I
can't have any of my new uses above 50 feet and that I can have existing uses above 50 feet based upon the
different setbacks that I understood to be,from Goodlette-Frank Road the setback would be from 50 feet--
anything over 50 feet I'd go back another two for each foot I went up,and from Immokalee Road I would go
back--for everything over 42 feet,I would go back 6 feet for every foot I--no,we would go back 6 feet for
every foot I went up. Because I was confused,because I thought I made it pretty clear that I needed to go
higher than 50 feet for the three new uses. I was advised that,no,that was correct. The intent was to limit us
to 50 feet for the new uses.
So we exchanged emails back and forth,and finally we got together in person this past Tuesday to
discuss the proposal--their strikethrough and underline document and our need to go above 75 feet. And I
would say that the discussion predominantly focused on the hotel.
And the concern,as I understood it,was that they didn't want a certain bank building that occurred on
the corner of--not on the corner,but on Vanderbilt Beach Road to occur on Immokalee Road. That bank
building is adjacent to a Walgreens in case we--I don't want to name names.But that building is about 120
feet tall,and it's probably set back about 50 feet from the road based upon the only C4 zoning district
requirements.
We understood that,and they didn't want that,basically,on the hard corner. And when I refer to the
hard corner,I'm talking about--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich,you've got to use that walk-around. Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: When I'm talking about the hard corner,I understood it to be what I'll
probably slip in and out of as the Western B piece.So that will be this piece.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: East.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's Western B.
MR.BELLOWS: Oh,Western B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you call it B1 and the other one B2? Maybe that will make it
easier.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. This B piece they didn't want the hotel on. And we had a dialogue
about,well,what if we make sure we don't put the hotel on this B piece,and maybe we'd put it here,maybe
we'd put it there.
We,ultimately,settled on discussing putting it here on the IC piece,being what we believe the
furthest away from Immokalee Road,which seemed to be the biggest concern of,you know,having a hotel or
a big structure close to Immokalee Road.
So we looked at that. And we made a proposal to look at--moving the hotel to that IC piece,and I
said,we may need a little bit of this B piece to make the hotel work on the IC piece. And we would--and the
natural question,and rightfully so,was what's a little bit,because I didn't have an answer then,and we would
have to get back to them as to what's a little bit of the B piece.
We've had a chance to look at that,so I think I can identify what a little bit of it is at this point. But
we are--and we also said,in order to move the hotel there,we wanted to go to a setback of 50 feet,and for
every foot above 50 foot,we would go back one foot. So it was a foot one-for-one above the 50 feet.
So you could still do the wedding cake starting at 50 feet. Once you reach the 50-foot height of the
building,then for each foot above that--which was similar to their original proposal which was 50 feet and
then for every foot you went up,you went back 2 feet was their original proposal to us,as I understood the
strikethrough and underline document from Goodlette-Frank Road.
Page 46 of 84
January 17,2013
And since we would not be fronting Immokalee Road,I understood the Goodlette-Frank Road
segment to apply. Now,we wanted to go one-to-one. They wanted it two-to-one from the original proposal,
but we wanted to continue to be at 75 feet for the hotel.
We had a long meeting--it lasted about three hours--where we talked about the issues and talked
about setbacks and talked about height. And eventually,as I understood the proposal--and let me take a step
back. I neglected to mention the setback that we had proposed for Immokalee Road.
The Naples Daily News PUD provides that for that project,which fronts Immokalee Road,the
setback would be 50 feet,and then for each portion of the building above 50 feet you would go back another
2. So for every 1 foot,you'd go back 2.
We proposed the very same setback for our project for the two B pieces that front Immokalee Road.
We would follow the guidelines of the Naples Daily News proposal.
So that was our proposal to address the concerns that we heard,which was hotel at the corner,we
don't really like that,concerns about height,concerns about setback. So we had proposed changing the
setback from Immokalee Road to be the same as the Naples Daily News,and we would--we would have a
little bit greater setback on Goodlette-Frank than we originally proposed. We had proposed just a flat 50-foot
setback for the entire building,and relocate the hotel to where it could not be on the corner.
I understand--and as of--as of most recent discussions this morning,that the proposal--the
proposal that was made to us that evening was we could have a maximum zoned height of 60 feet,a
maximum actual height of 70 feet,I understood that we would have a 50-foot setback for the first 50 feet of
the building height,and for each foot above that we would go back three-to-one. Which I immediately
recognized was worse than what was originally proposed for Goodlette-Frank Road in the document we
received as a strikethrough and underline,because that was a two-to-one ratio off of Goodlette-Frank Road.
Now,it was better off of Immokalee Road,but it made development of the hotel on the IC piece
even more difficult with the required setback at a three-to-one ratio.
That's the proposal that I took to my client and we discussed. And Patrick and I had a brief email
exchange,I think it was yesterday,regarding would we accept their proposal,and I said,no,we couldn't
accept their proposal. We really need the 75 feet zoned height,to which the response we had was,no,we
can't agree to 75 feet zoned height.
So our offer of moving the hotel to the IC piece,using a portion of the B piece to--as part of hotel
with the setback of basically 50 feet plus 1 foot for every foot we go back off of Goodlette-Frank Road and
the setback of 2 feet for every 1 foot beyond 50 feet on Immokalee Road is still on the table. The relocation
of the hotel is still on the table.
As far as the B piece goes,how much do we need of it? We looked at the hotel. Moving it to the TC
piece,we can assure that no portion of the hotel that is greater than 50 feet in height will go onto the B piece.
We looked at that,and we may need to put some of the meeting space,which will be less than--50
feet or less. We may need to put some of the meeting space that will be accessory to the hotel on that B
piece,but we can agree that no portion of the structure of the hotel will be within 500 feet of Immokalee
Road with the setback we originally proposed of the 50 feet and then 1 foot back for everything above 50 feet
on Goodlette-Frank Road.
So we think that that far exceeded their original request of a 312-foot setback from Immokalee Road.
It allows us to build the hotel we believe we need to serve the communities that we have. And we think that
that is responsive to the concerns that we heard both at the informal neighborhood information meeting as
well as the rather lengthy meeting we had the other night.
That's an overview of kind of where we are,what we're proposing,what we're requesting. I'm going
to ask Wayne to go through some of the planning relating aspects relating to why our project is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding development.
And with that,then we'll be available to answer any questions,unless you have questions now that
can't wait until Wayne gets done,but we'll--either--we're at your discretion on how we proceed with our
presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody want to ask a question now?
(No response.)
Page 47 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'm going to ask is that after Wayne gets done,one of you
address where you think you're at with the Immokalee Road height and setback issue. I'm not clear. You
said so many different numbers,Pm not clear where you're at.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let me--right now we have asked to keep the 75 feet throughout the
PUD,okay; 75 feet,right,zoned, 85 feet actual. The setback from Immokalee Road for that type of structure
—now,keeping in mind the hotel won't be up there. It would be either the group housing,senior housing,or
the intermediate care facility would be on the B pieces.
That setback would be 50 feet for the first 50 feet of the building and then 2 feet for each additional
foot above 50 feet,similar to the Naples Daily News PUD. That's the setback for a 75-foot zoned building,
85-foot actual height,from Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's what we discussed with the residents the other night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand what you're after. Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Anything else before we--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Rich,I just have one question;I want to make sure I understand.There
--originally the request was to be 300 feet from Immokalee Road?
MR.YOVANOVICH: The way I understood the original request--now,keep in mind I had 50 feet
--I have 50 feet today with a 50-foot setback from Immokalee Road as well as Goodlette-Frank Road.
What I understood is they wanted to bring me down to 42 feet with a 50-foot setback. And then for
each foot I went above 42 feet,I had to go back 6. So if I have a normal 10 or 12-foot--let's just say 10-foot
wall,that 10-foot wall would be another 6 feet back,and then so on and so on until we got to--and the
graphic they provided to us showed a 312-foot setback,and that's where I came up with 312 feet. If I
miscalculated it,I'm certainly happy to be corrected.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Maybe we can get--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that would be 60 feet,right? So it would be 60 feet,plus another 60
feet until we got to 75.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: So would the building 75 feet or higher being on now the
Goodlette-Frank side,how far from Immokalee Road does that put you?
MR.YOVANOVICH: The 75--well,Wayne,do you know--because what I just proposed is
nothing could be--the hotel itself can't be--oh,you're just overall a 75-foot building,not the hotel?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Yeah.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That would be--I'm going to let Wayne do the math because I'll probably
mess it up.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,a 75-foot building. How far would it be from Immokalee Road as far as
COMMISSIONER KEENE: The hotel,I'm sorry.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,the hotel itself.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Oh,okay.
MR.ARNOLD: That's what I thought she was asking.
MR.YOVANOVICH: The hotel--and Wayne probably could tell you. We haven't scaled it off,
but any 75-foot portion of the hotel can only be on this piece.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Correct.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Which is--we said it had to be--any portion of the hotel,even a 50-foot
portion,had to be a minimum of 500 feet. So I'll have to get a scale to figure out what that number is. But it's
going to be every bit of 600 feet.Wayne will scale it,but we'll get you—
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Pm trying to get a comparative of--
MR.YOVANOVICH: It's probably close to double what they originally requested for the 312.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 48 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.YOVANOVICH: Or close to double.
MR.ARNOLD: I have a--I'm Wayne Arnold,by the way,with Q.Grady Minor&Associates,and
I have a to-scale drawing,and it appears that,just roughly scaling it,we're a little over 500 feet to the IC
parcel boundary from Immokalee Road. It appears to be. I'm not sure exactly where the right-of-way line is
today,but it's approximately 500 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're 500 feet from Immokalee Road to the edge of the IC parcel,but
didn't you say that no structural part of the hotel will be within 500 feet of Immokalee Road? Because if
you're now talking about spreading over on the B,that wouldn't work.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand that. And from discussions earlier with the engineer who's got
probably a little bit better set of plans--and Wayne doesn't know--the answer is,I was told we can commit
to the 500 feet from Immokalee Road for any portion of the structure of the hotel. So I'm not--1 mean,we're
still--we could still commit to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you're closer to 600 feet deep on Parcel B from Immokalee
Road.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I think you're probably right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It scales on the tax appraiser's site to 607,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
MR.ARNOLD: While I'm here,I guess I'll go ahead and go through a little bit of my presentation,
if I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to be here for a reason of some kind,Wayne.
MR.ARNOLD: In your packet,you also had some documentation from Johnson Engineering,and
they had conducted a corridor analysis,if you will,and that transitioned into a study of,essentially,building
separations and,thus,then a setback ratio that was established and primarily was used in their determination
that we should have a 300-plus-foot setback from Immokalee Road to be consistent with these various ratios.
Well,first of all,the first question Rich asked me is,have we ever done anything like this before to
come up with this ratio-based setback?And the answer that I had was,no,I've never seen that utilized
anywhere on any other project that I'm familiar with in the county.
So we started off on the premise of,what is it really telling us? And what we realized is that corridor
study looked at existing buildings compared to other existing buildings and,in our case,proposed buildings
to come up with their proposed setback.
And to us the distinction was a little different because,you know,we had--this wasn't a surprise to
us. We looked at what other PUDs in the area were allowing for height,so we knew what might be an
acceptable height to request,because we knew we needed something more than 50 feet for the uses we were
proposing.
And we pulled all of our neighboring PUDs.And I think to the surprise of many of the Collier's
Reserve residents that we met with,I don't think they realized that their own PUD allows them to have
80-foot-tall buildings 25 feet from Immokalee Road.
And I know they don't have any that are built,but they have zoned heights of 80 feet 25 feet from
their property line. And I think that when you look at the health center,which allows the hospital,which is a
building that's over 100 feet,and,yes,it's set back from the road;it didn't have to be set back that far from the
road.
And,consequently,I would tell you that when you looked at and what we offered was similar to the
Naples Daily News,which was a heavily negotiated setback with the increased ratio above 50 feet,and it was
done largely with the input of Collier's Reserve. Maybe they weren't all pleased with the final number,but
that's where that came from.
But when I looked at the corridor study,I think it was more fair to look at the zoned heights that we
have in the area with their setbacks as opposed to just what's been built,because I think we know in Collier
County things don't seem to be there forever,and what's a single-story or three-story office building today
could very well become something else in five years, 10 years,two years,who knows.
So what I've expressed there are the zoned building heights for the corridor with the required setback
per their PUDs. And when I look across Immokalee Road,I see 80 feet,75 feet,80 feet, 100 feet,50 feet,
Page 49 of 84
January 17,2013
and 50 feet for their own shopping center at Collier's Reserve. And then as you go to the south side,it's a
50-foot height for retail at Granada shops at the intersection of U.S.41 and Immokalee Road,but a hotel and
office buildings are allowed to go to 60 feet there with a 40-foot setback.
And then you go to,of course Naples Daily News,which we've discussed,which is 75 feet,and then
there's a portion to the south of Creekside that's at 35 feet where it abuts the golf course and homes of the
Pelican Marsh PUD. And then we have our own 50 feet that we have.
And then as we transition east,that's where we requested the 75-foot zoned height. And,of course,
we're across from the hospital structure and the parking garage,and those structures clearly exceed 50 feet at
a much less setback that could have been allowed,which means you could easily have more development
occur on the front parcel at the hospital site as well that may increase the building height.
So from our perspective,the number of 75 feet that we asked for not only was what we thought a
necessary number we needed for these three key uses,because of the vertical nature of many of those,but it
was consistent with what not only our neighbors had,but what the corridor permitted.
So from our perspective what we asked for made not only good planning sense from our own
perspective,but it was a compatible request based on what's been approved on that same corridor that they
analyzed.
Because I only built a one-story building today doesn't mean that I don't have an intention to go back
and build a multi-story in the future.
And I think the other thing that we looked at too,if you go look in your LDC and you look at
C4-type uses,for instance,which is a district that would allow a hotel,the C4 allows a 75-foot tall building.
It requires it to be stepped back if you're above 50 feet but at much less ratio than we had proposed.
So we thought from that perspective,too,we're on sound footing based on your own Land
Development Code and what it permits when you would have a C4-type development with a building
exceeding 50 feet. So from those perspectives,we didn't see an issue.
And,furthermore,the Comprehensive Plan doesn't contain any reference to building height for your
general urban area. There is no expressed height. You can go and request,if we can convince,ultimately,
four or five commissioners that 100-foot-tall residential building would make sense somewhere,it's perfectly
acceptable to ask for that. It doesn't mean you're going to get it.You're going to be looking at the same
factors: Its compatibility, its setback,its relationship to other buildings of that size,and permissiveness
throughout the area.
So from our perspective,we didn't think it was a problem. Creekside is a very well-done industrial
business park. They have nice mature buffers. They have done a great job with respect to the uses that they
have. And there's no reason to think that it's not going to continue on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road.
One of the things that I also looked at--and I can show you the heights,graphically,a couple
different ways,but I thought it was important,too,just from the standpoint of where,you know,we are in the
world and trying to understand the Collier's Reserve issues. I was looking for one more aerial. Excuse me
for one second. There it is.
I tried to look at distance,because it's hard to see there. And,Nancy,would you mind zooming that
in just a little bit so we can make out the numbers.
But looking at the closest home in Collier's Reserve to the proximity of our corner parcel,you're
exceeding a quarter of a mile;obviously,through 6-story,I think,residential buildings,commercial tract,et
cetera,just to get to our property line,not to even mention the setback that Rich is talking about with regard
to where the hotel would be located. And then I looked at the proximity to their own commercial,which it's a
few hundred feet as opposed to more than a quarter mile.
So I think from our perspective we're trying to understand this issue of the height when we know that
there are--their own project would allow height greater than we're requesting because theirs,again,is a
zoned height with no actual,which means you can have other appurtenances above your roof line that when
you establish an actual height as we have,and that's the tippy top,as Rich has coined the phrase.
So one of the other factors,too,I think that--and that was a question that I'm not sure who asked,
but I just did a simple graphic. That's a quarter-mile offset line,the yellow solid line,from the hospital tract
and shows you what's a quarter mile around the hospital. That was sort of envisioned to be that business and
Page 50 of 84
January 17,2013
medical and most intensive portions of the business district that we had because of proximity to the hospital.
And,clearly,the IC tract and the business tracts that were talking about east of Goodlette-Frank
Road are within that quarter-mile radius.
It also,from the standpoint--there were questions about a hotel and how was that really compatible,
because we had other hotels in the Collier County area. And,frankly,as Rich said,it makes a lot of sense
from varying points of view to have a hotel complex in proximity to the hospital.
The hospital's made a major investment. They have new patient beds,but we also have major
employers in Creekside that host many,many people coming in from other parts of the country to train here,
to do research here,and it makes sense from that standpoint to also have an ability to have a hotel.
Most business parks have a hotel component.This was a precursor to a business park,if you will.
Although we didn't have a business park when Creekside came through the process in 1997,it essentially was
meant to be that. It was going to be a clean industrial park,and having a hotel component makes sense.
Your staff questioned the hotel consistency with the Growth Management Plan. We went through a
similar analysis that you heard previously this morning looking at intensity. In our case it's quite different,
but it's different in the context that we have hundreds of uses approved when you look at all the SIC codes
and the multitude of industrial classifications that you have,so it's not as easy as comparing one use to one
use.
So we have an analysis that was done a little bit differently,but it looked at impacts of water and
sewer,et cetera. And we were deemed to be less intense from that perspective.
And I guess,secondarily,from a zoning perspective,you find hotels that begin in the C4 district and,
obviously,we have uses that are industrial,which I think most people would acknowledge is a more intense
zoning designation and intensity of use.
So your staff concluded,as we did,that we were consistent with the policies in your Growth
Management Plan under Objective 5 that deal with properties that had zoning prior to the--what we now call
our new Growth Management Plan that came along in the early'80s.
So we had predated zoning,we had an industrial park that's partially been developed. So we did that
analysis for staff,and they,too,concluded we were consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
From a perspective of other uses and the setbacks that were offered,we think that where we are
today is certainly a compromised position from where our neighbors started. The numbers that they were
proposing,I understand,on paper that's what they work out to be,but they're unreasonable numbers,I think,
from many respects.
To require a 75-foot-tall building to be over 300 feet back from the property line in this one area of
the community where we already have a precedent that isn't the case did not make sense for us and didn't
work for us,which is why we've been looking at that issue and trying to fmd the compromise position that
would hopefully appease them,but one that we think not only can make sense for us but work for us,because
we think the three uses makes sense,and the hotel certainly needs to be 75 feet,as Rich has told you.
So with that,I'll conclude my remarks and answer some questions,if you have any. And Rich,I
know--somebody said they had a question for Rich,so I'll yield the floor to him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission have any questions of the applicant at this
time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's going to take some time. I thought some of these would get killed
as we went through it,but I will move into mine.
In your Exhibit A--and I--you've already acknowledged that the.35 FAR cap applies to all of the
properties as a whole overall,and that the.6 is going to be utilized but--in those parcels that it's allowed at,
but it still would never violate that.35 overall cap,right?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do a calculation based on how much of that cap has already been
utilized to know how much you've got left?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got an approximate number,if that will be okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
Page 51 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.YOVANOVICH: Approximately 190,000 square feet of business park and a little over--I
think it was 102,000 square feet of industrial commerce based upon the.35 and what's already built and
existing today,assuming a reasonable allocation of some of that square footage to the vacant IC piece east of
Goodlette-Frank Road. Those are the general numbers. And I think I put about 30,000 square feet of IC use
west of Goodlette-Frank Road.I think there's approximately 488,000 square feet of that already developed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your numbers are good.The current PUD monitoring report,I pulled
the numbers from,then I had to leave some in based on the typical size that you allocated--that would be
allocated for the empty parcels,and your numbers are about right.
And the reason that's important is that if you were to look at this as the .6,as it originally may have
been thought of,to apply to the entire--the two B parcels and the IC on the east side,you have about,I
believe,20 or 21 acres there in those combined three parcels from--the best I could tell from the property
appraiser's site.
Your.6 FAR for that is substantial,and you're not even going to be able to come close to hitting it
with what you've got left,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And that was--again,we have roughly about 290,000 square feet
left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,you're almost double that with your--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And that would go on the vacant acreage on the east side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had done the calculation,but I can't fmd it,so--but I know it's
substantially more than that. I wanted to understand how you were thinking that applied. I now understand
you're kind of in the same mindset that I am that it's--the.35 is the overall dominance.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And we've always said that. And if I didn't make that clear,I
apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I didn't--in reading this--and I'm not sure when I spoke to staff if
everybody understood it the same way. But it's fine now. I understand that now at least.
I've got two sections I have to go through,so it's going to take me a minute to find all of my notes.
So bear with me here for a minute.
MR.YOVANOVICH: You got out of the swing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I've got too much paperwork on this one. I've just got--I think staff
sent me--because of the backup in the file,I got,like,three copies of the whole PUD,which is creating a
whole pile of paperwork.
The numeric thresholds for the DRI issue,you were at 80 percent when you came forward. I wanted
to make sure they you didn't broach that threshold now,and I've had confirmation from staff,who got ahold
of South Regional Planning Council,and apparently you don't. So that issues resolved as far as that goes.
There's another issue. And,Nancy,I'd asked you to look into it. I don't know if you could or not.
It's the 40 percent commercial issue. Either you or Mike Bosi,one of you acknowledged you would check
that out.
There's a paragraph in here that's under the--it's two--Page 2-15 of the original,the whole PUD,
and it says,Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum of 40 percent
commercial uses,and they're as defined in a section.
Did anybody verify that?
MS.GUNDLACH: Good afternoon,Commissioners.Nancy Gundlach,principal planner,
department of planning and zoning.
And,Mark,I'm not sure if this answers your question,but I think you're referring to,in the accessory
uses,where it says 40 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of the places.It also appears on Page 2-15,No. 12.
MS.GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're a little differently worded in both,but I simply was trying to get
an acknowledgment that someone is monitoring that and it's been verified that they either have or have not
broached it at this point.
MS.GUNDLACH: Okay. I can't answer the question about monitoring it or collecting data on it.
Page 52 of 84
January 17,2013
But I think the intent in the accessory uses is that it would not exceed more than 40 percent of a principal use,
like if somebody--like a contractor had a warehouse and he had a little retail area,that was the intent,but
actually collecting square footage data--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand but,I mean,if it's there as a requirement,has anybody
bothered to monitor it and keep track of it?
MS.GUNDLACH: Do you want to--
MR.BELLOWS: Well,during the site development review of these projects,they have to
demonstrate they're providing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe by the time we get to consent--
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --could you find that number out?
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also it has to coincide with number--on Page 2-15,Item 12,and that's
written a little differently than the one that is also a 40 percent threshold that Nancy referred to as a permitted
--or,I mean,as an accessory use number.
I would just want to understand where the number lies today. It may not have a bearing on
everything because it may be well below that,but I think we ought to at least--since we're in looking at this
PUD,we ought to acknowledge it,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And if I may,in response to that,the uses that we're talking about adding are
in addition to the already approved uses. So the way we look at 2-15,we look at that as you would take the
800--what's--620-plus 190-is 810,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And you would take 40 percent of that,so you'd have to hit 320,000 square
feet.I just want to make sure when we're--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,you're right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's how we interpret that. So to be in violation of Page 2-15--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't think you--
MR.YOVANOVICH: --we'd have to exceed that.I don't think we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you've reached that threshold. I just wanted--
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we haven't,but I just want to make sure we're providing information
that's consistent with everyone's understanding of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't care if you provide a foot-by-foot breakdown. I just need
someone to check it,make sure that we've monitored and it's okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Exhibit 4 that you provided for utility provisions,there needed to be
a correction because the beds were not accurate.That has been provided,and it seemed satisfactory.And,
staff,we got that;I think you emailed it to us,Nancy?
MS.GUNDLACH: Could you repeat that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit 4,statement of utility provisions,they were shy on the bed count
that they've asked for,and it needed to be updated to the bed count. I believe you emailed us a corrective
sheet.
MS.GUNDLACH: Yes,I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff concurred that that sheet is a less intense or equal intensity than
what was there before?
MS.GUNDLACII: It's not part of the data. We didn't have time to review it.
MR.BELLOWS: David?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe it's a level-of-service issue,but whatever it is,have you guys
analyzed it? In the last project we had,it was 5.9 policy issues. In this project,I believe there's a portion of it
attributed to 5.9,and I'm not sure all of it is.
MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,if I might. Again,Wayne Arnold,for the record.
This utility form that was updated,as you pointed out,when we initially submitted,we submitted
Page 53 of 84
January 17,2013
with a specific bed count for the intermediate care. And as the application evolved,so did our numbers. So
that is a utility provisions form. It's part of the actual PUD zoning application. It's not part of the 5.1
consistency evaluation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And--
MR.ARNOLD: And this is simply done. I'm not sure why it's a carryover for the last 20 years,but
I'm not sure that,given the sophistication of our county utility department and their services,why we need to
provide this estimate. But there are no expected level-of-service issues related to utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I realize that. I just wanted to make sure that--how I understood it
to apply.
Bear with me here a minute while I go through all these multiple copies. I'm sorry. I've got one
more. Is the--you provided us as a mark-up copy only Sections 3 and 4 from the PUD as part of your
application,and the whole PUD was,I believe,supplied to us by staff. Why did you limit your--why did
you submit just those sections?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Those are the only sections in the PUD that needed to be amended to add the
three uses that we're requesting to be added.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for the most part you underlined or crossed out all the changes
from the original PUD;is that correct?
MR.YOVANOVICH: That was the goal. I hope we didn't miss anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is one that's not underlined that,when I did a comparison
on page per page,I can't explain,so I think it needs to be struck because it looks like it's a typo.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's on Page 4-1,4.3(A)(1).
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry,4-1,4.3 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-1. It's 4.3(A)(1). I didn't find that reference in the original PUD that I've
been reviewing.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that--I will tell you how that happened,is--bear with me. Let me go
back to the strikethrough and underline.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you--4-1 in what we provided to you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your Exhibit B--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --is--first page of Exhibit B is 4-1. Section 4,business district. I don't
know if it's the first page,but it's part of that Exhibit B. If you go to 4.3(AX1),which is on Page 4-1,No. 1,I
didn't find the auto and home supplies stores group,5531,in the original PUD.Did I miss it,or did I just look
through too many copies,and I--
MR.YOVANOVICH: That is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at it right now.It's not there.
MR.YOVANOVICH: No,no,no. I know. Here's how that worked. If you'll go with me to Page—
in our strikethrough and underline version,4-3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-3?
MR.YOVANOVICH: 4-3,Item No. 16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's old language.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's old language that says,any other use or service which is comparable
in nature with the foregoing uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it could be--
MR.YOVANOVICH: It could be approved,it could be administrative.
CHAIRMAN S DRAIN: By the environmental services administrator,right.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We went and provided documentation to the environmental services
administrator as to this category,auto and home supply stores,basically the tire store,that it was--it met the
criteria by which staff could approve that use within this PUD and,thus,it would become a permitted use.
Staff took their determination one step further. They actually took it to the Board of County
Page 54 of 84
January 17,2013
Commissioners,put it on their agenda,and advertised that staff had determined that this auto and home
supply store's use was--met the criteria of Item No. 16 in the PUD.
Nobody from the board pulled it or took it off. It was approved six to eight months ago,ballpark.
When we were going through the process of amending the PUD,we were asked to add that use in
since it had already been determined to be a permitted use. So it's an existing permitted use;therefore,it's not
a new use that needs to be underlined,because of the process we went through under the PUD to have that
list of uses added to.And I believe this was something that was brought up as a procedural challenge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care what it was brought up for. Doing it this way is highly
irregular. I don't ever--known it to be done this way. You have to amend a PUD through the proper
channels when you do it. You can't amend it by just adding it through a summary agenda that didn't go
through this board.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,actually--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm telling you right now,this doesn't stay there.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I agree with Mr. Strain on that. Also,for clarification,what the board
approved is a tire store with minor automotive repair. They didn't approve a SIC code in the category that's
been placed in here. And I agree,it should be underlined as an addition.
MR.YOVANOVICH: If it needs to be--well,we just want what was previously added before. So
if--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean"what was previously added before"? You didn't add
anything by a PUD amendment. What you did is you did it through a staff clarification. I'm not arguing with
that. It stands on its own. It's done. The board was clear about that,I believe,last week. So why do we need
to put it in here outside the process?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr.Strain,we were just simply trying to reconcile an action that was taken if
we--as long as it's crystal clear by deleting Item No. 1 and not putting in tire store with,you know,minor--
whatever the language Heidi just said on the record. As long as we don't have to physically add it to this list
or we lose it,then that's fine;delete it.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think any changes to the PUD--if you want to put text in here,it needs to
be shown underlined even though the board had already approved the tire store with minor automotive repair.
But,you know,if you're putting in the full SIC code category,then that's different than what the board
approved.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That was--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: However you want to handle it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand,I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I can go on about--
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not trying to--again,we were just trying--we were not trying to get
anything more than what we already had achieved through the administrative process,and we thought we
needed to make sure that the list was comprehensive--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The administrative process stands on its own.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's fine. As long as--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have to stand any way you want with it. If you want to do a PUD
amendment through a zoning process that the Planning Commission is required to be involved in,it's got to
come through as an amendment,not as an add-on because of a summary approval on a BCC agenda. That
doesn't meet the process. Unless the board wants to rule on that separately and tell us from now on they can
do that,but that's not what I--that's not anything that I heard,so--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay.
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think it would be helpful to put the new underlined text that would
reference tire store and--with minor automotive repair and do a reference to the resolution. It would just
make it easier for people in the future to administer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but,Heidi,where have we done that before? How many
administrative approvals have you done--not you--has staff done in this county for similar and like
Page 55 of 84
January 17,2013
facilities based on PUDs like this? I have never ever seen this done before this way,so why would we make
a exception now?
Can you cite one time where we've changed the PUD based on a staff administrative review like this,
that it's come back and automatically changed the PUD?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. Staff approached the Board of County
Commissioners on another PUD about a comparable--compatible use determination,something that would
be simpler than doing an OI. And the board agreed to a process of where someone would appeal a zoning
letter determination,and we're in the process of codifying that process in an LDC amendment.
But there have been,I believe,four other PUD--or uses within other PUDs that were--or use the
same process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind the process.I'm not complaining about that. But where does it
require—where does it enter into the PUD without an amendment to the PUD?
MR.BELLOWS: No,you're correct about that part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just leave it. You've got your--whatever it is--OI. I'm
not even sure what it is. Whatever you've got,you've got. Don't bring this board into that issue,because the
Board of County Commissioners,I understood,basically heard it twice. They heard it once when it
originally came through and an appeal last week. So it's done. It's over with.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I just--Mr. Strain,I just want to make sure we're all clear. The fact that we
didn't refer to it in this least--list doesn't in any way affect the previous interpretation and BCC approval.
Because historically people have said,if it ain't on the list in your PUD,you don't have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,but--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And I don't--but,again,I've gotten this approval that's been sanctioned.
Now I'm coming through,and I'm amending a PUD,and I'm ignoring this approval. I don't want it to be
interpreted as somehow giving up that previous tire store use because it's not on the list.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I just want the record to say,Rich,don't worry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's really more a Heidi question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I--here's what you do have. And I'm going to try to find the section
again. For that use,apparently--and I didn't--I don't know anything about it. I never read the OI. But it
happened to occur,what,sometime earlier this year?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Last.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it occurred under Item 16,under the current Item 16,any others use or
service which is comparable in nature and foregoing uses otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and
purpose statement of the district and which the community development and environmental services
administrator determines to be compatible with this district.
Now,that means the staff can make a decision that it's compatible. It was done. It had an appeal
period. It's over with. Then it went further and was brought back to life,let's say,was it next--last week or a
week or two ago,and the board ruled again. It's done. And if you want any more than that,I would suggest
you then enter it into the PUD as an amendment to the PUD and go through the process.
Other than that,Richard,I don't see--I don't see a way it should enter into today's process at all. I
mean,you've got your standing,you've got your appeal. Even that failed. So you've got the right,by
everything I can tell,based on,twice,the BCC hearing it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Again--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why the PUD is relevant in this case,especially when it didn't
come forward as an amendment.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking--you know what,if you want to just call it,like--I like what
Heidi says. Let's say tire store as approved in resolution blah blah blah,blah blah blah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to call it anything. I don't think it belongs in this document
unless you go through an amendment.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,it would be part of this amendment. It would be shown as an already
Page 56 of 84
January 17,2013
approved use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it advertised as part of this amendment?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. The whole section was advertised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Was the advertisement specific for that new use being added?
MR.YOVANOVICH: But,Mr. Strain,I'm not adding the use to the PUD. The PUD already
allowed that use under Item No.--current Item No. 16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what are you complaining about?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Again,I'm--all Heidi has to say to me is,Rich,don't worry,you didn't lose
the tire store because you didn't show it as a list on this use,and I'm happy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from the county's perspective,I don't know how she could say anything
but that. You've got a twice approval.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Then let her say it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not the zoning director. The zoning director's already said it.That's
sufficient.
MR.YOVANOVICH: But she's the--this is my legal concern. Pm just asking if I have--if I'm not
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The tire issue is--
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The county's position is that you have an approved permitted use for a tire
store with minor automotive repair.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And the fact that this PUD document doesn't reference that prior approval
does not take that away?
MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't--no,the resolution still stands.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's all I needed on the record. That's all I wanted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a resolution that Pm sure is linked to this project. It's part of the
project now. I don't know how--and there's been a lot of people that have had resolutions like that over the
years. They don't all get restated in their PUDs. They're just separate documents.So I'm not sure why we're
even going there,Richard.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off--I had just--that was the last issue I had to discuss on
the items I have right now.
And is there any other questions of the applicant at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich,can we--all right. You guys are done,so we're going to go to
staff next.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MS.GUNDLACH: Good afternoon,again,Commissioners.
Staff is recommending approval of this petition,as it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan
and Land Development Code. And also,regarding your question before,Commissioner Strain,about the
Exhibit 4,the statement of utility provisions,I just received word that the new statement is still consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I just started thinking about my conversation with
Mike Bosi about the 40 percent,and I think he said that there--he didn't believe there was any way they
could have reached that. I may not have then asked him to verify it. But if you guys can verify it just to be
sure by the time we get to the consent,I would appreciate it.
MS.GUNDLACH: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So do you want to provide us--do you have--that's all you wanted
to say for your staff report?
MS.GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting really short and to the point,Nancy. Thank you.
I want to make sure I don't have anything for you.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,Phil,I'm sony. Go right ahead.
Page 57 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: More of an observation than a question.
On Page 9 of 17 of the staff report and also on Page 15 of 17 of the staff report,if it's customary for
an ALF to have a.60 FAR,as referenced on Page 9,and as referenced on Page 15,the LDC has been
recognized as an outdated development standard for these facilities,is there any initiative to update the LDC
and avoid any confusion in the future?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.
We did have an LDC amendment in the last cycle to alter the floor area ratio for assisted living
facilities to increase it from 0.45 to 0.60. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that it be
withdrawn because they--it was determined that it makes sense to have the applicants request that as a
deviation and provide justification to go higher.
Now,staff is also looking at revising other aspects of what's called the group housing provisions of
our Land Development Code,and we'll get to that as soon as we tackle the administrative code and get that
squared away.
MS.GUNDLACH: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at the time staff--we didn't have an analysis as to how applicable
the.6 would be on a normal basis compared to the.45,and you are going to do further review of CCRCs.If
you come back,that--a majority of the CCRCs basically require the.6,and that would be something to
reconsider.
MR.BELLOWS: Definitely. And it's part of the group housing section of our code,which is very
antiquated,and we would like to get to that at some point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.BELLOWS: And that would be part of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane,did you have something?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I have a question for Ray. Ray,on that,right,.45,but I
understand the.6--if I'm wrong. This is for the restaurants,this is for the beauty salons,this is for more of--
MR.BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: --amenities within?That's why they want to go to a.6;is that correct?
MR.BELLOWS: That is correct. The current market dictates that these ALFs,especially in this
county,provide more services and amenities than just the basic housing. And so the 0.45 was deemed to be
restrictive to provide those additional amenities.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we'll move on to public speakers.
Ray,how many public speakers do we have registered?
MR.BELLOWS: A lot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's fine. We'll just move into them then. We don't need to count
them.
Is Mr.White the first registered public speaker?
MR.BELLOWS: He can be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick,how much time are you going to need?
MR.WHITE: If you'd like to take a break,Mr.Chairman--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,we're too early for a break;that's why I asked. But we're probably 15
minutes away from a break. Will you be done within 15--close to 15 minutes?
MR.WHI FE: I believe so,sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll hear you first,then we'll take a break.
MR.WHITE: Terrific.
Good afternoon,Commissioners. Patrick White with the Naples office of the law finn of Porter,
Wright,Morris&Arthur.
Congratulations,Mr. Strain,on returning to the board and chairmanship.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Many of you are new faces to me,but I'm certainly not a new face to the county. And
hopefully,as we go through things today,I'll be able to adjust what you have in your packets to address the
Page 58 of 84
January 17,2013
concerns that I think have been raised so far by the applicants and,in fact,Commissioner Keene,with respect
to your question specifically.
We have a modified proposal,so we'll get to all of that.
But let me first tell you that in terms of who we have present from the team I've worked with,we
have the president of the association,Lyn Hunerberg with us today. We have board member Tom Graham.
We have two other committee members,Bob Ochs,Jim Johannsen,who participated in this process,and I
believe they all intend to make remarks,as well as the property manager that the association has,Joan
Ritchey.
Last,but not least,we've also retained the expert planning services of Laura DeJohn and the Johnson
Engineering firm,and she has previously testified as an expert,and I'm assuming that her testimony today
would be accepted as same as an expert in comprehensive planning and zoning matters.
With those,kind of,housekeeping issues addressed,I'd like to start with some context.You saw in
your Planning Commission packets there was a cover letter provided to Ms.Gundlach from Laura indicating
that the proposals we were making in strikethrough/underline were anticipated to be a preliminary,if you
will,proposal,and that they were subject to further discussions with the applicant and their agents. And as
you've heard from Mr.Yovanovich and Mr.Arnold,those discussions have taken place.
We had some challenges in the process. But suffice it to say that we believe that we're making a
series of reasonable compromises given that our clients started from a perspective with respect to this PUD
amendment that there would be no uses other than medical uses on the properties east of Goodlette-Frank.
That was a promise made to them in informal meetings. It's,obviously,not binding,per se,but it just is
offered to the record to explain why it is that some of their expectations and the position they took initially
being adverse to these three new uses was so strenuous.
Based on the conversations we've had and the proposal that most recently is being made,we are in a
place where those uses would be acceptable with certain locational requirements as to the hotel/motel use,
limitations on height,both zoned and actual,as well as certain setback modifications.
I know that there was some confusion in Rich and Wayne's mind about what those were. I know it
prompted a question from Ms.Keene. The bottom line is,from our perspective,we don't need to discuss
those. We believe that the proposal we're making is the position certainly at this point we're willing to bind
ourselves to in terms of what we think is fair and reasonable.
So as to those setbacks,I would simply comment that the prior standard we had proposed was prior
to the point where our research indicated that there's a long-range-plan proposal to expand the right-of-way
cross-section for Goodlette-Frank and to accommodate and adjust for that and allow for what may be a taking
that would move,effectively,the roadway closer to the actual structures. We stuck with the three-to-one as
opposed to two-to-one above 50 feet.
The other thing to appreciate is that in this process there have been,obviously,a variety of opinions
expressed. Working with a collegial board and membership organization,you from time to time will have
those kind of things come up.
So to the extent that there may have been other comments made,I would simply indicate to you that
our proposal today is what it is that we think can be substantiated by the association and something that they
would put their name on in writing.
As to the various issues of consistency,we understand that the staffs perspective is one where the
only thing that needs to be otherwise determined to fall under Policy 5.1E would be with respect to the hotel
and motel.
We still have concerns notwithstanding the most recent information about the utilities update in
terms of what the staff report itself actually says. Our goal today is to make sure that we have the record
before you that substantiates factual findings that you're required to make as well as to support the
recommendation.
So we're not here trying to,if you will,knit-pick any aspect of either the applicant's or the staffs
materials or presentations. We're simply trying to make sure that,like the discussion the chair had about that
use I won't mention--that the record's complete.
That said,we start from the place where 5.1E and 5.1B do have some relevance in the sense that
Page 59 of 84
January 17,2013
these started out as industrially zoned lands.They had a maximum of 50-foot height. We're at a point now
where consistency issues--consistency issues,we're seeing an applicant requesting,effectively,a 50 percent
increase in what they would be able to construct as gross square footage.
If you look to the consistency memo provided by the comprehensive planning staff,there are two
things that I think are worthy of comment. One is that their first paragraph ends with a statement that there
were no increases to the stated caps in the prior PUD,06-50,as to the square footages,the gross square
footages.
In fact,as you've heard today,there are additions to those square footages. So I'm not sure that it
impacts the outcome in the analysis or the conclusion reached,but certainly it should be pointed out that it
isn't,in terms of an observation,one that seems to be consistent with the most recent version of the proposal.
Second,there are comments with respect to the request about the floor area ratio deviation suggesting
that there were none requested. In fact,obviously,you've hear,and we've just talked,there's a request to
move it from 0.45 to 0.6 for the group housing. So I just enumerate those for the purposes of the record,as I
said.
The,roughly,29 or so acres that we think are available here,the primary thrust of the residents'
concerns flow from what are legitimate public health and general welfare concerns.Aesthetics,visual impact,
those are not only real world,but they are regulatory concerns as well.
And in that sense,I just point you to what the urban residential designation says. NI ask Laura to
comment more about it. But the bottom line is is that it comes down to the suitability of the area to the type
and pattern of development proposed.
Similarly,with respect to the difference between the theoreticals of what the Collier's Reserve,for
lack of a better name,the Tract 22 PUD allows,much of what our comparative analysis was based upon is
the built environment,because that's what your analyses and some of your findings require you to do. It
doesn't allow you,if you will,the opportunity to say,well,gee,you know,theoretically,someone could come
in,raise those buildings on the diagonally imposed corner,and go ahead and construct an 80-foot medical
building.
This PUD originates at a point in time where I think it's fair to say the public participation process,
the notice process,were nowhere near as vibrant,sophisticated,and accepted as the standard is today.
So perhaps there's some chance that someone may attempt to do that,either on the medical
component on the southeast corner of the Collier's PUD,diagonally opposed from this site,or they may
choose to do it within the activity center that is at the corner of--excuse me--Immokalee and 41.Who
knows?
Our analysis was based upon what is built.And in that regard,the Naples Daily News may have had
a,you know,over 50,two-to-one ratio,but if you look at where their actual constructed building is,it is
substantially further back.
So we're attempting to bring to the record an analysis that shows what is suitable and appropriate
based upon what's in the corridor today. Because everybody says that,you know,zoning cases don't establish
precedence. Each one's evaluated on its own. But every time you come into a zoning case,what everybody
talks about are what are the other things that are out there and what were the prior precedence. So we think
its relevant and something that should be discussed.
I'd point out one other thing that I believe--in reviewing the materials,I thought it was a
requirement at this point that there be a master entity provision for the PUD monitoring. I don't recall seeing
it in the underlying strikethrough.
I'd ask the staff and the applicant to take a look at that,and they may desire to add it in. I think it's
something that's now intended under the provisions in LDC Chapter 10 to be required.
There was a lot of discussion in the applicant's presentation about the hotel height.I'm to remind this
commission that those height requests are applicable to all of the buildings for all three of the uses and,hence,
why,across the board,notwithstanding what the locational requirement and the discussion we had about the
hotel being in the IC piece east of Goodlette-Frank,we understand that those other uses could be constructed
not only on the easterly portion but could be redeveloped and constructed in the westerly portions.
Because as to the business district and the IC district,these regulations are applicable,effectively,to
Page 60 of 84
January 17,2013
all and why it is that we believe that those are the appropriate standards as to setback.
As to Mr. Strain's observation,which we shared,about the provision pertaining to the 40 percent
commercial maximum,that's on,as noted,Page 2-15,and it's under a section entitled"General permitted
uses." It does not pertain,as does the similar provision that staff mentioned,to just a limitation of the
percentage of accessory to principal uses. It is an outright limit,and we believe that in order for the record to
be complete and the analysis you're going to be asked to consider and base your findings on,that that
information is essential. So we leave to your discretion the degree to which that is something that you feel
you need to have in rendering your recommendation today.
I'll kind of go back to the beginning and then wrap up as to consistency. Under 5.1E,there's
essentially a two-part test. And if you can get over the first part of the hurdle and reach the conclusion that
industrial's the most intense use in our hierarchical euclidian zoning that we use,then--as to the 50-foot
height issue and now going up to 75,then the second part the test pertains to,effectively,a comparative
analysis of the Category A public facilities.
We know,based on the utility analysis that we were just provided,that they've readjusted the count.
Mr.Weeks has been kind enough to point out that,as to the bed count relative to the hoteUmotel,that hasn't
changed. And at this point I don't think we want to make further comment about it.
But I would note that as to the other Category A public facilities,the staff report expressly states--
and we cannot find anything in the record otherwise--that there would be an increase as to the parks and rec
element and component.
So we would hope that in order to reach a determination of consistency,even if it's only to the
hotel/motel in that use in this project,that at some point we have something in the record that demonstrates
how it is that a comparative analysis that reached a conclusion that there was an increase in this particular
Category A public facility is supposed to be dealt with,because the materials that we've been provided based
on our requests,I don't have anything other than what's,essentially,in the statement of compliance from the
old PUD ordinance,06-50.
And that is,in and of itself,pretty much a bare and bald conclusion of compliance without any real
substantive analysis or findings.
And just to touch upon the FAR,I don't want to make a big deal out of this,but to the extent that
there has been a comment put on by staff today about the justification,what was in the record before was
simply a statement,effectively,that it's justified because everyone else has been asking for it and they got it.
So I'm glad to hear that,you know,we're doing a little bit more in terms of this project to assure that
the need is there to justify the deviation request.
But I agree with the good commissioner that,you know,if a deviation can be analogized in some
ways to a variance,that one of the tests,obviously,for a variance is does it makes more sense to just go
rewrite the rules rather than ask for the deviation.
But I understand staffs comment from Ray that there's been some direction from the Planning
Commission,and I hope we could just get to the place where,soon,it's resolved both as to group housing and
other types of floor area ratios.
At this point I'm prepared to turn over our presentation to Ms.DeJohn to touch upon some of the
finer points that we would comment on about the strikethroughs that we think still should remain,as well as
the other aspects of the PUD.
And,in particular,I'll end with the rather sensitive subject of the process that the county's used with
respect to that use I won't mention and point out that we continue to believe that since this is kind of a
heritage PUD,one that was prior to the case I'd mentioned recently,Gulf Coast American Blinds where there
was an official interpretation and appeal,and my belief was that,as the then county attorney,the minimum
you would be able to do is an official interpretation for something like that.
I believe that the further recommendation that flowed from that case was that,as to any PUD
amendments coining forward,given the potential for the lack of adequate procedural due process and notice
that we feel may have occurred in this case,that it makes more sense in this PUD to strike it,and in the
future,this and all other PUDs,I would argue,ought to come forward with at least an official interpretation
request,if not an actual PUD amendment.
Page 61 of 84
January 17,2013
And with that,unless there are some questions from commissioners,I'd be happy to either take a
break or turn--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,depending on if there's any questions,we probably will take a break.
Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I have a clarification.
MR.WHITE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: The issue of the expansion of Goodlette Road came up in my discussion
with the residents when I met with them. After that I got ahold of transportation and I confirmed through
transportation that the right-of-way will not be expanded,doesn't need to be expanded;they have all they
need there already.
So the concern that drove you to require a setback at that location may be then considered in regards
to the fact that transportation is not going to be needing additional right-of-way there.
MR.WHITE: I believe that's helpful information and--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed Jarvi's here. If he disagrees with me,come on up. You gave me the
information. But he looks like he agrees with me.
MR.WHITE: I've never known Reed to disagree with you,Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I do get things wrong.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're in trouble.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that I was,you know,restating it correctly.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask Reed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Reed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,no. We'll get to that later.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I wanted to talk to Reed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just finish with Patrick.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we will come back in--let's come back in 15 minutes,for
-- let's see,40--let's come back at 10 minutes to three.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone will please take their seats,we can resume the meeting.
We left off with the public discussion. And since there are some experts for the public's position,we
are accommodating more time for them.Hopefully that—not everybody will think they are going to be
afforded the same amount of time.
We don't try to stick to a time limit. We just ask that you try not to be redundant. We're here to
listen to the public,but at the same time,we've got to get done today,too. So please keep that in mind as we
go on with the speakers today.
Okay,Laura.
MS.DeJOHN: Thank you. Laura DeJohn,principal planner with Johnson Engineering,here today
on behalf of Collier's Reserve Association.
Really the reason I'm here and what I'll be addressing is the points relevant to review criteria that you
must look at for PUD rezones. Specifically,I'm going to speak to Criteria 1 for a PUD rezone,which states
the suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to the physical
characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities.
I'm going to speak to Criteria 4 for a PUD rezone. That's the internal and external compatibility of
proposed uses which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design
and buffering and screening requirements.
And,finally,Criteria 2 of rezone findings,and that is that the Planning Commission must be taking
into account and fully considering the existing land use pattern.
The information I'm presenting is the basis for the neighborhood's concerns,and their concerns are
about suitability of the area for the type of development proposed and the external compatibility of the
Page 62 of 84
January 17,2013
proposed uses.
This will also be the basis for the conditions on location,design,buffering,and screening that the
neighbors propose. They're different than the ones that were in the back of your packet,and I'll spell them
out clearly and concisely as soon as I go through the justification for them.
An assessment of existing conditions and surrounding neighborhood character needs to take into
account the variety of existing uses,building types,and land use characteristics to ensure that the proposed
PUD amendment is suitable and compatible and that existing land use patterns have been properly studied
and considered according to the LDC requirements.
The primary guide in determining development patterns and the type of--and scale of development
appropriate for a given area begins with the Growth Management Plan. I'm going to put on the overhead the
Future Land Use mapping for this area.
I have a piece of paper that doesn't quite fit on the visualizer. But what we have to show is the
Immokalee Road corridor starting at U.S.41 on the west all the way to I-75 on the east just to give a sense of
what we could consider the neighborhood. It's a few miles of Immokalee Road.
To--the westernmost intersection at U.S.41 is an activity center. There's another activity center,per
the Future Land Use Map,at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport Road,which you can see kind
of as the dumbbells on the visualizer.
I just want to read into the record that a mixed-use activity center is a concept designed to
concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can be readily
accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal
points within the community.
Allowable land uses in the mixed-use activity centers include the full array of commercial uses,
residential uses,institutional uses,hotel/motel uses,community facilities,and other land uses as generally
allowed in the urban designation.
I'm bringing this to your attention to justify why you heard earlier that there are some more intense,
some 80-foot-tall buildings allowed at the corner of Immokalee Road and U.S.41 within a designated activity
center.
The applicant's request is for Creekside Commerce Park,which is not in an activity center.It's in the
urban residential land use district.There's also a prior industrial zoning that's been deemed consistent and,
thereby,there are additional uses allowed on this site,but it still falls within and is surrounded by urban
residential land use categories,and those activity centers are much more further apart from this--
(The power went out.)
MR.WHITE: I've never heard a presenter have that impact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're off record,so let's just stop for a few minutes,and I'll try to find out
what's going on. Maybe KD knows. Let's just break here for a bit.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we back to normal,or at least whatever normal is?
MS.DeJOHN: I think so. Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're fine now.Thank you. Let's go back on record.
MS.DeJOHN: There are a few exhibits I had loaded on the computer. That's going to take a minute
to get back up,so excuse me if I get crossways with my exhibits.
So we'll move on beyond the Future Land Use Map noting that urban residential is the category for
this area. It's the category for the Collier's Reserve Association where they live and what they consider to be
their neighborhood.
To further define the context of the area,we inventoried the development parameters for the
developments in the project vicinity,all of which are PUDs. That was part of your packet. And I think it's
something Wayne Arnold was referring to,and we talked about what the parameters are for a development in
the surrounding PUDs.
Many of the PUDs,precisely six of them, including Creekside,up until this zoning action,stick to
height limits of 50 feet,45 feet,40 feet,in that range. Several of the PUDs also utilize the sliding scale of
setbacks that increase as building heights increase so that buildings are further back from the street.
Page 63 of 84
January 17,2013
We've provided a photo exhibit of how the buildings appear along about a one-and-a-half mile
stretch of Immokalee Road within this neighborhood.We wanted to capture the context and scale
characteristics that should be taken into account.
You could see from the photos that were in your packet landscaping and setbacks are generally
provided in this area in excess of code minimum requirements or in excess of the PUD standard,creating a
more spacious feeling along the corridor.
We agree that there are certain buildings taller than 40-,50-foot height range. The hospital is
allowed at 100 feet. That is kind of a single-purpose building that's been granted 100 feet due to the nature of
it.
The Naples Daily News facility is kind of a special-function building that's been granted a 75-foot
maximum height due to the function of it.And we don't believe that's a precedent to have 75-and 85-foot
buildings proliferate along the whole corridor.
The height and width ratio diagram that was mentioned earlier—I am pretty excited that I was able
to introduce something new to Wayne and Rich.It is a method used in planning I think you can find in many
urban planning principle,kind of,manuals and even ITE--Institute of Traffic Engineers uses the method--
to measure the relationship of buildings along a corridor.
And we did that measurement. It's a height-to-width ratio,different than the height-to-width ratio
that we talk about when we talk wedding cake setbacks on a building,because those are always measured
from the property line and drawn back into the property.
This is a measure of how a person experiences the corridor and how the buildings across the street
from each other relate,because we do have that interesting element that's somewhat common on this corridor
of having the setbacks apply to buildings like Naples Daily News and the hospital.So we captured in a
mathematical way how that relationship works.
And our findings were that the primary range of height-to-width ratios along that area was between
one-to-six,one-to-12,very suburban in nature. I mean,an urban area would be closer to one-to-two or
one-to-three,and we're characterized in this area by a much broader,much more sprawling,kind of,built
environment.
That was the reason for a recommendation initially of a one-to-six relationship that would be applied
to the setbacks of buildings on the proposed development site.
Since the original recommendations were put in your packet,there have been the new discussions
between Collier's Reserve and the applicant. It seems like we're close but not quite have a cigar here because
the Collier's Reserve recommendation--and I'll spell it out at this time--is to,like Rich stated,have the
hotellmotel--only one hotel/motel pushed back into the IC district as he described. Then all the other
buildings that are currently going to be allowed at 75-foot zoned height,85-foot actual height per the PUD
request,the recommendation from Collier's Reserve is to have a minimum setback from Immokalee Road or
Goodlette Road of 50 feet.
The proposal is for a sliding scale of the setback of one foot--of 3 feet for every one foot of building
height. And when I say sliding scale,that's the difference from a wedding cake scenario where the building is
held at 50 feet,and then portions of the building that are taller than 50 get set back in a wedding cake
appearance.
The recommendation today is for the entire setback to move as the building gets taller,and that's
been done on some other PUDs in the area so that a 50-foot building is 50 feet back. A 60-foot building
would be 80 feet back based on a three-to-one ratio of anything over 50 feet in height. A 70-foot building
would be 110 feet back.Those are just examples.
Collier's Reserve recommends a maximum building height of 60 foot zoned and 70 foot actual.
And now I can get to one more drawing. I don't know how to get there.
The recommendation is to have a buffering condition similar to the one that's been approved for
Naples Daily News. I have the diagram that was approved as part of the Naples Daily News PUD that just--
thank you--illustrates some enhanced buffering and signage placement that the Collier's Reserve folks have
found acceptable and would hope would apply to this site as well.
That concludes my remarks. Unless you have questions for me,I'll move on to the next speaker.
Page 64 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I probably--we may have some questions.
Anybody have any questions of Laura? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question,not on what you said,Laura,but what--I'm a
little confused as to where the offer versus the petitioner is at this point. I mean,we're going to listen to more
speakers,but maybe that can be cleared up later. But where do you--what's your perception of where your
offer stands? Let me ask you that.
MS.DeJOHN: My perception is that we've come to terms on the hotel/motel being in the IC
designated area east of Goodlette Road.
As far as setbacks from Immokalee and Goodlette Road,we are different. For all other buildings--
that's what Pm going to refer to,all other buildings--Rich seemed to be proposing--and I actually don't want
to try to paraphrase him.I'll tell you what we're proposing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you approach it slightly differently,because I am absolutely losing
track--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I am,too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --between the applicant's statements and yours so far as to where anybody
is on this thing. I've been trying to writhe it down,but every time I hear another discussion,it changes. So
I'm all--I've got everything all scratched up. Let's start--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm glad I'm not the only one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll do this separately with the applicant after all the discussion is done.
What is--there's three parcels. There's a corner B parcel,there's a B parcel to the east,and there's an IC
parcel to the south.
MS.DeJOHN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two frontages,Goodlette Road and Immokalee Road.
Let's start with the B parcel on the corner.What height issue--where are you guys at with your
height concern? What maximum height are you looking at?
MS.DeJOHN: Sixty zoned and 70 actual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what kind of setback are you looking at?
MS.DeJOHN: A 50-foot setback,and then any portion of a building height that is over 50 feet tall,
which you could get to a 60-foot or a 70-foot-tall building,three-to-one ratio.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the B parcel to the east?
MS.DeJOHN: Same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the IC parcel to the south?
MS.DeJOHN: Same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the setback to Goodlette Road?
MS.DeJOHN: Same as--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,the previous statement,I think,by Patrick was that the setback
to Goodlette Road increasing from two-to-one to three-to-one was because you believed that you needed
additional right-of-way for Goodlette Road.
Transportation has acknowledged that's not going to happen. They've provided me with
documentation that says it's not going to happen.Do you have a concern about keeping that three-to-one
then?
MR.WI-II'1'B: If I may respond to that,Mr.Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR.WHITE: We've had a--I've had a primary conversation with the two authorized
representatives of the association here today.Pve indicated to Mr.Yovanovich that we would be willing to
engage in a further dialogue about that particular development standard. And it may be that we would be
able to come to some agreeable standard with respect to the right-of-way setback for Goodlette-Frank. I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you were at two-to-one before because--before,and then you
found out there might be an expansion of Goodlette Road that required you to go to three-to-one and now you
don't have to,what's wrong with--what's your concern about going back to the two-to-one?
Page 65 of 84
January 17,2013
MR. WHITE: It's the actual absolute difference,I think--I believe theirs applies in a wedding cake
fashion,and ours is to have the entirety of the facade moved back with the setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR.YOVANOVICH: So I can maybe use some--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pd rather you wait until your rebuttal to ask--
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not trying to rebut. I'm trying to understand the proposal so while the
speakers are speaking,maybe I can get some analysis done in the interim.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fair enough.
MR.YOVANOVICH: If that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,go ahead.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Pin trying to understand the latest proposal from a setback standpoint.
Previously it was a wedding cake proposal,correct,which meant that 50 feet back for the first 50 feet
in height,and we would step the building--the portion of the building that was greater than 50 feet back at a
three-to-one.That's the proposal as I understood it.
What I'm hearing now is no more wedding cake.You're going to take the total height of whatever the
building is; in their example,a 60-foot-high building will now have the entirety of the building set back 80
feet. There will no longer be--for the first 50 foot in height,a 50-foot setback. Is that the latest proposal?
MR. WHI I'F;: That is not only the latest;that has been the continuing position since Tuesday.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,then that's okay. Since Tuesday after we met or before we met?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard,that's fine. Thank you.
And you're--Mr.White,I think Laura was up making her presentations. Did you have anything you
wanted to add right now? All we needed was some clarification on that one issue. I think we got it.
Laura,did you have any--I think we understand. And let me reiterate. You guys are at a
non-stepped-back setback based on 50 feet minimum plus a three-to-one for every--I mean,three-to-one--
basically,3 feet back for every foot in height after that.
MS.DeJOHN: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're still--your heights are 60 feet with 70 actual for all
three parcels,including the hotel?
MR.ARNOLD: Yes.
MS.DeJOHN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you also suggested the Naples Daily News buffer?
MS.DeJOHN: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because then when we're all done,I want to run all this by the
applicant and see where we're standing.
MS.DeJOHN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind,we'll go to the next speaker. And we have two podiums,
whichever's easiest for you.
Ray?
MR.BELLOWS: Tom Graham.
MR.GRAHAM: Mr. Sachs is going to go first.
MR.WHITE: If I may,Mr.Chairman,just to complete what it is that our proposal is,we're,as I
mentioned in my presentation,also asking that the provisions dealing with the comparable use analysis be
stricken and that--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with your document,Patrick.
MR.WHITE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again,you did say that. I remember you saying it.
MR.WI-HTE: And just one last comment. In 3.4(C)(1),I believe the applicant acknowledged that
because that doesn't front on Immokalee as to the IC portion,that the words"Immokalee Road"could be
stricken.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker,please.
MR.BELLOWS: Edward Sachs,Jr.
Page 66 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.SACHS: I'm Edward Sachs,Jr. I go by Ted. Hive at 1315 Remington Way. I'm a director
along with another director,Michel Potier,of Remington Reserve,which is a condominium association. And
so I'm speaking as an adjoining property owner and also in support of Collier Reserve's good work,because
we're reciprocal neighbors and also have,in many cases,reciprocal social arrangements. So it is very much
one community,at least as I see it,and I think as many of the residents at Remington see it.
A point of detail that's incorrect,the closest Collier's Reserve PUD building is actually our clubhouse
pool house,which is about 500 feet from Block 1,I guess you're calling it,so that's a substantial misstatement
of fact.
We are part of the Collier's Reserve PUD,Remington. And we were developed with quite a bit of
buffering. There's a preserve. We are protected property. And it strikes me that the petitioner is sort of
moving against a decision that was made in developing that side of Immokalee Road,the west end toward 41.
It looks as if there's been a lot of planning and coordination,I mean,just judging by the fact that we
are a protected preserve.
In another life,I was a plan commissioner once,and I think you've got the world's worst job.I came
away with a personal conclusion that the most--the source of the worst decisions I ever made as a plan
commissioner were situations surrounding elevation,actually roof line. How high is a roof line? And--that
and the cushioning of side yards,front yards,which in this case I guess would be a setback issue,to me were
the greatest zoning issues that I ever confronted or failed at confronting properly.
So I guess the legacy I'm leaving to me as a homeowner is don't ever let it happen again.Because
you've made mistakes as a plan commissioner,if you ever have a chance to bang your fist down on a table,
do it. And in this capacity I'm doing it as a homeowner.
Oh,Remington has 48 units in 12 buildings,so ifs a fairly substantial community.
I think that--oh,there was one other question. Is there any consideration made for environmental
permitting because of the odor from the sewage treatment plant? I mean,we're talking about assisted living.
We're talking about healthcare facilities.
What other requirements,if any,given the environmental issues?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever they are,they're probably outside the purview of this board at this
time,so we're--
MR. SACHS: Those are the only comments that I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir.
MR. SACHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker. Nancy or Ray,whoever's calling them.
MR.GRAHAM: Mr.Johannsen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,that's Ray,would you--okay. I've got to ask the audience to
let the staff do their job.
MR.BELLOWS: I have Hank Shafer,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Johannsen wants to go next. I don't care about the order. But,Ray,
you'll have to call them out.
MR.BELLOWS: Come on up.
MR.JOHANNSEN: Sorry. We're just trying to be efficient. And I don't think all of us are going to
speak,but we wanted to make sure we had enough time.
For the record,my name is Jim Johannsen. I live at 813 Barcarmil Way in Collier's Reserve.I've
been a full-time year-round resident for 10 years,and I continue to work. I took a day off of work to be here
today.
This is one of the last major intersections with undeveloped property in the county. Many of us
moved here versus other parts of Florida because of not wanting--because of what the City of Naples and
what much of the county of Collier County has been careful about for a long time,and that's a heritage that
we've got a responsibility for,which is why Collier's Reserve is so involved in the broader area surrounding
that part of the county.
So we want to--we want to make sure it's done right and not with excessive heights and with
significant setbacks.
Page 67 of 84
January 17,2013
It was my understanding at the November 19th meeting that we had that there could be four
buildings put on this property where the amendment is four actual height buildings of 85 feet.
If that's the case,it's immediately across from the hospital that's 120 feet. That would be five
buildings at one intersection that are greater than 50 percent beyond what the zoning originally was,all of
which would have been granted,including the additional sixth one,which is the Naples Daily News,all of
which would have happened in the last eight years. I think the Naples Daily News was six years ago.
So when does this exception become the rule?You're going to come down that street and you're
going to have four 85-foot buildings,essentially,close to a corner.
What we said to Rich at our November 19th meeting,and he repeatedly said--it's recorded,by the
way--that objections we had were height,height,and height,and obviously related to setbacks. We never
objected to the senior living.We never objected to anything that was related to medical care. And we
continue to be that way,but we've always objected against the height,and we've compromised on that.
As it relates to hotels,we look at what's the comparable setbacks for other hotels in the county.The
Doubletree Inn,which is off of 41 --I may be incorrect on this,but this is a layperson doing it on the Internet.
But I think this is approximate. It's approximately 80 feet setback to the one-story restaurant,Charlie
Chiang's,and about 150 feet to the motel,which is a three-story motel.
The Inn at Pelican Bay on Vanderbilt Beach Road is approximately 100 foot from Vanderbilt to the
edge of the hotel but about 150 feet to the entrance and about 300 feet to the end.
The Doubletree is angled,as you know,sort of diagonally off of 41. The Inn at Pelican Bay,
similarly,you know,has very little frontage to Vanderbilt because it's angled back. And that's important.
You know,if you think about those two and you drive by them,you don't really know that they're necessarily
there,which is also,by the way,good for the people who are--the residents or the occupiers of the property.
What we don't want,and I'll say it,is the Fifth Third Bank building kind of situation where you have
a huge mammoth building with very little setback and really no opportunity to have landscaping that gets—
you know,that protects the visibility of it.
That's the difference between Naples and Collier County and so many other counties in Florida that
have ignored something. That's our issue.
I'd like to continue for a minute with just a few other motels. The Best Western on Pine Ridge
actually has a 125-foot buffer,and I think it's about 160 feet to the building,about 200 feet to the entrance,
about 350 feet to the end.
The Homewood Suites sits back--on Pine Ridge sits back 250 feet with a single-story building in
front. And the Inn at Naples,which I think is actually in the city,but if you think about it,it's right north of
the Northern Trust bank building there,Park Shore,again,angles back so you don't see very much of it. But
even that frontage is about 100 feet.
The Hilton's about 200 feet. The Staybridge is,you know, 150, 175 feet. So when we talk about 110
feet,that's less than what you're talking about at smaller hotels.
Height,height,and height,setback. Somebody's got to care to make sure that that's done right. If it
was the Barron Collier Companies that were actually building and managing and owning and running the
businesses there,it might be less of a concern. If they sell the property or give a 99-year lease to some
outside organization,you know,who knows. This is our one chance to do it right,and we encourage you to
do it right.
Just compare those visibilities with others.There are very few hotels of that size. Most of them are
on the beach in a completely different zoning situation.
So we appreciate that consideration. For us it's always been height,height,height,setback,and
buffering. We already have an area with the wastewater treatment plant;we have the recycle center there.
You know,let's do something positive.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker,please. Ray? Why don't you call two so that the
next person behind those,that they're ready to go.
MR. BELLOWS: Hank Shafer will be followed by Judy Shafer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're--
Page 68 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.BELLOWS: Let's go to the other pile then.Roger Williams?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR.BELLOWS: Bill Evan?
MR.EVAN: I'll pass.
MR.BELLOWS: Ron Nasser?
MR.NASSER: I pass.
MR.BELLOWS: Tucker Tyler?
MR.TYLER: Pass.
MR.BELLOWS: Howard Fernkel(phonetic)?
MR.FERNKEL: Pass.
MR.BELLOWS: Maybe we should say,who wants to speak?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind,yeah. Whoever wants to speak,let's just come up one at a
time,because this is going to get confusing. I probably assume you-all put your name in to reserve time for
others. That's--the next board up operates like that;we don't. So you don't have to worry about that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We didn't know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't want to be back.
MR.GRAHAM: Mr.Chairman,nice to see you again,fellow commissioners. My name is Tom
Graham,and I am on the board of Collier's Reserve Association. I also live in Collier's Reserve.
So what we're here today to do is to seek governmental integrity. That's what we're asking our
government to do for the residents that reside in Collier's Reserve,because at one time everybody that came
into that area was pretty much concerned about what was going to be the development in the surrounding
area,as most people are when they come into a new development.
And in this particular case,we were pretty much assured that what was going to be done would be
restaurants,small retail,and medical office buildings,and that's what everybody was relied upon as to their
purchase of a residence in Collier's Reserve.
There's been some mention about a PUD with an 80-foot zoned permission of a building,but at that
time it was also inquired with the representatives of the Collier company,and they were told that--they were
told that they would not be building an 80-foot building,that they would build a bank building and allied
office buildings right there.And so it was considered to be safe,and everybody felt relief that we were not
going to be having a huge building at the corner of the--of the area.
In a similar--in this particular case,back when this PUD was initially established,everyone could
rely on the fact that the government at that time had set forth a 50-foot variance--a 50-foot height,actual
height on buildings,and they required a 50-foot setback on buildings. And so that was all the reliance until
this new attempt to change the zoning and change the requirements of height in this particular area.
And if you will note also that what we have been informed and what we have been advised is that--
and I don't have--Laura,I need the map showing what area we're talking about. This here.That's what I
want right there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use that walk-around mike if you're not going to be in front of
the one.
MR.GRAHAM: Can you zoom in this area right there. Thank you.
Now,that is the area we're talking about.And the petitioner has sought the ability to put four 80-foot
buildings in this area. That's what they're asking for. And in an attempt to compromise with respect to the
petitioner,we offered what we feel was a reasonable compromise that we would agree to a 60-foot zoned,
which would allow up,from what I understand from the standpoint of the county,has actually another 10 feet
for—if they want to put a track or some sort of other amenities on top that are not site--that they could go to
70 feet.
So we attempted to compromise,because if you look at this on the canyon effect,that that's going to
occur--to have four 85-foot building in that small area is going to be unsightly. And that's one of the things
we've got to consider about. What is the consistency,what is the compatibility,and what is the
complimentary association of that area with the rest of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road?
Page 69 of 84
January 17,2013
The staff report clearly states that a hotel is not authorized. And then at that point in time there is a
rationalization--and Pm sorry that I'm unable to talk to you about FLUE,GMP,LDC, SIC codes,FAR,and
the LDC. Pm not an expert in these areas,and so I don't understand some of these.
What I'm trying to do is just to be simple and practical as to what the effect of this is going to be,
because the--the staff itself has stated that a hotel is not authorized,is not a permitted use,neither were the
other permitted--the other requests that are being asked for,group housing and intermediate care facilities.
These were not allowed in the initial PUD. So these are three significant changes to what was believed to be
authorized by the initial PUD is what's being changed by the petitioner here today.
And so we're concerned about the height,seriously,with what the look--what it's going to look like
for people coming on Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank,to see these huge,what they want,80-foot
buildings sitting on this small piece of property.
Now,the county also,staff said--and I haven't brought up the traffic report. They did a traffic
analysis. You probably have it in your packet. The traffic analysis was done in June. We know how many
people are here in June. But that was when the traffic analysis was done. And I guess there is some sort of--
it appears some programs that they can use to try to determine if there's going to be an impact.
And guess what? The county said--let me see if I can find it--that the impact is going to be
significant,but it was their conclusion,although the traffic was going to be significant,that it wasn't going to
be adverse.
Now,this doesn't seem to make sense,that--if they come in there and they do a traffic count in June,
the staff says that it's going to be a significant impact,and then make the conclusion that it's not adverse.
When you start getting the hotel with people coming in and coming out,and you have people coming
in to these new facilities,this ALF,you're going to have extensive traffic that's going to be on this particular
area.
Now,they say initially the 30-year report was saying they were going to six-lane Goodlette-Frank,
but I guess now they say they have the necessary right-of-way,and they don't have to get additional land for
that increase in lanes that are going to be in this particular area,which is going to impact considerably what
the traffic is going to be in this area.
You also said--I don't understand anything about the FAR and the public utilities and stuff.But it
just--common sense sort of tells you that if you're in there with the four buildings that are 50 feet high and
not 85 foot high,that if you are going to have less use of the public facilities,you're going to have less use of
parks and recreational land.
So in this particular case,especially with the hotel,I cannot believe that it's not going to impact on
the public utilities to have all of this,to have these medical-type facilities that require lots of care and lots of
laundry and things of that nature. Think of the laundry they have in a hotel.I mean--so,anyway,I just say,
when you look at this,you just make--you wonder from the common-sense application as to how these
conclusions are made.
And I guess one of the last things is when the staff was talking about the height,they say the previous
PUD allowed a building height of 50 feet for buildings within one-quarter mile of the hospital property.
That's the conditional use.Anything that was health related,according to the PUD,within one-quarter mile of
the hospital was limited to 50 feet,as was the other portions of the project.
And so,the staff says,however,the healthcare facility allows a building height to 100 feet. That's
the hospital. Well,all of us know that a hospital has great public interest and great public use.
So at the time when the hospital was being proposed,Collier's Reserve was 100 percent behind the
hospital. We--in fact,there is a park in the hospital that's named after Collier's Reserve because of our
efforts and contributions made.
So--but if you look at the North Collier Hospital and see how far it's back off to the back--set back
from the road,you actually don't even notice it,because they did a nice job of landscaping.
And so--but the staff says,well,because that's 100 feet and because the Naples Daily News,which
is way to the west of where we are,and--although it was zoned for 78 feet,we understand--75 feet,excuse
me,we understand it was only built to 68 feet. And there was a definite,what people call this,wedding,I
guess,cake-type building on that.
Page 70 of 84
January 17,2013
So,again,with the extensive landscaping that was done with respect to that building,you hardly
notice it. But when you have four buildings--now,see,there's one hospital,one Naples Daily News
separated by a long distance,not four 85-foot buildings,which they're requesting in this particular area--
piece of property.
So,you know--and that's what I'm asking is the commission give support. There's an integrity of
government that we can rely that when these matters were done,we don't have exceptions. It appears that
what happens,that this is now--it's not a rule. This is exceptions always to the rule.And what happens is
that pretty soon the county,if it goes that way,we're just not going to have the same aesthetic value that we're
so well known for.
And I think--oh,the hotels. They're asking for 240 rooms. For your information--and that's what
I'm saying,if their limit is to a 60-foot hotel building--the courtyard at Marriott has 102 rooms. The
Doubletree,which is just north of us on 41,has 101 rooms. The Hilton--everybody knows the Hilton,has
all kind of conferences and everything at the Hilton hotel and Tamiami Trail--has 199 rooms. The
Staybridge hotel right adjacent to has 122 rooms. Now,can you imagine that what they're asking for is 240
rooms,how huge that is going to be and the impact it's going to have on public utilities,traffic,and
everything else?
That's why when we were talking with the petitioner and their attorney we felt that,all right,we
know that there has to be an economic return to the landowner. You know,that's accepted,so--but not to
the extent where we're going to have,you know,these huge tall buildings in this small area that they're not
going to be attractive when you consider the effect it's going to have on--the visual effect. So that's why we
thought it was 60 feet.
The assisted living facility,they want 400 rooms in those,you know. So--and we wonder,you
know,whether or not the economic on that--if it's approved,this view on Orangetree(sic),new facility
down there that they haven't sold is going to have 600 rooms. We just wonder what--the need for it.
But if it's a facility that's limited to 60 feet,we also are of the opinion that it's going to be
economically feasible for the petitioner.
So I think that--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Traffic lights?
MR.GRAHAM: I think that's it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A couple corrections I'd like to make. The reference to significant
and adverse. It means it has an impact greater than 2 percent of the capacity of the road,but it's not adverse
because it doesn't make the road fail. We have certain levels of service that cause roads to fail,and their
impacts are within--well within that range,so that's why they use the word"adverse."
MR.GRAHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: June date,it's purely a calculation that can be done 365 days a year. Its not
a measurement of that date. What it does,it's a peak period formula that applies across the board. They just
happened to do the report in June. It doesn't mean they were out measuring and counting traffic in June.
That doesn't work that way.
The fact that the issues--staff report says certain things were not--are not permissible or not
permitted,that's why we're here today is because they weren't in the old PUD,so they have to come in and
renew them and get them permissible in the new application.
So that kind of--I just wanted to clarify some of the points you made.
MR.GRAHAM: No,I thank you,Mr.Commissioner,for the input,what adverse--what adverse
means. And I did mention that I thought there was some formula that's used in the traffic. I did not know.
I'm not aware of it. I just say it was done in June,and I guess there's some extrapolation that can be done.
But yeah--but as to the significant change in the use being required of the facility and the height and
the setbacks that we have proposed,I think,are rather reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR.GRAHAM: Thank you,sir.
Page 71 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker--or does anybody else wish to speak?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have--customarily,the applicant has time for rebuttal,so we will start
that with,it looks like,Rich Yovanovich.
And,Rich,in your rebuttal one of the points that was brought up as well as the--I'm sure you're
going to address the heights and the setbacks--is the buffer at the Naples Daily News.I hadn't heard about
that till now. So your thoughts on that as well.
MR.YOVANOVICH: For the record,Rich Yovanovich.
What I want to start with is we're not talking about speculative zoning today,unlike a lot of times
you'll have a vacant piece of property without any history. We're talking about an existing business park that,
I think we all can agree,has developed quite nicely with the existing buffer requirements that exist along
Immokalee Road.
To the extent that for years--and I drive that road pretty much every day--I didn't even realize the
gas station was there because of the standard buffering provisions that exist in the PUD.
So we believe that the existing landscape buffering provisions that exist should continue to carry
through along the entirety of Immokalee Road and should remain in effect.
The Naples Daily News was a specific one-use landscaping plan that I don't believe reflects what the
PUD requires. I can be corrected on that. But what we're talking about is our own--the existing buffer
requirements,the streetscape that's quite nice along Immokalee Road,and we've all been able to see it.
You have a developer who has been,obviously,a long-standing developer in Collier County.
They've been here long before probably any of us in this room and will be here long after any of us in this
room,and I believe they guard their reputation and do a first-class high-quality project in everything they do.
And if you look at all the projects they have done in Collier County,I don't think anybody could point to one
that is not a first-rate quality project,and this one being one of them.
We will--what we're saying--so we believe the landscaping standards should remain as they are in
the PUD as they currently exist.
To clarify a few things,we are perfectly fine with the new uses being located only on the eastern
portion of the PUD,east of Goodlette-Frank Road. So if there's any confusion related to somehow we could
put a 75-foot-tall hotel on the western portion of the property,let's just eliminate that and just say these three
new uses are limited to the eastern portion of this property.
We are fine with a limitation on just one hotel. Today is the first time the number of units came up.
Didn't come up the other night. Height came up. And as they've said,height,height,height. We've always
know that height's an issue.
So we haven't--that's not a surprise to us other than my side of the table the other night always
understood the three-to-one proposal to be a wedding cake proposal for both Goodlette-Frank and Immokalee
Road. We never understood the proposal to be,if the building was greater than 50 feet,the entirety of the
building moved back. We believed it was 50 feet for the first 50 feet in height,and it would be wedding cake
that we're all familiar with in Collier County. Sometimes it's okay. Sometimes it's not okay. But we thought
in this particular case the proposal was for a wedding-cake setback and we're prepared--and our proposal
was reflective of that wedding cake that we understood.
We think what we've done regarding the hotel location and moving it off of the western B parcel
addressed the concern of a big hotel right there at the intersection and,likewise,we believe that the increased
setbacks of a two-to-one that's approved in the Naples Daily News would be appropriate from a setback
requirement.
I tongue-in-cheek said to them when we met the other night,my opening salvo was I don't want
anything more than you have,and they have 80 feet with a 25-foot setback from Immokalee Road. That's the
approved zoning in their project. The hospital has--and they're not a specialty use. They're not a hospital.
They're not the Naples Daily News.They're just regular old office. Now,we ask for that in our request. We
asked for lower height and a better setback.
We,too,believe we have worked in the spirit of compromise to try to resolve our differences
regarding height. We did it in a way of limiting location as well as increasing the setback from what we had
Page 72 of 84
January 17,2013
originally proposed for the hotel as well as increasing the setback for the senior housing and intermediate care
facilities.
Your staff has recommended approval of what we originally proposed. I would assume they would
be okay with the increases in setbacks that we have offered up today.
We have met the criteria in your Comprehensive Plan as well as your Land Development Code in
order for your staff to recommend approval. Mr.Arnold is an expert in the field,and his firm and Mr.
Trebilcock have provided all the backup to support those conclusions.
And I would keep--I would like you to keep in mind that it is the intention of the property owner to
partner with an operator for the hotel.They're already doing that in Collier County with LaPlaya. So you
know there is a standard of excellence associated with all the projects that Barron Collier Companies has ever
done and will continue to do in the future.
I understand the community's concerns. We've tried to address those concerns in a responsive and
responsible manner,and we would hope that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation of
approval to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the revisions that we've talked about today.
And with that,I don't think I have anything else to add. And then we'll--happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just want to be clear,Rich,as to what,specifically,you have
on the table now.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I will. Let's do this. Someone stole our--or borrowed our zoning map,
master plan. Do we know where that went? Maybe we took it.
For the--what we're proposing is that the hotel--any portion of the hotel that is 75 feet zoned height
will be limited to the IC piece. We have agreed that no portion of the hotel will be closer than 500 feet from
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're fading in and out.
MR.YOVANOVICH: --Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You've got to almost eat that thing.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Tilt it.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We said no portion of the hotel will be closer than 500 feet from Immokalee
Road,meaning that if we can't fit everything,including the meeting spaces and other accessory uses in the
hotel,we'll cap those at the 50 feet. So they may cross over this IC line onto the--this B parcel.
Setback-wise,we would be--from Goodlette-Frank Road,for the first 50 feet of the building height
we would be set back 50 feet,and for each foot that we went above 50 feet,we would go back another foot.
So if we went to 75 feet total,that portion of the building that's 75 feet would be set back 75 feet from the
Goodlette-Frank Road--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR.YOVANOVICH: --right-of-way,that portion of the building. The 50-foot building would be
50 foot back. We'd stair-step back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd stair-step back on the two-to-one. So if you go up 25 feet,you'd be
another 50 feet,right?
MR.YOVANOVICH: We had proposed one-to-one. We'd proposed one-to-one,remember?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: They had proposed two-to-one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well,I thought they proposed three-to-one,but that--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Well—and then it became a three-to-one. But now we're at three-to-one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We're at three-to-one.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: For what?
MR.ARNOLD: One to one.
MR.YOVANOVICH: That's what they're proposing. We're at one-to-one. Do you want my
proposal?
Page 73 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just confused.There's been too many numbers.
MR.YOVANOVICH: We're proposing the wedding cake that originally was there. For the first 50
feet,that portion of the building would be set back 50 feet. For the portion of the building that gets to 75 feet,
it would be set back 75 feet.We'd go one-to-one for each foot above 50 feet,okay?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. For buildings that are constructed on the B piece,these two B pieces,
we would also do the wedding cake. For the first 50 feet,we would be set back 50 feet,which is what we
have today,and then for any foot above the 50 feet,we would go back 2 feet.
So if I do the math correctly,the 75-foot portion of the building would be set back 100 feet. So--and
that is what the Naples Daily News standard is.
And then we would limit it to one hotel,and then we would--I think that--and then none of the
uses would be on--all of the--three of the new uses would be east of Goodlette-Frank Road. I think that's
everything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask the audience not to comment.
MR.YOVANOVICH: There was a question--I think Mr.White said there's not a--there's some
confusion or some of these uses could find their way onto the west side,and there was a question as to
whether we could go higher on the west side. We just wanted to make sure it was clear that none of these
new uses would be on the western portion of this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's not written that way right now,but you're willing to write it that
way?
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We're trying to clear that up. I think that's everything--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR.YOVANOVICH: --subject to being corrected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments or questions from the Planning Commission of the
applicant or staff for that matter,anybody?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Bill has one.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Ray or Rich,in the interest of consistency--I'm only talking about
the ALF,now,the assisted living. It's my understanding that we have approved heights over 50 feet for ALF
buildings in the unincorporated area. True or false? Ray?
MR.YOVANOVICH: True.
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I don't recall specific building heights in ALFs. I
don't recall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you from experience,yes,there are some over 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Are they over 75?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they're over 50. I don't know the heights. I know of a couple that
are over 50 feet,yes.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: I think it behooves this board to approve any ALF that is equal--at
least equal to what we have approved before in height. I'd like to know what that is.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I--I'm fairly certain that we've gone to 75 feet for ALFs. I don't think--I
don't recall being involved in one—and I'm talking zoned height so we're not being confused.I don't
remember being involved in any projects going above 75 feet within the last few years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking of that big project--I thought you brought it in down in
Orange Blossom--as one,and there's one in Pelican Bay that is substantial.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,there are--in Pelican--
COMMISSIONER VONIER: There's one outside of Eagle Creek.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,for what--
MR.YOVANOVICH: And,you know,that's a good one. Hacienda Lakes,which recently went
through--and it's a related issue regarding height. And I know,Mr.Vonier,you asked me earlier about
hotels. That one we did,you know,within the last year,and on that one the hotel height was 75 feet zoned,
Page 74 of 84
January 17,2013
85 feet actual,ironically enough.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: And where was that?
MR.YOVANOVICH: The Hacienda Lakes project,the big DRI that we just did within the last year
or so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions,Bill? Did you have any more you
want to ask?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,we're at the end,so--do you have any,Diane? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do. And it's Glenview that is quite high. I cannot tell you
exactly how high it is. But I originally talked to Rich. He's been having a lot of problems with zoning lately
to his ALFs.
I spoke to him and I always said,Rich,you want everybody 60 and above to move into these ALFs.
And he said,no,70. And I said,well,in less than three months you want me to move into one? And he
didn't know quite what to say,but he has been--he's always--there are so many ALFs that we have out
there,not that this--this is a good place for one. It's a good place for a hotel.
And you're right,there are other ones around.I would believe that the Colliers talked to the people in
Collier's Reserve,l hope,and that you're kind of all together on this.
And when this originally was done,the last one was 2006,is that correct,this 50--
MR.YOVANOVICH: That was when--that was for the--related to the Naples Daily News
project.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So this one was done prior to that. And that was special
enough.But is the zoning on this--there are no homes east;is that correct? There are no homes from
Collier's Reserve east of Goodlette,or--that's correct--east of Goodlette-Frank;they're all west.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. Collier's Reserve is--you can see it,starts--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Upper left-hand corner.
MR.YOVANOVICH: Here's--I think this is Remington; is that right? Which is within the PUD.
It's not within the gates of Collier's Reserve.But it starts basically from right around here all the way--the
PUD goes all the way to U.S.41,because it includes the shopping--the Riverchase Shopping Center as well
as commercial or the office out front here. But all of the single-family and multifamily homes related to the
Collier's Reserve development are on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road and not in front of what we're
proposing.
Basically,the hospital is what's in front of us to the north,and the county's sewer treatment plant is to
the south,and more medical is over to the east.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything else,Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything else of Richard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other comments of staff'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none,we will close the public hearing,and we'll have discussion before a
motion.
Is there discussion from the Planning Commission side? Does anybody have anything they want to
throw into the mix?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I made a list of things that have been,I guess,acknowledged,and I
made some notes based on all the many,many numbers that were thrown back and forth today more so so I
could stop being so confused on them,but Pm not sure the numbers will make everybody happy either way.
So I'm going to just take a shot at it,and we'll see where it goes for discussion.
First of all,the limit--you're going to limit the--limit your property to just one hotel.Number two,
the new standards and the uses only apply east of Goodlette Road. Number three,you're going to delete
Page 75 of 84
January 17,2013
4.3.8.1. Number four,there will be no structural part of a hotel within 500 feet of Immokalee Road,and the
only portion that may move onto parcel B would be limited to 50 feet in height.
The corner,which I think is the most significant piece of property in this whole thing,I agree with
the residents it should be limited to 60 feet in height. The east B,which is the one next to it,that's a little
further away,I am very comfortable with 65 feet on that. And,by the way,these are all zoned,and it would
be 10 more feet for actual;65 feet for that one.
On the IC parcel,I have to agree that 75 feet,especially since it's tucked away down closer to the
sewer plant and off of Immokalee Road,I think that is doable.
The setbacks,along Immokalee Road a minimum of 50 feet but stepped,but instead of a one-to-one,
the step would be a three-to-one,and that would be along both frontages on Immokalee Road.
Frontages on Goodlette Road,a minimum of 50 feet,but it will be stepped again. Above 50 feet it's
two-to-one. And I think that's as best of a compromise as I can come up with in listening to everything I've
heard today. I'm sure trying to seek the thoughts of this Planning Commission on that.
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I like those numbers.That seems like it's reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any other suggestions?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So Immokalee Road,that's--so they could have a 50-foot building.
They could start with--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could have a 60-foot building,but at 50 feet back,if they go up to 60
feet,the top 10 feet was another 30-foot back. So the height wouldn't be--it would reduce the canyon impact
that I've heard as a concern. It would be an architectural improvement than a block,and it would force some
architectural improvements.So I think there's some pluses there.
I do agree it's a good location for a hotel having had to use that facility at the hospital myself. So I
know that when people come into town,it would be a handy place for people to use,and plus you've got
needs within the PUD with some of Arthrex,probably,or convention or who knows what.
So,anyway,that's what was the reasoning behind my issue. And I know that not everybody may like
it,but that's the best I could come up with today. If there's--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The actual height is 70 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten feet above each one of the--60 would be 70,65 would be 75,and 75
would be 85.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Eighty-five down below.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now,as it stands right now,the 50 feet has no cap on actual. So the
actual could be 15, 10,25 feet if they could come up with something they wanted on top of a building. Top
Hat. I was thinking of the car dealership ahead of us,so--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: A-frame.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway,Rich,I don't--I really don't know what that does for you,but
that's--
MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I ask for a clarification on the height--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR.YOVANOVICH: --and the setbacks?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming the setbacks were being measured from the zoned height?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. They always are.
MR.YOVANOVICH: I know. I just wanted to make sure that I understood it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No,they always are.
MR.YOVANOVICH: And the general public--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know of a time that we haven't done it that way.
Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'd second a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,someone's got to make one.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll make a motion.
Page 76 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brougham,you make a motion. Is it consistent with the--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That it include the stipulations that you listed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My motion is to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assume that,yeah. Motion made to approve by Commissioner Brougham,
seconded by Commissioner Klein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8-0.
I thank you all. We had a long day,and I appreciate your patience today. And we'll move on.
And with this,let's take a 10-minute break for the Planning Commission. We'll come back and try to
wrap up at 10 after four.
(A brief recess was had.)
(Commissioner Midney has left for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Ray.
We're back from our break,and we're going to try to finish up as quickly as we possibly can.It's been
a long day.
***And I had not been on this board when this issue of 10B first came up. And I looked at it,and I
thought this is--these were done in'04,'05,'06,'07. What in the world are we doing with them now?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. We have been directed by the Board of County
Commissioners to address what we call staff clarifications. These are memorandums generated by past
zoning directors over the years that staff still utilizes and helps explain how certain code provisions--or the
intent of certain code provisions. They don't change the meaning.They're not stealth amendments or,as Brad
used to say,the stealth code,but they are published online,and they could be viewed from our website.
But the Board of County Commissioners wanted us to go through them all,take out the ones that
have been superseded by other code amendments or subsequent staff clarifications.
So part of the vetting process that we're doing now,getting rid of all the one that have been
superseded or withdrawn,and then bring to the Planning Commission for your review and comment to see if
you have questions concerning any of these staff clarifications,and then we will bring them to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,Ray,some of these are nine years old.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect that when they were done,they were done for a purpose,
which means after you got them done,somebody approved something that reacted to these.
Now, if we're here reviewing them after the fact,and we decide we don't like the way you wrote
them,what do you plan to do,go out and tear everything down?
MR.BELLOWS: No. It would be an LDC amendment to change the code.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: To change these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but I thought the process was that if you have a code that you have
Page 77 of 84
January 17,2013
to clarify like this,the next time the LDC amendment process comes through,these get caught up in the
clarification.
MR.BELLOWS: Some have;some haven't. The main purpose is we have people who work the
front desk,and they get asked a hundred questions,the phone calls come flying in. They're generally the
newer staff,and they don't have the history. It's easier for them to be able to--instead of tracking down me
all the time,if they could look at a staff clarification book and find the answer themselves or help figure out
the answer themselves in order to explain certain code provisions to the public. That's all this thing is for,to
help explain how things work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're going to have to--if it goes into an LDC amendment,
wouldn't that come before us for review—
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and at that point we'd have them analyze it?
MR.BELLOWS: If a code provision was so poorly written,definitely it's an LDC amendment.But
a lot of times it's not that it's poorly written;it's just to help explain things to a new staff person.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what is it that you're expecting from us for reaction to these six
today,to--that they should move forward into formalization in LDC amendment language,because then it
gets reviewed by the various boards as it should? I mean,I'm not reviewing this as though it's LDC language.
It isn't.
MR. BELLOWS: No. These are just basically staff memos that the Board of County
Commissioners wanted us to bring to you and to them. This wasn't my idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'm just trying to understand what we're supposed to do,because
it's so many years after the fact--
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that it's just confusing.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is confusing.
MR.BELLOWS: They may be issued years ago in some cases,and some are recently done. We did
one last year. I believe I wrote one last year. And Mr.Bosi may be at a point to write one soon. I don't
know. Here's--let Mike explain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi,Mike.
MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,interim planning director.
I think that's what it is is simply how those policies have been implemented or instructions on how to
implement the policy. I think the action,if any,that we would seek from the Planning Commission would
be,if you would identify one that would seem to need further modifications to the Land Development Code
for clarity in terms of how it should be implemented,maybe you would make those suggestion to us.
If--the review of them,basically,you agree with how the instructions are to how they should be
implemented,then I think you'd just acknowledge that and accept how the implementation of that policy has
been applied by county staff as provided by the clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I mean,from my perspective,any of these that had to be issued for a
clarification,if it isn't clear,you should take a look at the LDC to make sure we can make it clearer.
And I didn't evaluate these as though they were LDC language,because they certainly are not.
MR.BOSI: Well,I mean--and a good example is how you measure setbacks from a cul-de-sac
utilizing the cord method. I mean,most people--you might think it's clear. Most people would probably
read that and say,you know what,I have no idea how to implement that policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: And I don't think we could provide,you know,a Land Development Code regulation
that would have that step-by-step process in it. Maybe we could. But I think that provides an example of
how some policies do need a little bit more explanation for how they will be--how they will be applied.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate you filling me in,because I had no idea. And this is the first
time I've seen these after being gone,so I didn't know what they were here for. Does anybody--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane.
Page 78 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER EBERT: You won't believe this,Mark. Yesterday I called--
MR.BELLOWS: I answered.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: --Ray Bellows,and he answered his phone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that is rare.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That is rare. But I want to let you know I was looking at these. I
spent so much time,believe it or not,on these,and there does need to be--I would like to see them bring
LDC Section 4.02.O1.D back. I just--it needs to be brought up to date. I spent so much time on it. And I
talked to someone who has knowledge on this,and they said it's very confusing from a perspective.
And then the other one was Attachment 4,which is calculating for parking for clubhouses. And
there are reasons for that. I spent a lot of time with Ray on that one also. They're talking about--here's the
problem with the clubhouse thing,and I'm seeing it with different ones. You know,there are--a lot of them
are in PUDs in closed--in PUDs.
And all of a sudden,over the years now,the golf courses aren't going like they used to,so now
they're trying to sell the golf courses,and they're bringing in the public to use these,so parking is different.
And a lot of them rent out their clubhouse. And I even talked to Ray,and he said,yeah,it probably should be
looked at again.
So these are a couple that I'm going--I'd really like to see them rewritten. I don't know if you want
to do it--well,you know,because you're bringing new ones forward.
MR.BELLOWS: What I was thinking is,if you have questions about any of these staff
interpretation or clarifications,that you think the--that particular code provision needs work,I could
schedule something with our LDC amendment coordinator to start logging it or flagging it,and we can work
it out with staff,and then if it does turn out that we need to amend it,we will bring it forward.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,yeah. Seriously,I was spending a lot of time on this yesterday.
And Ray was kind enough to call me back on them,a couple of them. He tried to get some clarifications,and
then he sent me something. And that's my view on these;they do need some work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the staff clarification have an appeal period like an 0I or anything
else?
MR.BELLOWS: These are just memorandums to staff from the director,so it's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Informational only?
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So--the reason I'm asking is,maybe the way to approach these is
that in the future as you issue these,you copy the Planning Commissioners with them so that at our next
meeting when they're relevant,we can talk about them.
MR.BELLOWS: Yes,and that's a good point. I believe it was about a year ago,or maybe a little bit
more,we had similar discussion;we put them on our website.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR.BELLOWS: And I think because of that it triggered a comment from a county commissioner,
which resulted in us trying to go through them,vet them,and then bring them through the Planning
Commission back to the board.
And I think one of the benefits of doing this is to get input from the Planning Commission and,like
Commissioner Ebert,if you think something is still not really well written or clear or the standards aren't
appropriate anymore,we can start looking at that as a next round of our LDC amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the Board of County Commissioners actually was involved in this?
MR.BELLOWS: They asked for these things to be brought this way.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it must be confusing to them.
CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: I don't know how they--I don't know under what circumstances they were
brought into it,so I don't know,so--
Anybody else have any questions,comments,or concerns?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Did they bring them up so that they could use these?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have been using them.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know,but for more than just on the website? I mean to--
Page 79 of 84
January 17,2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the recommendation,or what the staffs seeking,is to--our
recommendation on whether or not we should--these should be moved into LDC amendments;is that a fair
--what is it you're looking for?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're just accepting these clarifications.
MR.BELLOWS: Well,the first step is to accept them if you think they are appropriate and pull
them out if you think they're not appropriate or request that they--that provision be amended in the Land
Development Code. But if you don't think--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We could accept them,but we want the--some looked at.
MR.BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that they can be used as a clarification for anybody,any time?
MR.BELLOWS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And they've been--
MR.BELLOWS: Not only does--staff might have a question about a provision,the general public
has questions about things,or the consultants. They have access to these clarifications online and,you know,
it may help them if they search the web for their answers before they call staff for answers to their questions.
So the usefulness of the staff clarification was it helps people find things out on their own before they
have to call the director.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? If not--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. My main was one--there was only two in here where I really had
--and the first one was--and it's only because I'm thinking of where I live. And at the time it--you know,
with this elevated pad for the air conditioners. And then I brought back to Ray--I brought back,what about
pool equipment. But here it says--she said,I'm limiting the extent of the encroachment as long as it
maintains the required separation distance between structures. Some structures are 5-foot setbacks,so you've
got a 10-foot. But what can you put in that 10-foot,you know? And that was the confusing part because,all
of a sudden--I'm just thinking of people--in fact,one is my house. And I have pool equipment here,and
right across--and we have 10 feet. I have pool equipment here,and the person across from us,the other
homeowner--which was four years later--has theirs. You can't hardly get between it.
And we have a preserve behind us. And I called Ray and I says,do we have a fire problem,you
know. So this is where,you're right,I would really like this--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean,it doesn't matter--I don't have any issue with any of them,
only because--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You've been here so long.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I'm not in a position where Pm going to question them at this late date.It
doesn't seem productive to me,but I don't mind reviewing them and saying,I'm fine with whatever staff feels
that they want to do with them to move them on. That's up to staff. But I'm not--if there's other concerns
from this board,then you'll have to respond to those.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's what we did with the last batch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We basically accepted the fact these are internal staff memos of
clarification to assist in people picking up in the phone and so forth. And if they have reviewed it and said,
this is what we're instructing our people to tell people with questions,then it's good enough for us.
But I like Diane's suggestion,and maybe Mark's,that you know what all these are. You've got a list
of all these clarifications. You also should be able to come back at some point and say,here's the staff
clarifications that we would recommend that we go into that particular LDC section and make a change,and
here's a schedule for that and so forth.
MR.BELLOWS: Definitely,we could do that.And,also,if the Planning Commission sees items
that they would like to have clarified through an amendment process or--you know,we'll be glad to do that.
I think--if Commissioner Ebert would like to address a couple of these things in more detail,she can come
over,and we'll work on them with her.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,at this point,because of the dating of them,I think if we just
Page 80 of 84
January 17,2013
accept them for informational purposes--
MR.BELLOWS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --then that's fine. That's as far as it will go. And Commissioner Ebert can
talk with you further. And if you guys find some need to revise something,then you can bring it back
forward.
MR.BELLOWS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that,is there a motion to--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --accept these for informational purposes?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Brougham, seconded by Mr.Vonier.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 7-0. Let the record show,by the way,Mr.Midney left a
little bit earlier.
***Next item up today is a status on the settlement agreement for the Husseys. They went into shade
session. And I don't know who's going to talk to us from there.
David?
MR.WEEKS: David Weeks,again,the comprehensive planning section.
You were provided a memo. The only correction I would make is I notice the date says November 9,
2013,and that should be January.
Other than that,I think it speaks for itself.Basically,your job is put on hold. No review of the
so-called GMP amendment component of the proposed settlement agreement. Likewise,the board has
directed staff not to do any further review.And we're all in a holding pattern right now.
The--it's gone back from--it got pulled into a public venue. And my understanding is it is now
back into the private confidentiality venue,which means it's strictly the County Attorney's Office and the
plaintiffs. Staffs involvement is only to the extent that the County Attorney's Office contacts us and says,
please look at this settlement agreement and provide your comments back to that office.
And that's where we're at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David,thank you.
Anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not on that particular issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you.
***Then the last item up for today is,Mr.Brougham,you added the delivery of meeting materials.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah,just very briefly.
I think this jumped out at me over the last month because we haven't had a meeting. And I wasn't
quite sure for a while how many items were going to be on our agenda for today. It looked,a month ago,like
we were going to have five,six,seven,eight items.
And it occurred to me that in the past I've asked,and subsequently received,some materials from a
petitioner with the caveat that the staff report--staff analysis and staff report was not yet completed.
Page 81 of 84
January 17,2013
And I'm just wondering if there's a way that we could,as petition--petitions become final,I'll put it
in those words--I don't know the exact legalities. But as the petitioner has advanced all the materials he's
going to advance,and you're busily over here doing an analysis and so forth,is there any way that we could,
perhaps,get that material earlier?
Because this wasn't too bad for today. There were only--there were only two. But you take a
Thursday to a Thursday,or a Friday to a Thursday,and considering that a lot of these attorneys want to meet
with you or you meet with them,we've got time to drive out for staff and so forth,it becomes sometimes very
cumbersome,you know,to absorb all this in one session.
I mean,I'd be willing to come up and pick up some of this stuff if it could be made available.
MR.BELLOWS: Yes,I think that's a great idea. And we've started to try to address that issue. I've
put together a list of items scheduled for the next three or four Planning Commission meetings. These are
required to be logged in a computer tracking database. When a planner gets to a point of finalizing their
review and they project when that's going to be advertised and scheduled for a public hearing,we can
generate a list. It gives the title of the petition. And we go out about six months on these or five months. So
I can provide you with these on a weekly basis and--
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can we access that material?
MR.BELLOWS: We'll look at putting it online,too. If that's--probably might be an easier way.At
least you'll know what items are scheduled. And if you want to contact the planner,the planner's name is on
there,and then they'll furnish you whatever information you want. So you can get months--a head start on
this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to caution is that when I read the packet,because it's
a--I mean,because it's the packet,I go through and I annotate every single item in the packet. I follow it up,
and I tab it,I'm ready for them.
If you start issuing multiple versions,then I'm really--my--personally,don't give them to me,
because I cannot redo that--I cannot re-read it to see what changes you made from the prior version or
double-checking everything.
So for me that would be a real concern.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would agree with that,Mark. And my--I would not like to
receive any packet of material from a petitioner that was subject to further revision by the petitioner. Having
said that,acknowledging that the staff report may be absent from the material.
No,I don't want any material that's in flux,that's not been formally accepted,tied down.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Classic example of that was Creekside,because Collier's contacted
me many weeks ago,and I got the information early from the petitioner.
MR.BELLOWS: It all changed.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Any similarity was purely coincidental. So your point is well taken.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,maybe,Phil,what we really need to do is give staff some time,
whether it be a month or whatever,take a look at the process that leads us to our packet,provide us that
process so we can sit down and understand it in a discussion with staff at a meeting that's not too jammed,
like today,and kind of troubleshoot it with you. Say,okay,here's why you can only give it to us on a
Thursday before the meeting.
Then if we see avenues in there that might work better for us,it will give us an opportunity to
comment on them.
Right now I think it would be hard for any of us to sit down and know exactly what the process is
until we get that packet.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No,that's fine. I'm just looking--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that work?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --where appropriate,you know,that we can have early access
to,if we want to. I don't think it should be imposed on any commissioner. But if we want early access to the
material that's tied up--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --then at least provide it.
Page 82 of 84
January 17,2013
COMMISSIONER VONIER: But three working days for our packet is not enough.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know,by issuing the schedule like you're suggesting will help
out a lot because I can get 75 percent of the material just from the name of the package,because it's just a
matter of running your Laserfiche search through the Clerk's Office and doing title work on it. So I can do
that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just saying.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are some of us that can't. And to be honest with you,I have
talked to Ray about the same thing that Phil talked about. Have I not?
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's where he came up with this list. I said,can we see some of
this--what's coming up? And so he said,yes,they have been kind enough to do this. I said to Ray--long
time ago I said,Ray,do you mind if I come in? I like to read it,set it down,think about it,and go back to it.
And you're right,when you get it on a Friday and you're meeting the following Thursday,that really isn't
enough time.
And I'm thinking about the big cases. But if we can--even if they're smaller. It was nice getting this
and taking the time--there was really only two of them plus that other little one that caused more confusion.
It is better for me if we could have it,even if--rather than on Friday,if we could get Tuesday,you know,
Tuesday--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why don't we let staff come back with a rundown,and then we'll
troubleshoot it at a meeting when we have more time in the future.
MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. I'll discuss with Mike Bosi and the planners during our next meeting.We'll
come up with some ideas and bring something back to you.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. We've got public comments,and David's sitting there for some
reason.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: My--for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've got public comments? Why didn't you put it under--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. It--well,I have been asked--and I know there's some--they're
in the growth management on the ALFs. We have a ton of them,and they are in PUDs--most of them,I
believe,are in PUDs,but maybe you can tell me,are there some just separate land?
I would like a map. I would like the ones that--where the zoning and the growth management have
them together--have them together where it's been done already. If we could know where this is done,
David.
And I know that Michele has done a fabulous job so far. If we can just kind of complete this.
MR.WEEKS: So you don't want me. You want Michele,actually?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,but you're the head of the department,so if you could please let
this person know. I mean,she has started out,because she just was doing one. And I had not seen--other
than what she had done,I had not seen something like that. And I have been asked that we just get all of
them so the county knows and we know how many have been approved already.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David,if you were to put together a map of CCRCs or ALFs of that type of
nature,both proposed and built,then that,I think,would satisfy the issue.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think there's any rush on that. But when staff gets--all the
extra time staff has,just fit that into one of your schedules.
MR. WEEKS: List of approved;that means the zoning has been approved,whether it's a conditional
use,whether it's a PUD,whatever means.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then be able to tell us which ones have been built.
Page 83 of 84
January 17,2013
MR.WEEKS: And built.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you can sort that with your PUD list that you've got,so that
might help.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect. That's what we're looking for. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,Melissa,did you have something?
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,motion to adjourn.Seconded?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KEENE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 4:35 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lui1, 0)7N----
I STRAIN'
TRAIN,CHAIRMAN
A HEST
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on " 2
2 d` 112 ,as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES,INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 84 of 84