CCPC Minutes 03/21/2013 RMarch 21, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, March 21, 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:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
William H. Vonier
Paul Midney
Karen Homiak
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
Phillip Brougham
ABSENT: Melissa Keene
Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office
Tom Eastman, School District
Page 1 of 85
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2013,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION
OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO
HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA
PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE
CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 7, 2013, February 21, 2013
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUDZA- PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 04 -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 removing approximately
16 acres from the Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a RPUD zoning district to a RPUD zoning
district for a project known as the Palermo Cove RPUD by revising project development standards, adding
deviations, adopting a new conceptual master plan, revising developer commitments and reducing the
permitted number of dwelling units from 564 to 237 on property located north of Wolfe Road and west
of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 115± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Numbers 2005 -34 and 2006 -30, the
former Palermo Cove RPUD; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP,
Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD)
B. PUDZA- PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2007 -46, as amended, the Wolf Creek Residential
Planned Unit Development by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 671 to 754; by
amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5± acres of
land from RMF -6(4) Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek RPUD and by changing the zoning
classification of an additional 16± acres from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD; by revising the
development standards; by adding Exhibit A -1, the amended Master Plan for parcels IA through 3A; by
adding Exhibit "D ", Private Road Cross - Section for Parcels IA through 3A; by adding Table II,
Development Standards for Parcels IA through 3A; and by adding deviations and revising developer
commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862)
approximately one -half mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 189± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance Number
2007 -03, the Scenic Woods Rezone; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP,
Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA- PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD)
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. 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
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, March 21st meeting
of the Collier County Planning Commission.
Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Can the secretary please do the roll call?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern (sic) is absent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's out of town. She called me and said she'd be out of town today.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSOINER 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 STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Addenda to the agenda. We have two regular hearings, and we have some old business, staff
clarifications, and I'd like to add to old business the Affordable Housing Committee discussion.
Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I'd like to add an agenda -- an item to the agenda at the
end, please, for petition submission and validation process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Petition submission and what is it -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And validation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that something we -- what kind of petition, Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, Planning Commission, any kind of petition.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In other words, old business.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: PUD, PUDA, conditional use, all of the above.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then I won't need to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's none else, we'll move into Planning Commission absences.
The next meeting that we have would be April 4th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here for
the April 4th meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we have a quorum.
We have two sets of minutes that were provided electronically. We'll start with the first one. Does
anybody have any changes or corrections to the February 7, 2013, minutes?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Brougham.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
Page 2 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carves 7 -0.
The second set is February 21, 2013. Are there any corrections?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- Ms. Homiak again, motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0.
Ray, do we have any BCC report?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 12th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD
amendment for Creekside. That was approved unanimously subject to CCPC conditions. And there were
some additional changes made during the BCC meeting primarily dealing with increasing the setback from
50 feet to 75 feet. And that was also involving building height. If the one use exceeded 50 feet, then they --
for the ALF, then they would go to the 75 -foot setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: And the Top Hat PUD amendment was also approved 5 -0 subject to CCPC
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is no chairman's report. And we don't have any
consent - agenda items for this meeting. So we'll move right into the advertised public hearings.
We have two hearings for a joint effort. They're kind of married together, so we'll discuss them both
simultaneously and then have presentation simultaneously for both, and then we'll vote on each separately.
** *The first one is PUDZA- PL20120000680, Palmero Cove PUD, and the second one is
PUDZ- A- PL20120000650, Wolf Creek PUD.
Alt those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures. We'll start with Mr. Vonier.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Talked to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold.
Page 3 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I spoke to Wayne Arnold and staff.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Yovanovich yesterday; I spoke to him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. With that we'll move into the presentation by the applicant.
And, Rich, I'm assuming you're going to handle both in your presentation; we can do this concurrently?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. We planned on kind of taking you through how this is, essentially,
one project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to suggest to the Planning Commission, too, is after the
presentation, we normally have our questions. I'd like to do first the general questions, and then when we get
into the PUD, to take it a page at a time because there are changes by staff and by the county attorney on
various points, and I want to make sure we get them all in as we move forward to it.
So when we get to the PUD, we'll just go a couple pages or one page at a time until we have all the
corrections made that need to be made. Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the
petitioner.
With me are Barry Ernst and Clark Learning from WCI Communities. I don't see -- is Shawn here
yet? Shawn -- Shawn Martin's here who represents the Waterman that owns property; Wayne Arnold and
Mike Delate from Grady Minor & Associates to answer any questions you may have; and Marco Espinar to
answer any environmental questions you may have on this project.
I'm going to go over a few brief, kind of, legal- related issues, and then Wayne has a presentation that
we did at the NIM to kind of show how the two projects work together or the amendments to the two PUDs
work together, and then Wayne's going to get up and take you through that, and then we can address any
questions you may have regarding what we're trying to do.
Essentially, you have two petitions in front of you. The first is to amend the Wolf Creek PUD, and
that's the PUD that currently has Black Bear Ridge in it -- I think it's called Portofino Falls is the
condominium project -- and then the back three parcels that was going to be a single- family subdivision in it.
We're adding 21 acres to it and the corresponding density for that of, basically, 84 units or 83 units
are being added to the Wolf Creek PUD.
The second petition is to amend the Palermo Cove PUD to delete 16 acres, which is being added to
the Wolf Creek PUD, and to reduce the density from the current 524 units to 237 units.
So the net effect of these two amendments is to reduce the density that was originally in the Wolf
Creek PUD and the Palermo Cove PUD from 1,195 units to 991 units. So the net effect is to reduce density
by 204 units.
Now, some of you asked me why we're doing it this way instead of simply taking the acreage out of
Wolf Creek and adding it to the Palermo Cove PUD, because it certainly would be suppler to do it that way.
Unfortunately, since Wolf Creek is already partially developed, the native preservation areas were basically
identified based upon the original acreage of the PUD and so was the density allocations.
So if we were to take that acreage out of Wolf Creek and put it into Palermo Cove, it throws the
native preservation calculation out of sync and also the density calculation. Because the portion that was left
within Wolf Creek was going to be developed at less than four units per acre, there would be higher — there
are densities namely in the Portofino Falls, I think is the name of the condo project. It had a higher density.
So if we took that acreage out there would be a resulting density of greater than four units per acre, which
would be a Comp Plan violation.
So the way to make this one project work, which is basically a 400 -unit single - family or an attached
single- family product work, we have to amend both PUDs to make that work. And Wayne will go through
some of the deviations to explain how that works together.
One of the other changes that we're making to the project is the timing of the construction of Pristine
Drive. And if I can -- and I lost my technical assistant here.
What I'm attempting to put on the visualizer is the master plan for the existing Wolf Creek PUD.
Page 4 of 85
March 21, 2013
And if I can, Pristine Drive is this road right here. It runs in a north/south direction, and this is -- am I going
the right way? Yeah. Wolfe Road runs in an east/west direction.
Ultimately, the county will have, I'll call it a loop road for better -- I don't know another way to say it.
Wolfe Road will connect to Pristine Drive, and you'll have a road that helps you to avoid the intersection of
951 -- I'm sorry -- Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
There's also another loop road, as you get closer to the shopping center, that also allows you to do
that, so there's kind of a double -loop road system that is going to be in place longer term.
In -- and I hate to go backwards, but to put how the provisions got in there regarding the construction
of Pristine Drive, I think we have to go backwards in time a little bit.
When the original Wolf Creek PUD was approved in 2003, there was no timing required for the
construction of Pristine Drive. It would get built as development occurred within the Wolf Creek PUD.
And what that means is, when we basically got ready to develop these back three parcels, Pristine
Drive at that time was the access to those three parcels. So Pristine Drive would get built when those three
parcels were being developed.
In 2007 we were doing an amendment to the PUD to add what's commonly known as the Medeiros
(phonetic) piece. It was kind of a hole in the doughnut. And this is the Medeiros piece. It was not part of the
original PUD because it wasn't owned by the owners of the property that were working together to develop
the Wolf Creek PUD.
Eventually, the Medeiros parcel was acquired by Prime Home Builders or one of their entities with
the intent that it would be added to their condominium project which is, basically, initially these two pieces,
they bought the Medeiros piece, and then they bought a portion of this parcel right here as well.
In 2007 when we were adding the Medeiros piece to the project, the developer of Palermo Cove
came on the scene -- and where's Clark -- and asked that we include a condition that Pristine Drive be built by
a certain date to provide access up to what was the Palen-no Cove project. The reason that was important to
Palermo Cove is at the time 951 had not yet been expanded, and their access to their project was Wolfe Road.
So if they were to have access to Wolfe Road, there wasn't sufficient capacity on Wolfe Road for that
project. So in order for that project to move forward in 2007 when things were still good, they needed access
down to Vanderbilt Beach Road, because Vanderbilt Beach Road had been expanded at that time and had
capacity for that project.
So in 2007 a condition was added to the Wolf Creek PUD that Pristine Drive be completed by a
certain time period. And I think we were supposed to start within a year of the original -- of the 2007 PUD
amendment.
If you continue forward in the history of the Wolf Creek/Palermo Cove projects, in approximately
2009 there was a -- staff contacted the developers of Wolf Creek and basically said, we're going to stop
issuing building permits within the Wolf Creek PUD because the road has not yet been constructed as
required under the then existing PUD in 2007.
In 2009, the extension of Pristine Drive was really no longer needed for Palermo Cove because 951
had been expanded, so there was sufficient capacity for the Palen-no project to build Wolf Creek as they
originally intended as their access, and that the developers of Wolf Creek would eventually extend Pristine to
connect to the end of Wolfe Road when that project was moving forward.
One of the hang -ups at that time in '09 was that the county did not own the right -of -way to construct
Pristine Drive as a public road. There were private easements in place for Pristine Drive to be built as a
private road but not as a public road for most of the roadway system. So we could not fulfill the condition to
build Pristine Drive all the way up to Wolfe Road in 2009 because the county didn't have the right -of -way.
There was a title glitch on the right -of -way that the county was working through with the developer
of the condominium project in order to get the necessary right -of -way.
So the developers of Black Bear Ridge went to the county and said, hang on, you can't -- we have a
platted subdivision, lots have been sold, people have bought these lots, you. can't now tell them that they can't
build a house on the lot they bought because a road hasn't been constructed when the person who was
supposed to construct the road couldn't control their own destiny.
The county really needed the right -of -way in order for that road to be built. Plus, the necessity of
Page 5 of 85
March 21, 2013
that road had kind of gone away, the necessity that goes all the way up to Wolfe Road. Like I said, 951 had
been expanded, so traffic from Palermo Cove could now go onto 951.
As development occurred, you know, the back subdivision, the three lots I showed, wasn't going to
happen anytime soon, at that time in 2009, let's build that road when that subdivision is necessary. So what
you have on the visualizer are the two conditions that were included into the PUD in 2009, and you'll notice
that the necessity to build Wolfe Road had now some timing issues related to it versus a date certain. It was
when -- as development were to occur in the future.
So now -- we're coming forward now with a project that is smaller in scale than what was originally
anticipated when the two projects were being processed zoning -wise separately. You have, you know, the
Palermo Cove project that's lesser in density, you have the Wolf Creek PUD that increases a little bit in
density, but overall the density in the area goes down.
So we started the amendment process, and at the time we started the amendment process, the county
still did not have clean title to Pristine Drive. So we had originally proposed a condition that would say -- we
have access for our project, as Wayne will show you, off of Wolfe Road.
We had originally proposed a condition that said we will either build Pristine Drive or bond the cost
of building Pristine Drive at the time we hit the hundred and -- we can get a 100 CO's within the portion of
the project that's within Wolf Creek. And we either have to build the road before we'll get the 101st, or we'll
bond it if you don't have the necessary right -of -way. So that was the original stipulation we had included.
We have been provided copies that the county recorded the necessary deeds and corrective
instruments, I believe, in December of '12, showing that the county now has the necessary right -of -way.
So we've deleted the bonding requirement at the 100th CO, and now we have a condition that we will
build Pristine Drive at the time we hit the 100th -- we can't have the 101st CO until Pristine Drive is in place
and constructed.
Now, you've received some correspondence regarding a cost - sharing agreement that is of record
amongst the various developers of the Wolf Creek project. That agreement is a valid agreement, it is in place
and provides the owner -- and in that agreement it's referred to as Parcel 4. And let me show you what Parcel
4 in the agreement is.
Parcel 4 in the agreement is, essentially, this piece right here, Prime, where one of its entities owns
the southern portion of this piece. The northern portion of this piece is part of what we're here to discuss
today. That agreement allows the owner of Parcel 4 in the agreement to construct Pristine Drive when they
need it.
So the Prime Home Builders has the ability to build Pristine Drive up to where it needs Pristine Drive
to go. And if they decide to go first, which they certainly have the right and they have the legal ability to do,
then the developer, the current property owner, or -- and WCI, if they ultimately buy the property, will have
the obligation to fund its share of that road as covered in the cost - sharing agreement. And the current
developer and WCI are fully prepared to make those payments should Prime Home Builders decide to go first
and extend that road.
It's our opinion that the reduction in the project density, the converting from a multifamily to a
single- family project, a 400 -unit project, accessing Wolfe Road to 951 works from a transportation
standpoint, and I believe your staff agrees, or else they would have never agreed to the condition regarding
the timing of Pristine Drive connecting all the way up to Wolfe Road.
And as you'll see some language in there, it says we have to -- where Wolfe Road ends today -- and I
think most of you or some of you have at least been out there -- I'm sorry, Pristine Drive ends today -- we will
create a stabilized base all the way up to wherever Wolfe Road ends when we build Wolfe Road in order to
get any CO's in the project at all. There will be a stabilized base there for people to travel back and forth.
The revision to the PUD that we're requesting regarding the timing of the construction of Pristine in
no way changes the private rights in that cost - sharing agreement and in no way harms the developer of the
condominium project because they have the right to build that road earlier if they want to, and my clients
have the obligation to pay that cost of the road.
So they're not being asked to pay any more than is under the cost - sharing agreement, and in that
cost - sharing agreement -- and I could put it on the visualizer if you -all want to go through it -- does not have a
Page 6 of 85
March 21, 2013
time certain by which Pristine Drive, where it currently ends, has to be constructed all the way up to Wolfe
Road. What that cost - sharing agreement does provide to all developers in that is the control of their own
destiny, which is they can build that road when they want to or need it. We don't need it until we hit the 101st
CO.
So we're asking to allow us to extend Pristine from where it currently ends to what will be the end of
Wolfe Road at the time we hit the 101 st CO.
So I think those are the legal - related issues that I wanted to address up front in response to some
emails that I know you -all have received, and then I'll have Wayne take you through the revisions to the
master plan. He's got some really good graphics that show how this all works together.
And with that, unless you have any questions with me regarding those -- my initial comments, I'll --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any --
MR. YOVANOVICH: --move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- general questions of Richard at this point?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. It's just very confusing when you're going back and forth on these.
He thinks its simple, but it's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I do. rm sure that you're involving the cost - sharing agreement, not
Wayne, so I'll ask you the questions I have from that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know it's not part of this board's enforcement ability; that's a private
agreement between you and the parties involved. But, for clarification, you said something that I wanted
clarification on.
You said that WCI -- I shouldn't -- the new entity, whatever it is --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would fund their share of Segment 2 when Pristine builders (sic), who
own the southern half, or whatever entity owns the southern half of 4, funds their share.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that right or not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I'm saying is, it can go one of two ways. If WCI hits the trigger
to extend Pristine from the current tenninus of Pristine, they'll build it all and then seek reimbursement from
Portofino. They'll seek reimbursement like the agreement provides.
If Portofino needs it sooner than our hitting the trigger, Portofino has the ability to extend Pristine,
and WCI, if they end up buying the property or the current property owner, will fund their share of the road,
so that out -of- pocket -wise if Portofino decides to build the road themselves, they're in the same financial
position than they would have been had they built the road first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And my purpose is to understand the timing, and so that's why I'm
hying to understand how you would fund it.
If Portofino or Prime were to decide to go ahead in, say, two years and they put their money up that
they're required to put up pursuant to your private agreement to build that road, does that mean in two years
then WCI would join and put their partnership share of that up?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you determine what the monetary value is for the Prime
share since 3 is not needed to be contributed for, only the south half of 4? So you're what, 20 percent of 80
percent or of a 100 percent? Something like that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm trying to get you to a number, so if --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is the agreement addresses the percentages as to
who builds Segment 2 as referred to in the agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those -- and then there is a subsequent -- I think, although I haven't seen a
signed amendment to the cost - sharing agreement -- when this parcel, which I mentioned is Parcel 4 in the
cost - sharing agreement -- when it was divided, there was a subsequent amendment to the cost - sharing
Page 7 of 85
March 21, 2013
agreement allocating the construction cost of this portion of the road, and that's a 20 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, that portion goes all the way down to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Up to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it goes farther south. D — or Section D, which was the end of Segment
1 stopped down there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and goes up tp here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it's that full Segment 2 that you're talking about, D through F.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would -- if the agreement says it's 20 percent Prime, 80 percent WCI,
that's the split.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as soon as Prime were to then put up their 20 percent, you would be
obligated to build the rest of the road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'd put our money in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They would build it, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I mean -- so the road would be built?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the road's trigger is either the 101 st certificate from you guys so that you
build it, or Prime puts up their piece and then all that gets funded -- the balance of it gets funded somehow,
and it gets built that way?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's two triggers that could do the road, actually.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They can build it anytime they want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One's by private agreement, and one's by public document.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Theoretically, they can go out the day after -- you know, they can go out
today and build it and then the owner of those parcels would be obligated to fund their share.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is the same kind of cost - sharing arrangement that I noticed in the
agreement on Parcel 1, different parcels involved, but Segment 1. Did that work out? I mean, the road's in,
apparently?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The road is in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the first segment, roughly. I can't tell you exactly where it ends.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It ends right where that arrow is between the two parcel lines.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This one here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's -- no, the next one up. That's D. A through D is where the first
segment ends.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The way the agreement originally worked was an entity called Buckstone
was obligated to design, permit, and construct the road, and there was a cost sharing of -- basically, the owner
of these two pieces paid half, the owner of these two pieces paid the other half of the road.
So Buckstone built the road. I know the owner of these two pieces fully funded their share of the
road and actually more than their share. I'm not certain that the owner of these two pieces has fully paid for
the cost of the construction of the first segment, but that doesn't matter because it got built under the
cost - sharing agreement, and it's a private agreement, and the payment issues are private. But it didn't -- the
fact that there wasn't -- there may be payment issues didn't stop the road from getting built under the
cost - sharing agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Pm just trying to understand what opportunities there are for
the public to see that road built sooner than later with the time frames that have been suggested in the PUD.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, there are some problems here with their proposal to change the
existing N and O, because as you all know, there's a significant number of other property owners that are not
joined in this petition, and we now have one of the property owners that's objecting to changes.
Page 8 of 85
March 21, 2013
Now, N and O, N provides that there'll be no further certificates of occupancy or development orders
for existing SDPs or plats within this PUD until that individual property owner conveys all the right -of -way.
The current status -- I've spoken to the acquisition specialist -- is all right -of -way is conveyed at this
point in time except for the Wolf Creek holdings. Okay. So as of 2012, all the right -of -way was conveyed
except for Rich's client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. So we still are missing pieces of right -of -way for Pristine
Drive?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. And I can put the map up, if you'd like, that she provided to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's up here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Segment 2.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But we do have all right -of -way except for the Wolf Creek Holdings
property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why is that being held up?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it will be part of the plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did you get the balance needed -- well, we don't have -- so it's my
understanding that Pristine Drive is -- previously I thought it was all acquired, right -of -way -wise, and
designed, and the only thing it needed was a permit. Is that -- I mean, Nick was supposed to be here.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Not the whole way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I called him yesterday, and he said he'd be here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Say that one more time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to find out from staff if all of Pristine Drive is ready to go. It's my
understanding there's completed construction drawings, and they're just waiting for pen-nit and submission.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Mr. Delate can answer that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the portion that isn't there today as far as right -of -way goes is north of
Wolfe Road, is my understanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So that's -- its beyond Segment 2?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's my understanding; 1 could be wrong. But it's going to be part of the
that plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is anybody from staff here familiar with this? Because I -- the record
that I read, mostly it was Nick that was involved in this. And so I -- when I talked with him yesterday, he
said he would be here today.
MR. DELATE: I think I can address some of the historic record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you're not the same as staff, though. You might have a bias in
this.
MR. JARVI: I did talk to Nick this morning, and he's caught up with the county manager, but he is
on his way. So if you can defer the question, he'll be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we'll do. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Heidi.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as she finishes here.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Is that upside down?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: This is the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not on mike. There you go.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This is the segment right here that Pm told is missing. This is the map that
I was provided by the Transportation Acquisition Department this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's the portion that's getting curved so it's getting — actually, it's
getting vacated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But leave that back on here.
Heidi, can you -- the curve is at the very top northeastern corner of Parcel 5, which is up in the far
Page 9 of 85
March 21, 2013
right -hand corner. That's -- she indicated, I think, more than that. Can you be more explicit with the --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the part on the map that we don't have is right here, but I am told
there is some right -of -way that's supposed to be vacated that's in the works. So I do believe that's correct that
it will curve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will curve, I know -- yeah.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My knowledge is limited. I'm just, you know, reflecting what was told to
me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Diane had a question of you, Heidi, while you're there.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi, why was there a glitch? It goes all the way back. Well, what
was the county glitch going back?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can't answer that question.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They didn't follow through -- well, I mean, something had to happen
where there --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have no personal knowledge, so I really --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the history -- the history that Pve read on it was -- and there's a
chronographic or -- yeah -- a calendar of events that's 11 pages long that starts ui '07 as to the submittals made
for the various pieces of right -of -way for that road. And while the right -of -way itself was, I guess, sent to the
county for acceptance, the pieces, the title work wasn't completed, and there was a couple of other errors.
There were errors on warranty deeds, there were errors in notary public -- notaries' signatures, and some of
the witnesses weren't filled in. There were entities that signed that, according to public record, weren't the
right entities for the project.
So there's a series of issues that occurred from 2007. So for quite a few years, staff was trying to get
the paperwork corrected, from what I could tell in the record I read, as to why they didn't have the
right -of -ways like they were supposed to have within the one year that it was supposed to have been provided
within the'07 amendment.
So -- and had this all happened within that one year, then Pm -- we would have probably been under
construction right now, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that's part of where the issue lies. And I now believe staff in
2012 got everything they needed for some of those segments in question, and right now we're finding out that
north piece isn't provided.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, that's correct. The last segment that they were having trouble
with was the -- I believe the Portofino property, and that was received in 2012 in a form that was acceptable
to clear title and record.
I just wanted to comment, though, on the second commitment, because the second commitment in O
says, no further SDPs or plats shall be approved. So if the language is not changed, then no further plats or
SDPs would be approved on this project and no certificates of occupancy issued with new site development
plans or plats until Pristine Drive from its current terminus to Wolfe Road is substantially complete.
So, you know, you can't tweak one without the other. And I don't know whether the objector has an
issue with that second commitment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the issue that it boils down to from your perspective, Heidi, and
at some point today we'll need a reading from you on it, can we legally proceed to amend a PUD if not all the
property owners that are part of some of the benefits of the changes that are being made are participating?
You can answer that later if you want, but I mean, at some point we'll need to know that, because we
have to proceed one way or the other.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, it's a Catch 22 because, apparently, the county, because of the
difficulties in obtaining the right -of -way, didn't hold some of the developers to this commitment. But if it
stays as-is, then we would have to enforce that commitment.
And there are some people that are not here today that you know, would be affected by that. Either
way there's going to be people that are affected --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were a series of --
Page 10 of 85
March 21, 2013
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- by those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- requests for legal services by Laurie Beard to your department -- not you.
I think Steve Williams may have been in charge at the tune -- specifically trying to find out how to move
forward with this project. I don't have necessarily the responses from your department, but I did see them in
the county's files over at developmental services.
So -- and I know you weren't involved, which is putting us at a little bit of a loss today to understand
how to fill in the blanks. But before this is over, I want to make sure when we hear all the testimony, that we
have a legal basis to proceed based on the number of people that are participating in this PUD.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. It also did appear to me in reading the cost - sharing agreement that
the obligation for that next segment, Segment 2, is Wolf Creek of Naples and Portofino Falls Building, Inc.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But Portofino Falls Building, Inc., i believe, is only required to
participate to the extent of their involvement in Parcel 4, because Parcel 3's participation was the requirement
to provide the right -of -way, and that took an 80 -foot swath of right -of -way off of Bear Creek and moved it
onto Parcel 3.
So -- and I think they exchanged it out for that -- they exchanged the cost out for that right -of -way.
So that leaves a percentage of Parcel 4 which -- the reason I was asking Richard about it is because it
becomes a small percentage in the overall road program, because the bulk of it will have to be paid by
somebody else.
So the trigger becomes, if Portofino's willing to put their percentage up for the south half of 4, then
the whole thing could possibly get built, from what I understand.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. I think once you hear further testimony, then when you're ready to
readdress those issues, I can provide my recommendation at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll have a break in between then, so that will give more time as well.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Keep in mind, as we're going through this process of amending a PUD,
there's NIMs and notices that go to property owners, and everybody in the PUD was advised of the NIM,
given an opportunity to speak. I could tell you that I have spoken to the current developer of Black Bear
Ridge; they're not here to object. The residents in Black Bear Ridge received notices of the NIM. We're
actually reducing density, so I think they've seen that as a fair thing. Nobody's current access is being
changed by the request.
And you have to put in context how we got there on that request in the first place, and it was because
of the last link. We didn't have all of the right -of -way from one of the participants who's now trying to
impose that same condition on us, and that condition became a condition because they didn't provide all of
the necessary right -of -way to the county's satisfaction.
So what we're simply requesting -- and we think you legally can do this -- they're here to voice their
objection to the timing. If the Planning Commission and the board want to change the timing of that
provision, I think you're certainly legally allowed to do that, and they have the ability under the cost - sharing
agreement to build the road when they need it with the lion's share of the cost being that of WCI if they
bought the property, and that's a nonissue. That money will be there.
So with that, unless there's further questions regarding the road, I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I have another question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The provisions of, I think it's N and O previously, or O and N, provided
within one year, this is to be provided. I understand the confusion with the piece in front of Parcel 3 and the
title problems there that had caused that to extend beyond the year. Why are the parcels that your client's
involved with extended beyond the year?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The platting process -- all of this was being dedicated as part of the plat. The
plat was submitted -- Mike can tell you -- years ago, and it is being submitted as part of this project, being
resubmitted as part of this project.
Page 11 of 85
March 21, 2013
So the right -of -way is all being taken care of through that mechanism, recognizing that you couldn't
develop it anyway until a plat was approved, and the plans, the construction plans which included Pristine
Drive as part of that plat were approved. So it was a -- it was tied to the mechanism of platting versus a
separate deed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't believe it was tied that way from the time. It just said one
year.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't care if it took you 10 years to get a plat. Within one year we
should have right -of -way for that whole segment. That's what Pm getting at, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did the latitude come to say, well, because we've decided to provide
that right -of -way piece by this method, it's unending as how much time we generally get, because that isn't an
option staff should have provided to you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, remember the hammer. The hammer to any developer, including the
fact that Portofmo didn't convey -- and, Mr. Strain, the title glitch isn't related to the Medeiros piece. The title
glitch was related to the first segment of the road from -- the constructed portion of the road, but we tried to
dedicate it to the county so the county can take over the existing portion of Pristine. That was Issue 1, and
then the Medeiros piece.
And all I could tell you is the intent always was to deal with this through the plat. It didn't get done.
The plat's in process to make it happen. And if you want a separate deed today, we can do that, but the intent
was to just deal with it with a plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have done a metes and bounds deed pretty easy --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and provided it within the time frame allowed by the PUD, and you
would have met the intent of the PUD then. That's all I'm getting at, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, I don't know who's in charge of this; there is nobody in this room
from the county staff that has a history on this issue. Ive read the correspondence between staff and the
various applicants, and none of those people are here. Can you get somebody here that can address the
historical issues involved in this project? I mean, is that possible?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll email --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We shouldn't be shooting in the dark on this.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll email the county engineer and John Houldsworth to see if they could send
somebody over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I know Nick's got a history. And yesterday when I spoke to him,
he was going to be here. I didn't know -- he probably didn't know he was going to be tied up this morning.
But I would like to understand why and how we got to where we are today without this being provided to the
county when the county had a one -year time frame in which it was supposed to be in our hands, no if, ands,
or buts. That's what's in the document. So why are we here today with this issue?
And I'd just like to understand for the record why we got here, not from the applicant, because that is
a little -- may be a different twist than what the county staff would tell us.
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, county transportation planning manager.
I've emailed Nick, and if you want at a break I'll go -- or if you want me to do it now, I'll go see if I
can roust him out of the County Manager's Office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing is, this -- yesterday I realized how complex this was
getting, and I started seeing some of the history and the back - and -forths between everybody, and I thought,
you know what, somebody better be here who has any history. And I know you didn't, Reed. You're on here
fairly new. None of the rest of you were involved in the documents I saw, but yet nobody is here who was.
So we have lack of history as to why we have a PUD that was more or less violated, not addressed. And if
there's a reason for it, I'd like to hear it, and I'd like the record to be clean regarding that.
MR. JARVI: I'll see if I can find him.
Page 12 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful.
MR. JARVI: He's supposed to be at the County Manager's Office. I'll be back shortly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Reed. Well, there's not much for you to do until -- at this point
anyway.
Anybody -- and, Rich, I have a lot of general questions to walk through, but I'll wait until Wayne's
presentation is done. It may help resolve some of them, and then we'll just move into this issue when Nick
gets back, and then back to the county attorney after staffs presentation, okay?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And we're going to go through the PUD page by page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not yet. Wayne's going to make a presentation, then we're going to go
through the PUD.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I ask, this is a public road, correct, Pristine Drive?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not yet, and that's another clarification from Nick, because there was some
confusion over whether the word "may" or "shall" be in there in regards to acceptance of this road.
Rich just said something I want Nick to verify in regards to acceptance of the first segment to make
sure that is a county segment. That would then lead more validity to that, it "shall" be continuously a county
road rather than "may," but all those issues, I'd like to have someone who's got some history on this project,
go over it with us.
And either Laurie or Nick or somebody else i that department who was involved in it needs to be
able to explain it a little to us today.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Did each person who bought these separate parcels -- and I'm
just going to say Black Bear Ridge -- did they give their 30 feet? Was that given?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The Segment 1,1 understand, was provided. Is that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Eventually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Eventually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Segment 1 is done. Segment 2 is not complete, from what we heard today,
okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The portion on the subdivision is part of a plat, and the -- a separate
metes and bounds legal description has not yet been conveyed for that portion of Segment 2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get to the new changes to N and O or O and N -- that's
assuming we get to them -- that language is going to have to be scrutinized a lot more closely than the
previous, because if the belief was it doesn't matter until it's platted, I don't see -- I don't think that was
disclosed clearly when the original document was written.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think at this point we know what the metes and bounds is. Now that
we know the curve of the road, we can certainly fix that and record the deed tomorrow if you needed us to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I jut think within the right -- whatever time frame's approved when
we get there.
Okay. Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold, professional planner with Q
Grady Minor & Associates.
What I thought I would do -- we are sort of blending two PUDs here together for one unified
development, and I think it was a little confusing early on for staff. I think they've clearly grasped where
we're headed, and I think some of the exhibits that we've put together for our neighborhood meeting, I think,
put it in context for the residents that came to our meeting, and they, too, understand what we were trying to
do which, in essence, was to have one developer develop all of Palermo Cove and a portion of Wolf Creek.
So what I thought I'd do is just walk you through a series of exhibits to try to make sure we all
understand how this fits together and then describe how we're trying to develop development standards to
allow one developer to develop about 400 units within two PUDs.
Page 13 of 85
March 21, 2013
So with that I'll --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, at some point in your presentation, if you walk us through the
deviations as well --
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- besides the PUD language, because I'm sure there's going to be questions
on the deviations, and that might help clear some of them up.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, look who's here.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. One of the things -- on the visualizer, what I've done is I've, on an aerial,
just to put it in context, we have the Palermo Cove PUD that I've outlined in yellow -- that's the existing
approved master plan -- and in blue you have the approved master plan for the Wolf Creek PUD.
And as Rich said, it encompasses the developed portions of Portofino Falls and Black Bear Ridge
subdivisions, which you can see on the aerial below the shading. But that's how they look today, and that's
the context in which we started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, Wayne, when you finish your presentation, before we get
into the specifics of the planning, I'll probably ask Nick to then address the issues that were previously
discussed. I'm sure Reed's probably filling him in on the road segment so we can get that cleared up as best
we can here today.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: When you look at what we're trying to do, as Rich described, we're taking some
acreage out of Palermo Cove and we're also adding a parcel known as the McDaniel parcel to the Wolf
Creek. That's the resulting PUD boundaries that you have.
So you can see that in the orange that I've shown is the new Wolf Creek boundary. The green is the
new Palermo Cove boundary. And the portions that are in orange -- I should say the orange are the portions
that will be owned and controlled by WCI and developed concurrently with the Palermo Cove PUD.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, the bottom right -hand corner that has that
commercial piece, isn't that part of the Wolf Creek PUD?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Parcel -- I thought it was Parcel 10.
MR. ARNOLD: It may have been part of the cost -share agreement, but I'm not sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Mr. Strain, Parcel 10 on this exhibit --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is this piece right here.
MR. ARNOLD: That was the Carolina Village.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Were you talking about this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I was talking about Carolina Village. Is that part of the PUD?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not part of the PUD, but it is part of the cost - sharing agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So one of the other exhibits we showed at the NIM was this. It's kind of a color
version of our master plans blended together that shows the portion of Wolf Creek. They have a black line
that shows you the separation between the Wolf Creek PUD and the Palermo Cove PUD and how they relate
to each other. And one of the deviations -- and I'll get into it shortly -- was the deviation to provide a buffer
between the two.
And you can see that for a large portion of our common boundary it goes down a road. It goes across
a preserve, and it goes between two lots. So the interface, really, was meant to be a road. We didn't want lots
overhanging two PUD boundaries. We wanted it to be clean so that we could keep that separation intact for
the PUD purposes, but for purposes of developing one master plan. That's how they look together. So you
would have one common entrance off of Wolfe Road, gated community, separate from the balance of Wolf
Creek.
Page 14 of 85
March 21, 2013
But, of course, they're linked through the Pristine connection which, instead of it coming to a T
intersection here, we've shown it as more of a sweeping curve, which would perfect a loop road system that,
obviously, staff has been trying to develop for some time.
That's kind of a hand - rendered version, but you can see how we have one community that will be
developed over a portion of two PUDs. There's about 400 total units when you look at the reduction between
the Palermo Cove PUD and between the allocation agreement, plus the units that we're bringing in from the
new 21 plus -or -minus acres coming into this PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said -- how many units did you say?
MR. ARNOLD: About 400 total is our maximum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So what we did, we asked for several deviations to allow us to develop over a
common PUD boundary. One of those being the buffer that I mentioned, which I'll go through. There were
also other -- a few other deviations. And maybe it's appropriate that I maybe stop and ask, does everyone
kind of understand how these two pieces fit together? If not I can maybe go through some other exhibits to
explain that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions that -- just clarification. You're increasing the
density in the Wolf Creek PUD.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are existing construction in the Wolf Creek PUD residences, platted
lots. Are you -- I believe one of the changes that I saw, you're going to limit that increase in density to just
the parcels that are being incorporated with the Palermo Cove PUD; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. One of the -- and that's a later revision that we've been
word smithing with the County Attorney's Office that I think we finalized yesterday or the day before, and I
have some copies of that language. When we try to go page by page, I'll show you what I think the county
has accepted as legally sufficient language, and then we can debate whether or not it meets Planning
Commission standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't trying to increase the
intensity around existing residences.
MR. ARNOLD: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't sound like it.
MR. ARNOLD: And I think, too, Mr. Strain, one of the things I'd point out on the original master
plan for Wolf Creek, this northern portion was indicated as being single - family. And, of course, if you look
at our development standards for the new master plan area and the development standards for this portion of
Wolf Creek and all of Palermo Cove, we're asking for only single- family product types. No multifamily
would be permitted under the development scenario we're presenting today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, maybe it's appropriate that I go through deviations at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. ARNOLD: I think Rich did a good general overview. I think we all understand we're adding
acreage, adding density to one; we're substracting acreage, taking away density from the other. Access
primarily is going to be to Wolf Creek for this project with a future connection to Pristine. And not to belabor
that point, but I think as Rich mentioned, certainly lessening the density to now having a 951 and Vanderbilt
Beach Road that are both constructed and complete, it kind of changes the game with regard to going back
five years ago when these conditions were first talked about.
Anyway, let me go through the deviations, if I can, briefly. And I think we're generally in agreement
with staff on their deviations and recommendations, but I do --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like --
MR. ARNOLD: -- need some clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to ask staff to do -- and I don't think the county attorney had any issues
with deviations. But as we go through this, I'd like to get -- because there's -- it's such a complicated way it's
being presented. We have deviations in Palermo, and we have deviations in Wolf Creek. I'm assuming we'll
Page 15 of 85
March 21, 2013
walk through both sections of deviations now. And if there's any disagreement with what you say, or
questions, we ask about it now, and we get -- we'll get a consensus from the board on each deviation so we
don't have to go back through it at the time we try to recommend anything.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would prefer, because there are two different -- and I was going back
and forth on this, because they asked for one in one, and I'm going, well, did they ask for that in that one? I
would like, when we get to the Palermo Cove one, to kind of go through those deviations. It would be
simpler.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first one up, and then we'll go through the Wolf Creek one.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it might be easier to start with Palermo. I think that's the first staff report in
your packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, yeah. That's what we just said.
MR. ARNOLD: So I think if we just start with our Deviation 1, which is the one I already
mentioned, and it's to have a buffer between the two PUDs. Normally you would have a 10 -foot buffer
between two single- family PUDs. We've asked for an exception to provide no buffer between the interface
between the Palermo Cove PUD and the Wolf Creek PUD.
And I think -- and in this case, obviously, you normally don't have two developers that are
developing a portion of one PUD and all of another one. But in this case I don't think it makes sense for us to
try to provide a buffer. And I think had we been able to deal with these as two non - developed PUDs, I don't
think we would be having this discussion because there wouldn't be a buffer between our common
development interface anyway, and then we could provide a perimeter PUD buffer.
But in this particular case, I don't think its warranted. I think you'll see that where we've tried to
place that line largely runs down a middle of a road in this case and along a preserve, and then there's a small
interface of two residential units. But I don't believe a preserve requirement is intact.
Now, in this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish each Deviation 1. Are you done with Deviation I?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I only wanted to say that the staff recommendation for the Palermo deviation,
I believe, is a little differently than they addressed Wolf Creek.
And I don't want to confuse the point, but if I jump back, staff had made a recommendation in the
staff report that what we do is utilize all the trees that would have been required in the buffer to be planted in
the Wolf Creek right -of -way.
Now, we have an interface that's just under a mile long, and it equates to a lot of trees, I understand.
I just don't know that it's practical to think that we would plant all of those in Wolf Creek right -of -way and,
ultimately, that becomes a county road. I'm not sure the county necessarily wants the maintenance
responsibility for 400 trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment or a question on that. It looks like where staffs
recommendation is to create trees -- if the deviation stands on its own and it's granted as you propose it I
don't quite understand why we would then make it conditional upon taking the same number of trees and
putting them somewhere on the property. I just don't -- maybe Kay can address it, but I don't understand that
rationale at all.
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. I missed the first part of your statement.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If we agree with the deviation as proposed, okay, which is not to
provide a buffer between adjacent lots, if you will, what's the rationale that you're recommending that the
trees that would have been provided be planted somewhere? It's like we're imposing a condition that seems
kind of unreasonable to -- where would we put the trees?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The easiest way is, what's the basis in the Land Development Code that
allowed you to tell the applicant he had to move those trees to somewhere else on the property?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couldn't have said it better myself
MS. DESELEM: It's more an idea with the scope of the landscape buffering and to keep the area
Page 16 of 85
March 21, 2013
green and to keep trees so that you don't lose every little bit of green that you have with development;
however, Wayne and I have chatted. And he brings up a good point about the fact that if the county takes
over the right -of -way, the county won't want to maintain the trees.
And I think there's a possibility that the trees could be relocated on site and be utilized within the
actual project itself rather than just the idea that you would have that mile of trees along that roadway and just
to lose them. It just -- or the mile of trees along the lot lines, and to lose those. But it's not a hard and fast
thing. This is something that came up out of the SDP review.
The petitioner came in for their SDP on part of this project, and the discussion came from that. It was
kind of a last- minute thing that we added in. But we'd hate to see the loss of greenery.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, right now you don't have the greenery.
MS. DESELEM: Right, we do not.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're trying to create greenery.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. Because they would have to create the buffer to separate the projects if the
projects were not developed as one project.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But they are, okay. Thanks.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, I understand your explanation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Deviation 1? Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm going to ask -- in I believe it's Wolf Creek, Kay, where it is a
multifamily on one side and then you go, and that's where you go into the Palermo Cove portion where
they're taking part of Wolf Creek. There is -- you have multifamily here and there -- I would think there
would be a buffer along there.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. If I follow you, this would only be applicable to
those areas where the developer would be simultaneously developing portions of Palermo Cove and Wolf
Creek.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: It wouldn't affect any other boundary in Wolf Creek. If there were something on
those vacant parcels that were later developed that would abut this, they would have to provide the buffer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: That's what the A portion of the deviation is to explain.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay. Because there -- I did notice that there is a change there.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got -- go ahead, Bill.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: If, in fact, the county is worried about greenery and they're going to
own the roads, why don't we just say let the county plant whatever they want to plant, because they're going
to maintain it, and let the developer pay for it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no provisions in the code to put that kind of mitigation on the backs
of any property owner, Bill. I mean, I don't know of any. In fact, Pm a little concerned that staff went as far
as they did to put this kind of demand in for approval of a deviation when there's no, really, code language
that I know of to support it.
Why would we do that? I mean, if you practically look at this to say that they're going to increase
green space -- so the piece of the separation of the PUDs that's through the preserve would have required a
buffer in that preserve? I mean, all the landscaping that this buffer would require somehow now should be on
site to increase green space, but yet if it was one PUD we wouldn't be looking for that.
I just don't see the criteria, Kay. And I think it's concerning, but I do agree there may be a buffer, and
Diane kind of alluded to this, between the split on Parcel 4. You know, you're going to have a dissimilar
product down there, maybe. You know you've got single - family on yours. You know that this is really going
Page 17 of 85
March 21, 2013
to be one PUD even though it's a split, two PUDs. So why don't you consider putting the buffer criteria to the
extent of a normal buffer that would be required between that split line on Parcel 4?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe it's already there, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It doesn't show up on this plan, so --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It doesn't show.
MR. ARNOLD: It doesn't show up on that, but there is a buffer on our southern border. This isn't a
deviation from anything. This is only an internal buffer that we're developing. Where the black line is, in
essence, is where the buffer would normally be, because they're two PUD boundaries. The southern portion
of this project is still within Wolf Creek, and there will be a buffer between future residential tracts in Wolf
Creek.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the future residential tracts that you're putting in and the ones
that they could be putting in to the south could have minimal rear setbacks. So is someone going to leave
buffer space in there? Because I don't see anything on your plan. You're going to -- at some point we need to
say you're going to put a -- whatever width required buffer's going to be there. And if you have that in the
document, when we get to the document, point it out to me.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if you look at our conceptual master plan for the project --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are so many plans on this project.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, we would have to go to the Wolf Creek PUD. And maybe it's better to just
deal with that southern buffer requirement as part of Wolf Creek. But I can assure you we have a buffer to
LDC requirements for that portion abutting our project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarity, before we go to the southern buffer question,
should we reach consensus on the deviation request?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: On one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to finish my questions first.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's okay, because I've got more questions on Deviation 1.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, okay. Super.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see the dotted line that you're using as a separation point?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you get down to Parcel 11, which is where the lake is that has
the 45- degree angle connecting to Wolfe Road, that is a PUD boundary that isn't within the tracts separated
by the two common PUDs.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that piece of the dotted line you're still going to put the buffer in; are you
not?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to make sure that's clarified in the deviation or
however, because when you presented this, I think it was assumed that the dotted line represents where you
wanted the deviation. You don't mean the deviation to apply to that north/south line?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's up against that Comcast site.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. That's adjacent to Comcast east of our lake, and 1 think we'll have
ample room between our lake setback and the property line to put in the appropriate buffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You can dig the lake to whatever width you want. So -- okay.
So the Deviation 1 then, as it stands, is -- I think the consensus from the board is that Item B would
be removed and that you would retain the buffer -- required buffer on that north/south link of the farthest east
dotted line shown on this map. Is that what everybody's looking at?
Page 18 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMIISSIONER VONIER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have anything else they want to throw in?
Okay. So B would be out. We just would substitute different language for that north/south section.
Okay. You want to go to the next one?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. The second deviation was from the sidewalk bike lane pathway
requirement provision that's in your code. And for local streets, it typically requires sidewalks on both sides
of the street.
We talked to staff at length about this particular recommendation, and we started with the sidewalk
on one side of the street throughout. And I think it was Reed Jarvi who rightly pointed out that we have a
primary loop system that more traffic will travel throughout our community, and it made sense to make sure
that that portion of the project would have sidewalks on each side of the road and then the finger streets and
the cul -de -sacs off of that main loop road would have a single five- foot -wide sidewalk on that segment.
We have an exhibit that's in your staff report. In conversations, I know with Mr. Strain, you felt like
that wasn't the most clear exhibit that we could present. And I know that we can either relabel that to make it
very clear where there's a single sidewalk, or we can make the graphics larger to indicate where the dual
sidewalk would be versus the single sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on that graphic you have dark lines which indicate, apparently, where
you intend to put sidewalks. But you have no indication on the graphic that those are -- in fact, the dark lines
represent sidewalks.
So all I'm suggesting is you put an arrow to the dark line saying "sidewalk location" so everybody
reading that plan knows what those dark lines means; otherwise, it appears it could be the outside edge of a
right -of -way or curving or any number of things.
MR. ARNOLD: I understand. I think that can be taken care of with maybe a combination of a
legend and a label to clearly point out where the sidewalks are located on that exhibit, because I think we all
know that as these things get reduced and recopied, they're not always the most legible. So we can, I think,
take care of that graphic pretty easily --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: -- hopefully with a recommendation to come back with that on consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Kay, by the way, we're going to have so many changes as we go
through today. I don't know if we can summarize them all in our stipulations completely as we do. So I'm
hoping you're making good notes.
MS. DESELEM: I'm hoping I am, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions on Deviation No. 2, Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The sidewalk on one side would be applicable only to what I'll
call private roads.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It may be the wrong term.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. No, that's correct. We've distinguished in our cross - sections that
you see -- and Wolfe Road, for instance, is designed to be a public road cross - section. All of our internal
streets are designed to be private street cross - sections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With the clarification on Deviation 2 to clarify E -2 as to what are
sidewalks where the intention is, is that the only concern probably? Other than that we're okay from the
Planning Commission? Anybody have any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No?
Okay. Wayne, you want to go to 3?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Number 3 is the street cross - section, and that is to request to go to a
40 -foot -wide right -of -way for our internal private roads. That's a standard that we've used in other
Page 19 of 85
March 21, 2013
communities. I know that there's concern by maybe some of you that having a 40 -foot right -of -way isn't
wide enough but, in reality, the street that you end up with is this typical local road cross - section of having
10 -foot travel lanes. And what this allows us to do is to have a sidewalk and some of the utility easements
outside the right -of -way but within dedicated easements.
And that has an affect of a couple different things. It allows our lot lines to be located differently, it
allows our setbacks to be measured differently. In the case of sidewalks, we always will have the sidewalks
set back at 23 feet as expressed in our development standard.
But we don't believe that there's an issue with going to 40 feet. We've successfully used it in other
projects, and I know that you've approved it in other projects. I don't think your transportation staff has an
issue with it.
Be happy to have Mike Delate address anything related to it. In fact, I've got a photo of another WCI
community that's been constructed with it. And this happens to show what you end up with on a
40- foot -wide right -of -way where we've got, essentially, the sidewalk that's in an easement. You have the
valley gutter, the strip of grass, the travel lanes, and then on the other side the same.
It's a typical local street. That's what you end up with. It's just how you treat the areas outside the
pavement, whether it's in an easement or a dedicated right -of -way. And I think we all -- we think it doesn't
make a difference in terms of the impact on the traveling public or the community at large.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Deviation 3?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yes; yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I live in a community where they're 45 feet and 40 feet. I talked to
several people on this. About deviations, Mark, Pm almost getting to the point where pretty soon we should
say no to any deviations because of even what he said. The developers have seen it in special situations
where we do so, and now all of a sudden they expect us just to plain give it to them because it was in another
one, and that's getting -- that's starting to bother me.
Originally, county roads are 60 feet for county roads. Then they're saying go to 50 feet for a spine
road, and normally it's 45. In here you checked another road where you say that it's 40, and it's not. It's 45 in
that particular PUD. I checked it. But even for spine roads -- and I understand that there is 20 feet of asphalt
and then the valley gutter. In this you're -- and there's supposed to be 10 foot for utility easements on either
side.
So 25, practically, and the 20 feet is 45. I would think the least we would do is 45. At this point if
you're in a gated community -- and I understand land is expensive -- but they're trying to do less and less.
There are, like, no bike lanes; not necessary. They figure they'll ride on the sidewalks. But if you
have any vehicle, whether it's pool maintenance or any maintenance in the street, I mean, you can't pass. I
mean, the streets are getting so narrow, it's not good.
And I am -- roads are very important to me, believe it or not. And on hnmokalee Road we have
12 -foot lanes. You're going down to 10 here, I understand. And I can tell you somebody said, well, just call
code enforcement if they're parking on the street. Code enforcement would have to be in our community
about eight howl a day. Just to -- just to get by, and they said they're supposed to park in driveways. It
doesn't work that way. If you've got people walking, it's just -- I think 45 should be the least we ever do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, when you talked about the width, you talked about the utility
easements.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how did you come to 45? Were the utility easements included in that
45?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also, you're parking on the streets within a private development,
usually that's controlled by deed restrictions. And I know your community has deed restrictions. All they
would have to do is notify the property owner that they're in violation of a deed restriction. That's not a
code - enforcement issue. That's something you can enforce within your own community. I mean, honestly,
you could, if you're having that kind of problem in Olde Cypress and your deed restrictions prohibit it.
Page 20 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm not the only community that has it. You go -- Mark, you go in
almost any gated community and you have problems moving on the streets with two cars trying to pass.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not doubting. I'm just trying to understand all the directions
you're coming from because this --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm just trying to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is actually wider than what you're requiring. They're saying they're
going to have 40 foot for the right -of -way and 20 more feet for the utility, so they'll be at 60 feet compared to
the 45. They're doing the utilities outside the 40 -foot right -of -way. That's in addition, then, to the width.
So in a Dover -Kohl Character Study that was done for Collier County, one of the things they tried to
encourage is not wide, expansive streets because they reduce the amount of the feeling of a community
neighborhood character.
So if the traffic can safely pass, which is where I was going to go when I ask questions of Reed
concerning this detail, the narrowness of the road, as long as it's a safe standard we -- for a community, it may
be a better feel than a wide road. Because a wide road's going to feel like you're nl more of an urbanized area
that is more commercialized.
On the other hand, Diane, you may want to look at the spine roads being a little wider and the roads
interior to the parcels being at 40 feet, because they're just limited to the amount of traffic they're going to
have; whereas, your main spine roads on this project, if you were to put that master plan back up -- could
someone put that back up.
Now, see the incoming road where you go through your gatehouse down by the rec, and then you've
got a loop road, and off that loop road is connecting all the parcels. Well, that loop road to be a little wider
where it's going to collect all the traffic might be a good thing to request. But the small narrow roads being 40
plus 20 inside the parcels are already pretty good in regards to having the utilities on the outside of the 40
feet.
Wayne?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: What you say is excellent. Why the devil don't we put it in our codes
so we don't have to go through this every time? I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- we should say it and give the developer an option to go to 40 feet
or 50 feet, or we should tell him what he should go do, 40 feet or 50 feet. He can go more at any point in
time, but this would be the minimum. Then we don't have to look at this every time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of projects, though, don't necessarily need this -- will have this kind of
product. And if there's any problems with the codes, it's simply Nick's fault.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Blame it on Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the -- for the record, I was just kidding.
But Bill, I don't disagree with you. Our code could be written a lot better. We have a lot of issues,
and this comes up all the time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know we're frustrated with it. All I'm suggesting is that there may be
reasons why this works on some projects, depending on how they're designed and the character of those
projects. And we may look to where the needed exceptions would be, and that's what I'm suggesting, Wayne,
and we'll take your input on it.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I would suggest, I need the deviation throughout our private street system,
because when you look at the cross - section that's in the Land Development Code for your typical public local
road cross - section, it's 60 feet. It has 10 -foot travel lanes. We're not asking for a deviation from the width of
the pavement or anything like that. You end up with the same thing whether you're in Naples Park or any
other place in unincorporated Collier County where they've built public roads, but you typically find that
you've got a swale system, you don't have a master drainage system where you're containing it with valley
gutters or curb and gutter. So you're putting in a narrow cross - section. You don't need 60 feet of
Page 21 of 85
March 21, 2013
right -of -way.
I'm not asking for a deviation from the travel -lane width. Ten feet is an acceptable standard. It's
throughout the City of Naples, those standard streets, Naples Park, or any other place we've got these larger
older subdivisions. And I think the standard has been shown to work. I don't believe there's a traffic hazard.
I live on a street that has no sidewalks that has two 10 -foot travel lanes. My kids grew up playing in
those streets, I walk my dog in those streets. I know it's a nuisance to have to avoid lawn trucks and things
like that but it is what it is. One more feet of travel lane isn't going to change that situation. It just isn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is your traffic person here?
MR. ARNOLD: We have Jun Banks here, who did our traffic analysis, and Mike Delate's the
engineer of record for the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason that I'd like to ask is, did they take into consideration the
quantity of product that will be contributing to that loop road that's inside your gatehouse?
And, by the way, are you referring -- you're not referring to, obviously, Wolfe Road or Pristine Drive
in regards to this width? It's strictly inside the gatehouse, those roads?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. This is inside the gate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the only concern I have now, and based on Diane's questions,
most certainly, is that loop road. And you've got -- you're going to be feeding that loop road with all the
traffic on the project. And has that volume of traffic been considered in the design for that loop road, and the
fact that Diane has said -- and I -- and it is true that -- when people are doing lawns and driveway work along
that loop road, which you're going to have a row of residential on the inside of that all the way around and on
the outside towards the south, there are going to be a lot of vehicles, maintenance vehicles possibly pulled up
in the street and parked.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'll defer to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the amount of traffic that you've got on that, which is increased over
what's dedicated to the individual cul -de -sacs, I want to make sure that someone believes that's sufficient.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Strain, I can tell you for a local road, which this would be classified as,
your Land Development Code specifies two 10- foot -wide travel lanes. That's in the Land Development
Code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I'm worried about.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fm more concerned with the separation of, say, the sidewalk from the travel
lanes. You get a little more free area for the public to be separated from the traffic. And even if its a few feet
more, that means you're going to have 2 or 3 feet on each side of the road that would separate pedestrians
even further from the traffic on the road.
MR. ARNOLD: Why don't I let Mike Delate try to address that and maybe explain our cross - section
and show you how far the sidewalk's going to be from the travel lane.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know how -- you've got a detail. I've seen it.
MR. DELATE: Good morning. For the record, Mike Delate from Grady Minor Engineers.
Wayne alluded to this picture before. It's a typical WCI community. This one happens to be up in
Lee County. But the ones that we've done here in Collier are pretty typical to this where the sidewalk is
located within the 40 -foot right -of -way, and then they have a 2 -foot grass strip and 10 -foot travel lanes.
However, in the case of this proposed project -- and rll show the cross - section here. You can see it
there on the left side. The sidewalk is going to be 4 feet off the valley gutter rather than 2 feet, which was
shown in that other picture. So there is that additional 2 -foot grass strip there, and that's a pretty common
requirement in Collier County.
We did look at this loop road system and thought about the amount of traffic going through there, but
I think it would still classify as a little private local road, thus the 10 -foot travel lane suffice. And then the
4 -foot grass strip, again, provides a little more comfort feeling for anybody walking along there, combined
with their streetscape program; kind of gives that safety factor and kind of keeps the traffic down.
As well, I've talked to WCI. A lot of their communities they have a master landscape company that
takes care of all the lawns. I don't know if it's necessarily contemplated here, but a lot of their communities
Page 22 of 85
March 21, 2013
do have that, and you do not have a proliferation of maintenance vehicles in there. So that does help quite a
bit.
I mean, I've worked for them for 15, 16 years as a consultant. You drive through their communities,
and rarely do you have that issue of weaving in and out of many maintenance vehicles. So that would help as
well, though it's not necessarily confirmed this site would use it.
But I think, in general, looking at that loop road and providing that little additional bit of buffer there,
that I think helps provide the experience that you anticipate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you -- okay. But that is not a cross - section of the loop road. That's
a cross - section of the internal parcel road. So where is the cross - section of the loop road?
MR. DELATE: It would have the same cross- section except we would have a sidewalk on the other
side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. So how far on the other side would the sidewalk be separated
from the travel lane?
MR. DELATE: Another 4 feet from the back of the curb, just as that; it would just mirror it onto the
other side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've got a sidewalk going I foot into the utility easement
on both sides of the loop road.
MR. DELATE: Correct. We'll have an additional county utility easement where necessary -- we've
spoken to county utilities about that -- wherever there's county utilities. The private utilities are okay with
that. And when we've done the plats before in this regard, the homeowners association's responsible for any
restoration of sidewalks that would be necessary for any utility modifications or maintenance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But I -- when I met with staff, I suggested that we get
confirmation from utilities that details you show here for the gravity sewer and the water main are
acknowledged to be acceptable and from transportation to acknowledge that the cross - section met their
criteria.
And I had heard transportation at the time express the concern that the 1 foot of sidewalk protruding
into the utility easement was something they were concerned about. They were going to look into it.
And Reed's coming up right now, and maybe he'll have an answer for us in that regard.
MR. DELATE: I could address the utility portion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather have staff address it, because they were the ones that were
supposed to contact utilities.
MR. DELATE: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll -- I mean, you're hired by the applicant, so rd rather make sure we
have staff address some of the neutral things.
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, transportation planning manager. I did get it -- or we all did get an email
this morning from Aaron Cromer at utilities who said they reviewed the cross - section; it was acceptable to
them, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. JARVI: So they're okay with that.
From a transportation standpoint, the only thing we would like to just add on the utility easement, to
have a sidewalk easement, because you're encroaching into that easement, too. So we don't have a problem
with the location of the sidewalk, but we need to have the right -- or it needs to be also a sidewalk easement
in there, along with the utilities.
In relation to the distance of the sidewalk from the roads, this is in accordance with the Florida Green
Book, the Minimum Uniform, Minimum Standards, and it's 6 foot for a rural cross - section -- this isn't rural,
but it differentiates between a barrier curb and a non - barrier curb.
So this being a non - barrier curb, it would fall to the rural. And 6 feet is what they suggest. So from
the edge of pavement to the edge of sidewalk is 6 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not from the edge of curb. And, really, if you take a valley
gutter, which is a pretty flat curb --
MR. JARVI: Exactly.
Page 23 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you've got a 12 -foot lane on each side of the -- it's 10 -foot plus two on
each side.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't drive on the valley gutter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you get a truck, you could.
Does the Green Book, in separating the distances for pedestrians from the travel lanes, specify rate of
-- quantity of vehicles on the travel lanes or the rate of intensity of use of the travel lanes? Or do they just say
rural and urban?
MR. JARVI: It really is talking local roads versus collector roads. And these are local roads. And it
really doesn't -- it's really not pedestrians. It's really looking at hazards, because it's hazards for the cars.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR, JARVI: And as much as I don't want to say this, but a pedestrian is not really a hazard for the
cars. But it is 6 feet, is the answer. So if you're 6 feet outside -- they're outside of 6 feet, then it would work
the same way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you feel they could sufficiently fit the 6 feet on the other side because
they'll just duplicate it, and that works?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: So I think from the sidewalk perspective we're okay, with the exception of adding the
sidewalk into the easement, but that's really a platting process for us, so --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And what happens if they need to get into that 1 foot; who pays for
that?
MR. JARVI: Well, this is a local road, so it would be the homeowners association or the --
MR. ARNOLD: Or the development.
MR. JARVI: -- which is going to be in charge of the roads and everything else in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would have to dig up 9 feet before they got to that 1 foot, usually.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, it's not likely that 1 foot of sidewalk will be disturbed that often.
More likely trucks driving over it will break it than anything else.
MR. JARVI: As likely as anything, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on Deviation No. 3 before we take
a break?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the consensus, then, that Deviation 3 with the clarification that we need a
sidewalk easement added to the detail will go forward? That's okay? Any other -- Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is the grass strip 4 feet or 6 feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four feet. The valley gutter's 2 feet, so that's how you get to your 6 -feet
separation. Is that okay?
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: So that's just the next exhibit, right, C2?
CHAT MAN STRAIN: No. The next exhibit is Wolfe Road. That's a different road.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: It's a public road versus --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's a public road versus the -- this is just interior to the project. It
will be private, not maintained by the county.
Anybody else on Deviation 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consensus is then we'll accept it?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break, and we'll come back at 10:40 and
resume at that time. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume with this
quick process. And I apologize ahead of time for the slowness this is taking. I think it's imperative, though,
Page 24 of 85
March 21, 2013
on one this complicated that this board understand every action that's going down so we know appropriately
how to recommend going forward. So I think it's wise to take the additional time.
We're on Deviation 4, Wayne.
MR. ARNOLD: Palermo Cove Deviation 4 was a request to deviate from the maximum cul -de -sac
length of 1,000 feet to permit the one cul -de -sac that we have on the Palermo Cove PUD, which is come in
our entrance, and you go back before the fire station. That cul -de -sac is about 400 feet in length. Your code
maximum says 1,000. It allows the county engineer to grant you an administrative deviation during the plat
process.
So we want to start the plat process in the next -- we started designing the plat and the plans, and we
would like to file them and have some certainty that we don't have to make major changes after we get into
the process. So if we can deal with this at the time of zoning rather than plat, we'd like to do that.
I think one clarification I would make, as we started this process, we talked about a deviation and
how you've dealt with it in the past, and that was to put some sort of stabilized turnaround in a portion of the
cul -de -sac. And I thought we came to an agreement earlier in the process -- and I think Kay will concur --
that we agreed that really maybe what we needed to do was do a better job of signing these cul -de -sacs and
indicate that they're not through streets so that people understood they're not. Because, frankly, if -- when I
look at the standard of a thousand feet -- and we dealt with this for emergency vehicles; it didn't really make
sense because you have to go more than a thousand feet to make a U -turn if you're in an emergency vehicle
going up Livingston Road.
So, I mean, for the fact that it's 1,000 feet, you still go 1,000 feet. If I go 400 more feet, do I need a
turnaround now at 600 feet? It just seems like a standard that doesn't necessarily make sense.
So we -- I think we concurred that we would deal with this through appropriate signage at the
entrance to the cul -de -sac rather than provide for a turnaround midway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Kay, is that consistent with what staff has --
MS. DESELEM: Wayne reminded me that we had this conversation, but I truly don't remember the
conversation, but --
MR. ARNOLD: We had a witness.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah. And I'm not saying that there wasn't one. But that would probably work.
And it would probably effectuate the idea that people would know that you're not going to go in there and be
able to turn around unless you turn around in a driveway.
However, the other thing that we've added about the emergency access, that's been something that
the Planning Commission has historically been asking for, so that's kind of the decision that you might need
to make as the body that's reviewing it. But I think the addition of signage would be a very good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The emergency access as far as that goes, how are you suggesting the
emergency- access language be amended?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Not emergency access. Vehicle turnaround.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: In the last few that we've done, they've asked for that vehicle turnaround.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think the signage works sufficiently. I mean, if you know you're
going into a cul -de -sac, then that's the way it is.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, my thought is that, I mean, block lengths in the community I live in the City
of Naples exceed a thousand feet, and fire and emergency vehicles, they're going to turn around in your
driveway regardless. They're not going to drive to another point that may be 4- or 500 or 600 feet down the
road to make that turnaround. They're not necessarily going to even know it's there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been out in the Estates and looked at the length of our dead -end
streets? They're thousands and thousands of feet.
MR. ARNOLD: That's a good point. With no turnaround at the end of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing but a canal, so -- I mean, I don't have a problem if we take the
word "midway" out, that reference, and put in the added signage to all non - through streets that says "this is
Page 25 of 85
March 21, 2013
not a through street." Does that work for everybody?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Deviation 5.
MR. ARNOLD: Deviation 5 is — deals with our amenity center tract, which is located in brown on
that master plan you see on your visualizer. And we asked for a deviation from the standard code
requirement that tells you for multifamily and single- family communities you do get a reduction in parking.
It acknowledges the fact that people can walk and ride their bikes, et cetera, to the community clubhouse, if
you will. And this is a non -golf course community, obviously.
And what we asked for was a standard which we thought just made it easier to understand how we
applied the parking. And under your current code, you apply parking based on how much covered clubhouse
area you have, and you apply a separate standard to a court, which is, like, three parking spaces per court that
you would provide, whether its a basketball court or a tennis court, and then you provide parking based on
the square footage of your water area of any swimming pool.
And the calculation can get -- not necessarily complex. I mean, it's easy enough math to do, but we
think it generates more parking than is required for one of these type of community facilities. This isn't going
to be the grand clubhouse that you would expect for a golf course community. This is going to be fairly
simple, probably in the range of a 5,000- square -foot clubhouse, probably one court, probably a relatively
small swimming pool.
Looking at other communities around the county and others that WCI has been involved in -- and, in
fact, I probably should have been smarter and just used the standard that we used at Manchester Square,
which is a project that they're just completing over on Livingston Road near Community School.
And on that one the Planning Commission and the board gave us a standard that said, do all your
normal calculations, take your reductions the code gives you, and then do it at 75 percent of that. I just did
the math on this calculation versus what that 75 percent standard that we used at Manchester Square would
be, and Manchester Square's standard would generate one more parking space for our clubhouse than doing it
under the calculation that rve offered, which is just to calculate the square footage based on the clubhouse
only and not get caught up into area of swimming pool or courts.
You know, we just think to apply the normal standard, I end up with, you know, sometimes 40, 50,
60 parking spaces for a clubhouse. And I think when you look at these facilities and how they're used and
how people tend to go there -- now, a lot of our homes will have a swimming pool. It doesn't make sense to
me to provide a separate standard for parking for a swimming pool for the community pool. It's not that it's
open to the public.
So we've offered this because we don't want to put in excess parking for our community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What would strict interpretation of the code result in in terms of
the number of parking spots?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I've made some estimates based on, you know, the clubhouse size. I mean, at
Manchester Square they have a clubhouse that's 2,700 square feet, for instance. And I'm assuming in this
case maybe it's going to be 5,000 square feet, maybe it's 6 -, but -- and either way, if I did the calculation of --
based on clubhouse at one per 200 square feet, which is what the code says I get for a non -golf course
community clubhouse -- so I haven't asked really for a deviation from the standard for the clubhouse. It was
really not to have to add extra parking to take care of the pool and/or basketball court or a tennis court.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've still not got an answer to his question. I'm interested in it,
too. How much parking -- how many parking spaces do you think you're going to need and how many
parking spaces are you asking -- would the code have required for, typically, what you expect to do?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, we think we need in the range of 25 parking spaces for this type of amenity
center. It's on less than 2 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the code would require 50?
MR. ARNOLD: Probably somewhere less than 50, Mr. Strain. I would say it's going to be -- if I
assumed a 5,000- square -foot clubhouse, a reasonable -sized pool and a basketball court, Pm probably going to
approach 40 parking spaces.
Page 26 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you plan to have a restaurant in the clubhouse?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Because that's certainly a traffic -- a parking issue when
you do have the restaurant.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think the -- their marketing division is still refining their ultimate plan for
the amenity package, but I've not seen one that includes a restaurant. It's going to be a fairly basic clubhouse,
small workout facility, medium room, pool, court, that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just -- I'm a bit uncomfortable with your premise here that
assumes that more folks are going to walk than drive. And that may be true depending upon the
demographics of the people buying your house. If they're 30s, 40s, 50s, maybe they're doing a lot of walking.
But if they're 60s and 70s, you know, they're going to be doing driving. And my experience with a lot of
different clubhouses is it's very difficult to find a parking spot.
I mean, I might be more comfortable with somewhere between your 25 and 50, but I'm not
comfortable with a 50 percent reduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a suggestion that may help that then, and it's similar to what I
spoke to you about when I met with you and Richard.
Fifty percent would be paved, and then an additional 25 percent of what you nonnally have would be
required beyond excess parking in a grassed area, somewhere where overflow could be moved to.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think something like that makes sense, only to make sure that if we did
have a special event, we could accommodate some of that parking. It's not obviously, designed to be a grand
clubhouse where people would typically host a wedding or some large event, but not to say that somebody
couldn't host an event there.
So just to make sure I understood your standard, it would be, you get 50 percent of parking for the
clubhouse, and then 25 percent of that for overflow?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, 50 percent is your paved parking spaces required that -- by a
reduction that you're asking for.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty percent of the 100. Then 25 percent of the 100 somewhere on the site
is where you could put overflow parking, like in grassed areas, sinilar to what we do with churches.
MR. ARNOLD: So I end up essentially at 75 percent of the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But only 50 percent paved --
MR. ARNOLD: But only 50 percent paved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — and maintained like a parking lot.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we make that work. And it just -- it really isn't a -- not a matter of
accommodating the parking on site. It's just that your standard generates so much parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I go to -- occasionally I'm asked to attend HOA meetings and things
like that in different communities, and every time I go to one of those meetings, the parking lots are full for
the special events, and they don't have this overflow. They've got calculations for reduced parking, so this
just fixes -- gives an opportunity to keep it off the road so that if Diane were to visit there, she hasn't got to
weave in and out of the trucks parked on the road.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we could certainly live with that standard. So it would be either - -1 mean,
rather than paved -- they may decide that they can pave it at the tine. So I would hate to just say that it's got
to be grassed but maybe we just design --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: An option then.
MR. ARNOLD: -- as an overflow that could be grassed or something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or paved.
MR. ARNOLD: Or paved. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we can live with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the Planning Commission? Anybody object?
Page 27 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: That works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. 6, Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Number 6. This relates to signage, and it's a little confusing, I must admit because
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: For Palermo Cove, Wolfe Road is our primary access. And as you can see from
the aerial -- it's probably the easier way to look at that.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Wayne, do you not have your sheet of deviations that has the text changes
on it that you could put on the overhead?
MR. ARNOLD: I do. I didn't want to show them those text changes until I kind of described the
premise of them. But we had negotiated some revisions with the County Attorney's Office in the last couple
of days that I'm happy to go through. But I was just going to try to describe generally what I'm doing, because
it involves three different components. And I just want to make sure that we all understand what I'm trying to
achieve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't forget before we start commenting on it to tell us what the county
attorney and you have suggested as well, okay?
MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: We have access through Wolfe Road, but our project lies entirely on the north road
where the access would be at Collier Boulevard.
So what we had asked for in the first deviation was to have an off - premise residential sign to allow
us to go to Sonoma Oaks, which is the PUD to our south at our Wolfe Road access. And if we could amend
the Sonoma Oaks PUD to allow an off -site sign for us, that we then would have the ability to have one sign
on the north side of Wolfe Road, as would be typical for us, and another entrance sign on the south side of
Wolfe Road. Because under your LDC, we're entitled to two entry signs at each entrance.
So we're asking for one on each side, would be typical, but we would need a deviation because it's
technically off site, and then we would need to amend the Sonoma Oaks PUD to get that PUD's permission to
have an off -site sign as well. So that's one scenario.
The other scenario that we asked for -- and these are kind of "or" situations. It's not "ands." We're
not trying to end up with a situation where we have a multitude of signs. But I'm going to put up this graphic.
I think it makes it a little bit more clear.
You can -- yeah -- the visual images at the top aren't the clearest on the visualizer, but it shows you
what the Wolfe Road and Collier Boulevard intersection looks like. There's retention ponds that have been
constructed as part of the county improvements to Collier Boulevard. It's a pretty stark intersection. We
want the opportunity to potentially beautify it.
So we don't know that we're ever going to get Sonoma Oaks to sign off on a PUD amendment, so
what we also offered was to have two signs, one at our entrance and potentially -- oops, I'm sorry -- one at our
entrance and potentially one removed from our entrance on Collier Boulevard.
This is Collier Boulevard. What we secondarily had asked for was potentially to have an entrance
sign here and an entrance sign closer to our northern property line that would probably coincide with our turn
lane to come into Wolfe Road. Now, the county staff said, you don't really need that deviation. You're
allowed two signs at each entry, and I said, but my second sign really isn't at the entry. I want to make sure
that when somebody comes along in two years when I'm permitting my sign, that they don't say, Wayne,
that's not at the entry; you need a deviation. Go back and amend your PUD, or go get a variance. So we
asked for that as an alternative.
And then a third alternative that we've asked for was the exhibit that I'm really showing you here,
which is -- it shows you a V sign that's built on a wall to allow us to have a sign that points north and south.
Now, the V sign is permitted under your code as well. The deviation really equates to, in this case, the square
footage from 64 square feet for the sign copy area. We're asking for 80. And we think the 80 feet, one,
Page 28 of 85
March 21, 2013
works in the context of the intersection that we have. It's also very consistent with another sign that we
looked at as kind of a similar situation.
Most of us drive up U.S. 41, and for the Pelican Marsh community that was developed by WCI
communities, they have a V sign that says Pelican Marsh on it at the 99th Street intersection.
The sign's only on the south side of that particular road, but it's a V sign pointing north and south,
and it's about 103 square feet if you measure it by today's code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The square footage. On a V sign, is that total square footage of
both sides of the V combined?
MR. ARNOLD: It's each face of the V.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Each face?
MR. ARNOLD: Each face.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I interject at this point? There's some lack of clarity here,
because under your LDC it says 64 square feet combined sign area, and you have a request for -- from this
applicant, two signs. So it doesn't say it's combined sign area. And then it also allows for a Wolf Creek sign.
So you have a potential of three 80- square -feet signs that have a maximum of 10 feet as currently written.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's part of the clarification I need to bring.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's where -- yeah. I think you needed to finish.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think he's clarified yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think it is, either, but I think we're getting there.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I think --just to sort of bring it all, we understand that the code says 64
square feet. And I think there's some discrepancy from the clear reading of the code and how your sign
permittee (sic) reviews it, because a V sign has a little bit separate description to it, and it talks about each
face being allowed to have the 64 square feet. It's not a combined sign area for a V sign, because it's
considered essentially one sign. It's not two signs. A V sign is a single sign that -- you know, if I had a
monument sign, I'm entitled to 64 square feet per side. It's not 32 square feet per sign area.
So what we've asked for is, essentially, 8 feet by 10 feet worth of sign area, and we think it works at
this intersection. We think it's justified. We have a large road frontage. We have some setbacks because of
the ponds and the sight distance at the intersection.
I think your sign folks are fine with it, and I do think it needs to be clarified that we're not asking for
a whole bunch of signs. In any event, we never get more than two signs in combination. Pm either going to
do one or the other. I just don't know if Sonoma Oaks is going to grant us a PUD amendment, so I want the
scenario where I can have my two alternate signs. In essence, WCI hasn't decided yet if they're going to have
two separate signs along their Collier Boulevard frontage or they're going to have a single V sign at that
Wolfe Road entrance. So I'm trying to ask for these four situations.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Wayne, how would that work then when Wolf Creek gets theirs as well,
and you have one for Palermo and one for Wolf Creek, and then the two signs that are permitted Palermo;
how would you -- how would that work out?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Wolf Creek wasn't really a part of this one, Heidi. And I think that was part
of the confusion. Wolf Creek has a separate sign provision in it that allowed a 64- square -foot sign down at
the intersection of Pristine and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and it allows up to three people to have signage on
that 64- square -foot sign that's existing in the Pristine right -of -way, which is now county right -of -way. We
didn't propose to change that standard.
Because this Wolfe Road entrance is within -- the Wolfe Road entrance is in the Palermo Cove PUD,
that's why we're asking for the deviations as part of Palermo. And then the project right now is being
marketed as Raffia (phonetic).
So that's some of the confusion when you see the sign copy. But I think we can bring some clarity to
what we're asking for. But at the end of the day I'm asking for the ability to have a V sign or two signs,
maximum 80 square feet for sign copy area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
Page 29 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would certainly not vote in favor of that one alternative, which
was going to be dependent upon somebody other than you amending their PUD.
And I think a V sign has more appeal than a sign up the road on Collier and then another sign, you
know, by the entryway.
Why do you need -- why do you need to? Because you want it. Wouldn't it be easier for you just to
stick with a V sign of 64 square foot per side? I mean, couldn't you accommodate everything you need, and
we wouldn't have to get more complicated?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct, except that the way you measure your sign — we believe we're going to go
in, we're going to try to beautify the retention pond, that the county built to be just a functional retention
pond, to make it more of an entry feature to the community.
So from the traveling public's perspective, you would hopefully see a nicer water feature, then our
sign could be part of -- you know, in front of and have the lake as part of a backdrop to our entry, which --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I get that. I'm talking about size.
MR. ARNOLD: No. When you look at the size of the sign copy -- when you really look at the sign
copy area of the 64 square feet, trying to do a nice sign on a wall where we need the additional height, we
think that the increased square footage of 16 square feet makes sense in the context of the intersection that
we're at.
We don't have multiple signage opportunities here. We don't have another entrance somewhere
where we can do it. We're not asking for boundary marker signage.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you would be happy with one V sign of 80 square foot per
side?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was one of our options. We also --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know that was.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we were married to the V sign yet, unless the applicant's going to tell
me that we are. But we were hoping to keep open the option of having still two entry signs but separating
those from the entry and having those on the Collier Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the option you're asking for there would be if you went -- it's
either one V sign of 80 square foot per side --
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMIVIISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- or, optionally, two signs, each of which would not exceed 80
square feet?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And just keep in mind that Deviation No. 6 in the Wolf Creek PUD does
provide for a sign at this location, if they can get the off -site sign as well, for up to 80 square feet.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: How do we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, see, in order for them -- Wolf Creek to do that Sonoma PUD
would have to be modified. If they came in for an amendment and they already had signage that that corner
allowed but they wanted to add signage for this company, then my assumption would be they would be --
have to reduce their signage so that this becomes one of their signs for Sonoma to the length of time that you
may lease that space for.
Just like Terafma or we did up with Longshore Lakes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They leased it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there was a lease area -- there was an area in front of Longshore
Lakes that I think Terafma was using.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was an arrangement they could use it until -- and Longshore Lakes'
PUD allowed it to have -- we worked it out so it all worked. And I think all they're asking is, this doesn't
amend the Sonoma PUD.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It simply says that if Sonoma comes in and wants to amend it to allow this,
then they have a right -- then they -- then their PUD would allow them to do that, because we have an issue
Page 30 of 85
March 21, 2013
with off -site signs. This takes that issue away. There's no question about it.
If they got permission to have an off -site sign on Sonoma, and Sonoma came through the process to
do it, they would be then allowed to do it by their PUD. So it's just a coordination for the two PUDs. It
doesn't give them the sign. It gives them the right to use it if Sonoma amends their PUD, Phil. And then that
-- through that amendment process is where we could then make sure Sonoma doesn't get more signs on that
corner than should be normally allowed. It still would be just one sign.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm still having trouble with the linkage between a potential
future amendment and this deviation. I mean, if they -- depends upon what comes out today. But if they
were pennitted either a V sign or, optionally, two signs and they constructed them and they put them in,
boom.
CHA CVIAN STRAIN: They don't get the Sonoma sign then.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So at some point --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's either /or.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. But where do we reference that in -- I guess we could put
it in the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to finish listening; and let me explain. The V sign, they want
an increased in square footage. The V sign, as an entry monument, is a much preferred way to go. I think
we've all kind of hinted at that.
The Pelican Marsh operation's nice, the V sign looks good, and you can gussy it up with water
features and all that. Two stand -alone signs on each end actually detract from some of the view of the lake,
and they are more of a sign than they are a feature.
So 1 think what we might want to -- and these are all either /or. You either get the V sign or you get
the two signs, or you get one sign in Sonoma Oaks. You don't get a combination of all three of them. You
don't get the whole majority.
Now, it isn't written that way, but I believe that was the intent. And that probably needs to be
cleaned up.
But I think one thing we ought to consider is that on the two signs that go out on 951, if they were to
go that option, not increase the -- allow that to happen if that's one of the options, but not increase in square
footage to discourage that and try to go with the V sign, which is the most encouraging and would be nicest
for the project and nicest for the residents traveling along 951.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're saying, if they go with the V sign option --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- give the 80 square feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If they go with two signs, limit them to 64?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. And then leave the Sonoma ability for them to do it if they get the
Sonoma PUD amended, but -- only because that has been a question in the past. At one time the staff
interpretation was, well, if you're a PUD here, you can't put a sign for your PUD down in that one. And so,
they're just trying to say, if we want to do that, we can as long as that other PUD is amended to do it
appropriately.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree with you.
MR- ARNOLD: So just in summary, 80 square feet if we do a V sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: And 64 square feet if we do a combination of the two signs, whether it's an off -site
sign plus one entry sign or two separate entry signs --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR. ARNOLD: -- at 64? I think we'll make that work. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you understand that?
MS. DESELEM: My only question is what about the height? They had asked --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the next issue we'll discuss. But let's -- I think we got the signs
worked out amongst us. We understand that.
Page 31 of 85
March 21, 2013
You guys -- this whole package has been complicated because of the mixture of the two units. These
-- the only way we understand this is to walk through these separately, so --
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we understood this was going to be complicated and was going to take
some time to walk through them. I mean, I think at the end of the day it makes sense when you look at it as a
unified project. It's just tedious, I understand.
The height issue is one of -- the code right now says if you put a sign on a wall, it's a maximum of 8
feet that you can have the wall height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Above what?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe it says above --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Crown of the road, isn't it, or is it the native -- the underlying --
MR. ARNOLD: It says grade.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember offhand.
MR. ARNOLD: I've got my LDC here, Mr. Strain. I can look but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's important.
MR. ARNOLD: But I would ask you measure it from the fixed point of the grade of the road,
because I know where that is today. I don't know what rm going to do with the land when I reshape the lake.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, may I answer your question on the height?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: 6.06.02(B)(1)(a) says the height shall be measured from the lowest
centerline grade of the nearest public or private right -of -way or easement to the uppermost portion of the sign
structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this case, Ray, would that be Wolfe Road or 951? I would
imagine Wolfe Road. I mean, is that how you guys would look at it or how -- 951 you can even get it higher.
Have you evaluated your request in relationship to the measurement point?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the grades are actually pretty similar at Wolfe Road and Collier Boulevard
after the rebuild.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the roads are already higher than the surrounding property.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why do you need 10 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: Because we think that we're going to end up with an entry feature, and we think
that we would want that wall element to be higher than 8 feet in part. I mean, there's no magic to the number,
Mr. Strain. I just know that the 10 feet, when you look at it -- and I'm probably not the best person. I should
have our designer who is much more attune to the visual aspect of it.
But when you look at the width of the intersection, the size of the intersection, and you start putting
the scale together, we felt we needed an element larger than an 8- foot -high wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to build that V sign on a foundation that was 2 foot
below the surrounding roads and then you asked for 10 feet, okay, that's probably more practical. But if
you're going to mound that up to the height of the lowest point of the road and then go 10 feet above that, I'm
trying to figure out how that relationship fits. I mean, I don't know where the road is versus the surrounding
properties; I don't know how high you're going to put the fill on that site in that location.
Have you got any topos or anything to show us where that -- how that 10 foot's going to relate?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I have our topographic exhibit with me, Mr. Strain. I mean, that may
be --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There should be some basis for -- what's your basis for wanting
it 10 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: The 10 feet is -- we looked at various options in trying to design the concept that
we showed you that -- that. That was the perspective that was in your staff report that we did. We looked at
a variation. We looked at 64- square -feet sign on an 8 -foot- wall. We looked -- when we started really trying
to see what fit for the intersection and look at the visual of what we thought made sense aesthetically --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So where's the 10 feet on that?
MR. ARNOLD: The 10 feet is the top of the wall without the trellis -- or to the trellis.
Page 32 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. So the 10 feet -- yeah. With your pencil, show us where 10
feet hits. Oh, there it is on the right. It's kind of small.
MR. ARNOLD: It's depicted as the -- 10 feet is depicted from what would be the sidewalk to the top
of the trellis on top of the wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your actual height would be 25 or 20 feet, because your architectural
feature, which is really part of your entry monument, goes all the way up twice as high as the sign does.
MR. ARNOLD: If you look at the exhibit, the wall is separate from the trellised entry feature that's
behind it. It doesn't show in that perspective very clearly, but you would have an architectural feature behind
the wall. So the wall structure that supports the sign would be 10 feet tall.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you put the sign back up, please, Wayne?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any limitation on the height of the architectural entrance
features?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Land Development Code doesn't specifically address architectural
features other than an accessory type of structure. And it would be subject to the height limits of the PUD.
The structure is not a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, their PUD -- they have a general clause in their PUD that says in
their development areas they can do all these kind of features, guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, architectural
features and all that.
But if you turn to the development standards table, there's no development standards for those
features. So how do we regulate the height for those features? Is there -- I mean, I can't remember offhand;
do you at all?
MR. BELLOWS: My recollection, in the past week, made them part of the permitted heights of the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, I think, for clarity, those would be considered accessory structures, and
then subject to the accessory structure heights in our PUD -- which we have a zoned height of 25 feet
maximum and 30 feet actual for any accessory structure in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I mean, looking at this sign -- and I know you may build
it differently, but I can begin to -- that's what I had in mind when I asked for why you need the square footage
is it appears to me that you're going to have some sort of a base or some sort of a shrubbery base or
something, at least according to this.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so then -- let's assume that that takes 2 feet, or whatever,
then I can see that you would want the sign to be above the shrubbery or above the low fountain or whatever
that might be.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I don't have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: How tall is the lettering in there?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So, really, it's 160 square feet that they're seeking, because there's two
sides, and each side is going to have 80.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And it's normally 64, correct, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's normally 128, and you're looking for 160 for the V sign?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. We're looking for 80 square feet per side for the V sign.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And 10 foot off the road.
MR. ARNOLD: And 10 -feet height for the wall that it would be on above the grade of the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other three signs that are options would be at 64 and 8 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would encourage you to do the V sign, which is probably the preferred
that everybody's going to want.
Page 33 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we like the design feature that it is. We just - -we're not quite there
yet in their amenity decision making.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that -- I think -- is the board comfortable with that now, the
layout? Kay, are you?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, any other issues you want on this one?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Did you address the height, though?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 10 feet if they do the --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If the V sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the V sign. The rest is all standard, and the copy is all standard. So,
actually, that pulls probably some of the deviations out. But staff can clean all that up by the time -- or you,
the applicant can, by the time it comes back, so --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I think we'll be cleaning up some things. But I think that takes care of the
deviations --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this one?
MR. ARNOLD: -- for Palermo Cove.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree, which means we ought to move to the deviations of Wolf
Creek while we're moving so rapidly on deviations. Actually, some of them are similar to these, so they may
move faster.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I agree. I think we've got some similarity in these. I just need to find my
deviations for Wolf Creek.
Okay. On Page 8 of your staff report, as Kay pointed out to me, is where we start describing the
deviation requests. And the first deviation we requested was Deviation No. 2, and that was the buffer
deviation that we discussed for the Palermo Cove PUD, and that was not provide the buffer between the two
PUDs that we're developing in common. So I don't know that we need to belabor that one. I think the --
hopefully the same recommendation would apply.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you would strike A under staff recommendations, then; is
that where we were on the Palermo Cove?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, B we had made some modifications to that they would -- a boundary
buffer still applies to the east side of Parcel 11.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. But A went away, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think A went away.
MR. BELLOWS: B went away.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: B went away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B went away.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: B went away, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B went away, so you do have changes in this one, Wayne. We would unde
B again, because that's mirroring what we did the first time.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the buffer that still would retain between PUDs is the one on the east
side of Parcel 11 where you have that lake in Comcast.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're onto 3.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Three is the same.
MR. ARNOLD: Number 3, this is the same --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same.
MR. ARNOLD: This is the sidewalk bike lane to allow us to have the same one that we discussed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything we did on the first one, we'll just duplicate on this one.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I think that sounds fine.
Number 4 was the road cross - section for a private road right -of -way, which we discussed in some
detail, I believe, on the last one, assuming that will remain the same recommendation.
Page 34 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This one's written a little differently.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if I didn't point it out, you would.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, you bet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to go?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Where is Nick? This is a local road, correct, Deviation 4?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct, it is. It's for a private internal road system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. It's -- we're about the same.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: It's all the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's just broken up differently. It's the same, Diane. If -- you've got
45 feet, and then you've got 40 and 50, so it is the same.
MR. ARNOLD: I hope it's the same cross - section. It was intended to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is. I was wrong.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's the way it was written.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just scattered differently, that's all. So whatever applied on the Palermo
will apply on this one. The same consensus we had on that would apply to this.
Does anybody have any disagreement with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Deviation 5.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We talked about the cul -de -sac deviation in the first one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR. ARNOLD: This one's a little different because we have a couple different cul-de -sacs shown
on the southern portion of this. Those slightly exceed the 1,000 square feet, you know, by a hundred or so
feet in one and, I think, a couple hundred feet on the other. But it's, in essence, asking for the same thing, and
that's not to provide vehicular turnarounds midway on the block or on the cul -de -sac but to provide the
signage again to indicate, for everybody's benefit, that this is not a through street. And I hope staff is okay
with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they approved it, so -- anybody have any concerns on the Planning
Commission? I think it's treated the same way as we did ul Palermo.
Deviation 6?
MR. ARNOLD: Deviation 6 was added at the request of the County Attorney's Office, I think, just
for consistency. Even though we felt that the deviation for an off -site sign for -- really applied more to
Palermo Cove because it's adjacent to the Palermo Cove portion that we control, out of caution, I think we
added this in the Wolf Creek PUD as well.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's not correct. I didn't request this. I only requested that the
square -foot limitation be removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't doing any consulting work for them?
MR. ARNOLD: Then I was mistaken where the comment came from, but I guess out of an
abundance of caution, to make sure that we knew that we could get potential off -site sign at Wolfe Road --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why would you put a request for sign for Palermo in the Wolfe Road --
Wolf Creek PUD when you already have it in the Palermo PUD, and the property that you have in question is
the Palermo, not Wolf Creek. How does this apply?
MR. ARNOLD: That was the same question I had, and I had mistakenly thought it came from the
County Attorney's Office. But I don't think we need the deviation to apply to Wolf Creek because it wasn't
our intent to put an off -site sign adjacent to that portion of Wolf Creek.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
MR. ARNOLD: So we can delete Deviation No. 6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody comfortable with dropping that deviation?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, delete No. 6.
MR. ARNOLD: That made that easy.
Page 35 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, did you have anything else you want to add?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, no. My comments were only related to the square footage and the
height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you didn't send that to him.
Okay. We're done with deviations. And we now, I guess, will return to the Palermo PUD and see if
you have any presentation issues involving -- is Nick still -- ah. There, he moved his seat.
I suggested that after we finished up with the deviations, we'd get back to the road issue, and --
because Nick's here, and we want to take advantage of him while he's here.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Literally,
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was going to say, how do you mean that?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners,
Commissioner Strain asked -- I can give you a little background if you want and then —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- answer any questions. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had missed the previous conversation, but it was all about the history
of Pristine Drive, how we especially got to where we are today, which is in stark contrast to the PUD that was
approved in -- by the amendment, and then where we need to go with it and things like that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can give you a little history. I'll go back to the original one. I still
have the bruises from when I was here probably seven -- six, seven years ago from the chairman regarding
the construction timing of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard.
The original PUD, as it came forward, there was a lot of concern that those two roads were running --
one was running behind schedule, one was being initiated. Vanderbilt was delayed almost two years, and
Collier Boulevard was being initiated. So there was a lot of concern that these connecting roads had to be in
place. Obviously, we finished those roads, one way ahead of schedule and one way behind.
The amendment to the PUD came forward and basically said, okay, we're not under this crunch
anymore to get these two arterial roads completed, but we still want to make sure that developers are
cooperating properly. And when you have a PUD that has multiple owners, that's always a problem, because
they -- there's a commitment that says the PUD will do this, yet one owner may not participate and the other
owner will.
So we ran into a position where one participant was providing the right -of -way, dedicating as it
needed. One was holding up a little bit. But the one that was participating had a plat in place and the
infrastructure going. And if you had put the restriction no CO's, the one that was cooperating would be
harmed.
So we basically said, okay, we're in no rush to get the road; the roads are done. The people that are
cooperating with the PUD, you can finish out your plat, sell those units, but no more SDPs or plat will be
approved until that connection was done, so that was put into place. And that's been in place until right now.
So that's a little bit of the history of why those restrictions were put in there.
So if you hadn't had a plat in place and hadn't dedicated the right -of -way, you were restricted. If you
had a plat in place and you had participated as you promised, you were allowed to continue that phase and
complete it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So today, if someone doesn't have a previous plat and SDP under the
language of what's in effect today, they can't move forward on new plats and SDPs until Pristine Road is
dedicated and completed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By "completed" meaning construction complete?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right, and that's what it says, construction and completed. That's
the current language as it sits right now.
And, Commissioner Ebert, just a real quick on the cross - section; it comes up a lot. You know,
having a dedicated right -of -way width is misleading because what you can accomplish in a cross - section
could be done many different ways. The developer could put a property line down the middle of the road and
Page 36 of 85
March 21, 2013
do everything by easements, just simply dedicating roadway easement or utility easements.
But your point about the cross - section's important because, really, what do you get as a final product?
And then you also touched on something else. If that product has to be disrupted, who pays for it? Well, on a
private road, it always falls back to the HOA, no matter what. But you don't want your design to be such that
you're causing unnecessary repairs all the time and then damaging the sidewalks or anything else as well, too.
So you do want to look at that design a little bit.
In talking to Reed, I think we're going to work forward and say, your right -of -way widths can be
variable, but your cross - sections should accomplish this, and then we'll list that vet it with the Planning
Commission and community and say, low- volume roads less than 25 should have a sidewalk on one way;
roads that have — you know, main roads should have a sidewalk on both sides, clear zones are this. But those
right -of -way numbers you always hear about, they're very misleading, because they can be conveyed in many
different ways.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. As long as -- Nick, here's -- here is my thought to this, and it's the
way it's worded. I am not an engineer on the road. I had talked to transportation a little bit. And I don't want
to just make it this development, but those people, these developers of taking it for granted that they are going
to get the deviation.
If we did not give it to there, they'd have to change. And they said, well, we can't because we've
already got everything worked out with this one.
So I think -- that's kind of what's getting me. You're just taking for granted you are going to get the
deviation, and that's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's partly our fault, I think, because what you're more concerned
about is the cross - section, not the dedication. And as you started asking your questions, it led to the
cross - section. What is the width? How much setback do we have? You know, is there enough room for a
car to park? And that's got nothing to do with the right -of -way dedication; it really doesn't. It's misleading
when we say we're recommending a 60 -foot right -of -way width, and then we say, with this typical section.
So I really need to say in the LDC we're recommending that you dedicate enough to accomplish this
-- these cross - sections based on the volumes of the roads, and that would probably clear it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That would clear it; it really would help. But it's -- it's that some of the
deviations, like you say, they just take it for granted. Well, we can't because it will -- the property line. I'm
going, you know, what if it was not granted? It's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. I think -- we'll clear that up as part of the next LDC cycle.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So it will be more geared towards the cross - section, not the right -of -way
dedication width, because that's very misleading.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's -- yeah, 20 feet.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
Does that answer your question, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Back to Pristine Road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- Segment 1 is installed. Has it been accepted by the county?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, and I think that's the thing we've said. We won't accept it until it
becomes a public road. it's met the standard, we do our final acceptance package, we send inspectors out.
And then we give them a punch list and say, now, if everything's up to code, we'll take it over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this a road that the county wants to take over?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So its a "shall," not a "may "?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it's a "shall." We will take this road over when it's done, and it's
meant to serve probably seven different developments. And if you looked at the way all the connections
work, I mean, when — if Island Walk and Vanderbilt goes up to 60 -, 70,000 vehicles a day as planned, Island
Walk will not want to drive on Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I think the point is that Sonoma Oaks, Palermo,
Wolf Creek, Black Bear Ridge, Carolina Village, Mission Hills, can all interact without ever going on Collier
Page 37 of 85
March 21, 2013
Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that's our goal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Reed wants to correct something you said.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: His point, we won't accept the road public till its all connected through
when it becomes, you know, paved and accepted that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you familiar with his proposed changes to N and O that are
being -- there's been a slew of them offered up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which ones are you supporting?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're supporting the one that pulls the restrictions off to the times of the
SDPs, but times it back to that specific Phase 1, IA to 3A that says up to the 101st building CO that they'll
build that road to the south.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that delays the construction of Pristine Road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does, but they're -- we put an additional stipulation that for the purposes
of stipulation, but not a public road, they will make it a -- they'll build the Wolfe, and then for that several
hundred feet between Wolfe and Pristine existing, they'll put a limerock base and maintain it.
So at least there'll be some traffic in that fire station if they have to get to -- Falls of Portofino can
drive that back road. It's enough to get that connection started, and we don't fear that the public will not know
it's a public road. But I'm not forcing the hand to pave it until they generate some revenue to get the project
going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the rights -of -way that you need for that road, I think I
mentioned to you -- now that we found out that not all of them were provided.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. They're amending it as part of the plat that's being submitted right
now, so they wouldn't be able to do anything, you know; and it's in that plat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the amendment that occurred in, I think it was'07 - -'09
changed the requirement from the one -year deadline that was in the previous PUD or the previous -- yeah, the
previous N and O to allow it to be issued concurrently with adjoining SDPs and plats, from what I
understand. I mean, I've got it in front of me, so it looks like it's written that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then anybody wanting an SDP in those properties that didn't have a
road would have to then put that piece of road in to support that SDP.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it basically said connect the road was what it was, I think, to
support. And they'll have to build a connection to get the SDP. I don't think it was just build the base.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. No further SDPs or plats shall be approved for any individual
owner within the PUD until Pristine Drive from its current terminus to Wolfe Road is under construction --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all the necessary right -of -way has been dedicated.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No certificates shall be issued within the new Site Development Plans
and/or plats until the road is substantially complete.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Segment 2 by this would have to happen for Parcels 4, 5, and 6 in the
north, which is I through 3A of the PUDs that are coining through. Before they can get even a CO, they'd
have to get that road in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the current language.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: By the current language. And I think if the owner of that property that's
objecting wants to keep it that way, that's fine. The new addition to the Wolf Creek, I think, wouldn't apply to
that where they're bringing in that -- parcels from the other PUD into this PUD. I'd say, just keep that
language specific to that master plan. And that's fine by county staff. You know, as I told the owner, we
Page 38 of 85
March 21, 2013
have no objection either way. The new language actually is less restrictive to you, so that's a discussion they
need to work out between themselves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You lost me in the front of it. You said that basically those -- the
Wolf Creek parcels that are being used by Palermo --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would be restricted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we could still go ahead under the current language?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. They couldn't go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Wolf Creek parcels that would be in the Palermo section -- and
Attorney Yovanovich is putting on there -- the yellow section is part of the other property that's included
that's included that's being brought into this PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not going to have any bearing on Pristine Road (sic). That
parcel there could go -- as long as Wolfe Road gave them access.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So everything that's in that PUD minus the yellow -- so except for the
yellow would be restricted until Pristine is constructed, currently.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the yellow could hold how many units; do we know?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be 101?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, in essence, the yellow doesn't give them enough to construct
without going into the Wolf Creek PUD to construct some, which then brings into question the language
that's in O that has a prior re -- has a restriction currently that's being requested to be amended so that they
could put lots on those remaining parcels that still are in the north end of Wolf Creek.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And I explained to the representative from the other
project -- I forget the name -- Prime Builders that I said, the new language benefits you both. Now, there's no
guarantee when the road gets built other than that five -year and seven -year language. The dirt road gets
constructed, the dedications will happen. They can't build in that Phase I to 3A above 100 units till it gets
done, but they can also build the road.
So now Prime Home Builders could come forward and say, we're going to fund the road, and per the
private cost - sharing agreement, we'll expect to get paid back. They'd be unrestricted right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who gets -- who puts in the limerock -- see, right now the roads -- you've
got it in two stages. You're going to go in with a dirt road, basically. Is it going to be stabilized with an
8 -inch or 6 -inch limerock base and built to county standards, or are you going to use a different standard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean for the dirt road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The reason -- what I'm trying to get at is how much will be left? By
the time you put in the dirt road --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all you're going to have is curbed sidewalk, asphalt, and that's -- what
else? I mean, you haven't got much else after that do you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. But -- and that limerock road will be in place, 18 feet wide
and it will -- the existing terminus of Pristine all the way up to the bend point will be limerock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the perspective of the PUD and the county, who's paying for the
limerock road? The developer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The developer of Palermo Cove is, and tb.ey're maintaining it until we
accept it as a public road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they have their own share agreement. However that works for them,
that's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Private.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what they do. So Palermo Cove's going to put in the dirt road.
Page 39 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what remains, should the objector, if there is one, want the -- want the
road in, he's just got to put the fmal treatment on the top of the limerock and the stabilized base. And that was
my question. Is it going to be limerock and stabilized base consistent with what could be used for the base of
the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't specify, like, a cross- section. I just said a stabilized 18- foot -wide
road. So, you know, they may not pull the full, you know, 8 to 10 inches of LBR, limerock base rock. They
may put in 6 inches. As long as vehicles could travel over it safely and they grade it on a regular basis and
fire trucks can come from the fire station, I left it at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: As long as Nick is here, may I ask him a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: This goes to the Wolf Creek. It says, a 30- foot -wide interconnection
between Island Walk development and Pristine Drive shall not constitute a road right -of -way for the purpose
of calculating setbacks or buffering.
Where is this road going to come in and across?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. I can point to it. Right there; pen points to it. And it's not for them
to construct it. It's just -- it's permitted in place. And the permits may expire, but the whole point of getting
the permits were, we know it can go in -- the water can go in there. You know, Island Walk has been mixed
about it. The folks that live right next to it said, we don't want it. The folks that live interior to Island Walk
said, well, it would be nice some day that we can get into Mission Hills and get out to Collier without having
to go on Vanderbilt.
The point is, it's in place. We'll wait. At some point in time maybe the county will build it or Island
Walk will generate it, but their purpose is they're going to dedicate it, design it, and permit it so we know it's
feasible, and it's just going to sit there until Island Walk's ready to say we want to take advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And who is the developer in Wolf Creek that -- where its going
to run through?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's split between those two property lines. They went off the back lot
lines, and they split the property. And each one of them gave them, like, 15 feet. I don't know if that's the
exact amount. It's 15 feet. And they split it. So they both know that it's on their property line.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So then it would be Palermo that gave them 15 and Wolf Creek,
and it's right on the property line?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's all in the Wolf Creek piece, but it's the two developers within Wolf
Creek that split it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to Pristine Drive. The cross - section that's currently been approved or
been built, do you recall the travel lane and curb sections on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't. I can pull them up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were 10 feet or better, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, at least 10 feet or better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we be matching the dirt road base to the cross - section that's
currently being used by Pristine Drive?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could, 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the language that's being proposed to be added to this PUD
doesn't do that. It's limited to 18 feet, and that's far less than valley gutter and travel lane.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did it, because I don't want this to -- I'm trying to discourage this from
being a major cut - through more than just, hey, it's there. I think people who live on the south side will use it
to get to Collier, and Collier people will use it to get to Vanderbilt. Once you start kind of beefing it up a
little bit, you're encouraging the speeds to go up.
So it's almost like this is an emergency connection. It's a public road. You know, I'd love to get it
paved, but I'm asking too much at that point in time. Once you do that, you might as well build the whole
Page 40 of 85
March 21, 2013
road section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm thinking is for six more feet of base and stabilized surface,
you've got the width of the road basically there. It would actually encourage the development of that road
quicker because there's more of a base to start with instead of saying, we're six feet short, and we've now got
to come in with more fill, stabilized base, and limerock.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I'll have to ask the engineer of record. Are you putting utilities in
that? Is that going under the cross -- are they being looped on Day I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you they are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. So he's got to put it in already. So, yeah, to your point, you could.
You can go, you know, 22 feet wide or 20 feet wide and do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think it would encourage the possibility of getting that road
finished sooner because more of it's done --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at a raw stage like this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of Nick? And thank you for your
history --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's been a -- I mean, I read all kinds of stuff in the file on this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would like to -- I wish I had the tape to show you the interrogation I
went through about six years ago regarding Vanderbilt and Collier. You were pretty good about --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wouldn't have been me. I'm always quiet as a mouse.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It still scars a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've learned a lot, haven't we?
Wayne, I guess we're moving into the PUD and -- unless you have something else you wanted to get
into.
MR. ARNOLD: No. I think it's probably appropriate we start moving through the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you wanted to make any statements about the PUD
language before we just walked into it and then started walking through it. It's up to you.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Palermo Cove, just so we're all aware, it's a complete repeal of the prior
zoning approval, so you're seeing that as a clean document. I think that's, obviously, pretty obvious to you,
and then when we get to Wolf Creek, it's a series of strikethrough/underlines for the new additional language
primarily that we've added to apply only to those parcels we control in our implementing a new master plan
for.
And, Mr. Strain, you had several comments when we met about cleanup language. I didn't make
those changes to pass out. I thought I'd get the benefit of any other comments, and we'll just do it once and
come back on consent to deal with the cleanup items that we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think what I -- and that's fine, because I'd rather we just get into the
document and start one page at a time from your perspective, if you have any changes on that page --
otherwise, I'll go to the county attorney and staff to join in if there's any changes they want on that page, and
then the Planning Commission.
So, Wayne, Page 1 of 17 of Exhibit A, which is the Palermo Cove RPUD, that's the -- starts out with
the permitted uses and residential.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And we -- when you and I talked, I did make a note that you didn't like the
language we had on accessory uses, Item No. 3, which is near the bottom of that page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: Because you felt that maybe it would allow us to have these type of recreational
facilities on individual lots. And our discussion was this was really meant to apply to all the R designated
tracts. But maybe to make it more clear, we'd strike No. 3 under B entirely and add a new provision,
probably No. 4, and renumber 4 as 5 above under principal uses and simply list passive parks and
architectural features as permitted principal uses on the residential tracts. And that way it was clear that we
Page 41 of 85
March 21, 2013
could have these passive areas.
When you look at our master plan, we end up with areas or curves. We didn't want to be prohibited
from having an open -space treatment where we had the, you know, two roads come together and we had a
wider open space we could put in park benches or some sort of architectural feature.
So I think that would clear it up if we added a new No. 4, passive parks and architectural features
under principal use, and then renumber No. 4 that was any other use approved by the BZA as a new No. 5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're basically doing on the plan -- could you put the master plan
back on there, the bubble -- the colored one?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything that's not a preserve is really an R tract that could be used for
lakes, roads, or residential, or any of the principal uses that are labeled under permitted uses residential now;
is that right?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And why I'm stressing that is I don't want to miss any open space
that you may have wanted to make a park that isn't R and isn't preserve. But I don't think you have any by the
way the plan's drawn.
MR. ARNOLD: No. 1 mean, we really have three tracts; the amenity tract, residential tract, and
preserve tracts in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what that does is it allows passive parks as a principal use, then
you don't have to have a house on a lot to be an accessory use then.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes out No. 3 under accessory use.
Anybody else have any changes on Page 1?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 2? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question about clubhouses. That's going to be built in the
amenity or — excuse me, the recreational tract there?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMNIISSIONER EBERT: Is that the little brown piece?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, the little brown oval piece near our entrance.
COMIVIISSIONER BROUGHAM: When? Any idea when?
MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Mr. Yovanovich address that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. I forgot to do that in my comments.
We would start it at the 50th building permit, and then we would complete it -- approximately two
years to construct it.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Two years to build it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Really 18 to 24 months. That's what they told me, 18 -- honestly. We
would start it at the 50th building permit and then complete it within 24 months.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, this is a single - family project that's probably going to have -- a lot of
people are going to have their own pools.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you add that, then, to your developer commitments?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? That's on Page 2.
Wayne, I've got two things. And previously when questioned, you said there will be no restaurants.
So after the word "clubhouses," do you mind a parenthetical that said no restaurants allowed as an accessory
or a principal use?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we're okay with that. I mean, as long as that doesn't preclude there to be like
a warning oven or something in the area, but not a full --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're concerned more about restaurants where you'd have crowds
Page 42 of 85
March 21, 2013
showing up for events and public -- open to the public, because that generally happens and --
MR. ARNOLD: What was your language? No restaurant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No restaurants allowed, period. That just covers it whether -- however you
would do it. If you're not going to put a -- I mean, that's what you -all said.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. I'll put "no restaurants" shall be permitted after the word "clubhouse."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 2,1 mentioned to you that I would hate to see the
recreational site turned into a maintenance area as a principal use. So would you mind moving No. 2 to
accessory uses?
MR. ARNOLD: The one that says community maintenance, maintenance buildings, et cetera?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: We'll move -- so strike it from principal and make it an accessory?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. That way you can't have just a stand -alone maintenance building
there.
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything on No. 2? Page 2, Pm sorry.
MS. DESELEM: If I may ask for clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. DESELEM: Kay Deselem, for the record. When you were first speaking of the no restaurants
allowed, you said as principal or accessory uses. So did you want it to be prohibited as -- not just no
restaurants allowed under principal use, did you also want that notation made under accessory uses?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want to take away the ability for them to have a snack bar or a
cafe like he was describing.
And so, Kay, I think what we're looking at is a principal stand -alone restaurant as part of a
functioning building, so it would be as another principal use. If its an accessory use on a small level, that
would be customary to serve only residents, I don't know how to word that, but that's what I think we're
heading at.
MS. DESELEM: We have No. 3 as an accessory use. That would seem to fit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's just leave it like that and not do anything further with
it.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3, does anybody have questions or concerns? And when I say
everybody, I mean staff and the county attorney as well. So if you have any changes to the pages as we go
through, please speak up.
Under development standards, No. 1 --
MR. ARNOLD: Are you still on -- can I go back to Page 3, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still on Page 3.
MR, ARNOLD: Oh, you are. I'm sorry. Okay. Development standards, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 1, this is where the height of that structure out front comes into
play, I would assume, because here's your decorative architectural feature.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It also has gatehouses and guardhouses.
And, Ray, Pm not trying to jump ahead, but when we get to the table on the next page, there is no
call -out to say that the accessory- structure standards on that table that are basically articulated in Page 3, Item
1, apply. It appears that the accessory structures are listed under the principal structures.
So normally we would accept those as attachments or in conjunction with the principal structure. So
somehow we need to clarify that your standards for those structures listed under the development standards
paragraph are applicable to the table on Exhibit B.
And where that would fall I don't know, because there -- but I think -- they're all the same anyway, so
it really doesn't matter.
Why don't we just list them under the recreation? So what I'm suggesting is on Page 3 at the end of
Paragraph 1 you say the standards for those facilities noted in that paragraph are referenced as -- under the
Page 43 of 85
March 21, 2013
accessory- structure standards or equal to the accessory- structure standards under the recreation column on the
following table, Exhibit B; does that work?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think my only concern would be that we don't have setbacks for certain
uses, such as guardhouses and structures, etcetera.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's my concern with staff. I'm not concerned about your
position on some of those. I don't care if a fence has no setback or any of that, but how does staff then
regulate it if staff is telling me from the previous discussion that they're relying on the accessory- structure
standards on the development- standards table?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we simply add to that paragraph that the maximum zoned height will be
25 feet and the maximum actual height will be 30 feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as staff -- I'm more concerned that staff doesn't have a problem
with this down the road when it comes in for application and interpretation. Because when we previously
asked, they were going to go by this table, and I'm trying to figure out how that fits.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the zoning manager.
I was just discussing with Kay most of the PUDs that we have in our model PUD document we have
a provision to deal with accessory guardhouses, gatehouses, entry features, and the like, and they typically
would have their own development standards, and then you would get into the permitted uses and accessory
uses found in the residential tracts or preserve tracts.
This particular PUD isn't quite formatted that way, and my recollection is that they would be subject
to the accessory - structure setbacks provided on Exhibit B. But I'm hearing the applicant say that that wasn't
the intent, so we need to clear that up now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's figure out how to get there. Now, that means we will
need some standards, Wayne. What do you suggest as far as --
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it was implied that we weren't -- I mean, the Paragraph 1 on Page 3
under development standards implies that we have no required setback. So I think what Rich offered, which
was to establish -- if we don't have a setback and we all agree that a passive park shouldn't necessarily have a
setback from a tract line and maybe a park bench shouldn't or an architectural feature, as long as it doesn't
obstruct views, then aren't we really talking about a height?
So should we establish -- should be just -- I mean, it would be simple enough to say, you know,
create standards for the above, which would say there's no building setback from a tract line, and then, two,
we could establish building heights for them and establish those maximums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only -- let's take that architectural feature up front, the cupula that was
there with the walls. What setback would apply to that?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think in that case, I mean, we could apply a larger setback than zero,
obviously, because we can't put a sign at zero anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But see, therein lies the problem. I mean, I just gave you one
example that we have to have a standard for that we don't, because your suggestion was to just address the
heights. Obviously, every one of these issues needs to be thought out. I'm not saying they all have got to
have setbacks, but I want to make sure that staff has clear direction to interpret this PUD when it comes in for
SDPs and you show your signage where you want it. As long as it's acceptable, that's fine. Your renderings
look fine. I don't think there's a problem.
MR. ARNOLD: Maybe what we should try to do is establish an internal setback of zero, and maybe
there would be a PUD boundary setback that would have a minimum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: That might go to the issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that works fine, and then you establish heights.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. And could -- do you think it would be more appropriate just to do it in this
section under the development standards and not try to complicate our development table by adding —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do it on Page 3 if you can.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think so, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that between now -- and assume we get to consent -- that you
Page 44 of 85
March 21, 2013
work it out with staff as to what those should be, and we can review it on consent. If we have a problem, we
can talk about it then.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. It should be on Page 3. It would be consistent with the model PUD
document that we've created.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. That's another issue we can -- anybody else? If not, let's
move to Page 4, and that's development- standard table, Exhibit B. Any questions on that? Phil?
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just need to understand. Distinguish variable lot line for
single - family and single- family attached. I just want to understand the difference.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, you may remember that the -- we had this debate when we canine through
with the -- what's now known as the Talus Park project, Tuscany Reserve at the time. I think it became clear
at that point -- and Heidi, I think, was the person -- this time I think I'm right -- pointed it out that zero lot line
meant zero lot line. You had to have a wall on zero. You couldn't have a building at 2 feet and then the next
building was 8 feet so that you maintained your separation.
So what we did was come up with a standard so that it was variable where you always knew the
separation between buildings but the setback could vary. You could have one at zero, the next could be at 10.
You could have one at 2 and one at 8, one at 3 and one at 7 where you've maintained the separation. And the
safeguard was that this requires that you submit a plan at the time you come in for your first SDP or plat so
that it's known how those are configured. That was the variable.
And the single - family attached that we have in this case is more of your typical -- it wouldn't
necessarily be a duplex, but it would be two side -by -side units attached in some form.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I understand. I didn't understand the difference.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And one thing that Mr. Strain asked me -- and not to jump ahead to you, Mr.
Strain --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
MR. ARNOLD: — but under single - family attached --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get there one way or the other.
MR. ARNOLD: Under single - family attached, we had an error. It says 0 or 7- and -a -half feet for the
minimum rear yard for single - family attached. That's incorrect. It should be 15 feet, consistent with the other
minimum yards. So we would strike the "0 or 7- and -a -half feet" reference and add 15, consistent with the
other product type rear yards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to clarify the other -- we had the PUD boundary issue as well.
MR. ARNOLD: You did, and we had --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're both accessory and principal.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And under PUD boundary, it says adjacent to Parcels IA, 2A, 213, which
was the reference to the internal tract boundaries. We have a 0 feet. And I think, as we discussed earlier on
other provisions, we do have adjacency to parcels other than our own. And you asked us to try to establish
what that minimum setback would be, and I think 15 feet makes sense because it's consistent with the buffer
plus any side yard setback we would have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then across -- in line with the words "PUD boundary," there will be 15
feet added under every single -- all four of the uses --
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- above the 0 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: And then where it says adjacent to Parcels IA, 2A, and 2B of the Wolf Creek PUD,
it's going to say 0 feet, as it currently reads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but -- and one of the other notes was, I notice if you were to turn to
the Palermo Cove PUD map, which is the map attached to this language, you can't fmd IA, 2A, and 2B. So
you were going to label 1 A, 2A, and 2B on the Palermo map so everybody knew what it was you were
referring to.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the PUD boundary under accessory structures needs to have the
same application as the PUD boundary that we just talked about.
Page 45 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. ARNOLD: And that I think, would be easier just to add the -- right now it just says PUD
boundary. Then we would have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Adjacent to parcels.
MR. ARNOLD: -- 15 feet, and then we would add the "adjacent to Parcels 1A, 2A, 2B," and that
would be 0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So, Mark, is that then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: IA, 2A, and 2B are those parcels south of that dotted line.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Are south of the dotted line. Okay, fine. But the one in Wolf
Creek -- that's the one I asked about -- there will be a buffer there?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There will?
MR. ARNOLD: There will be, yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's the 15 feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now what are we talking about?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it's 15 -feet buffer, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got me confused. Which one are we --
MR. ARNOLD: It's not external to this PUD. It's an internal buffer inside the Wolf Creek PUD that
she's referring to, Mark. It would be between us and the second phase of Portofino Falls.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the split on Parcel 4, but that -- the split's also designated by a
road. So you're going to have a buffer between your product and the road's edge?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's going to be 15 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that's what we have designed right now, yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At some point -- and I think I made a note of it in here somewhere
we need to make sure that shows up in some of the standards here. So you were going to point it out as we
got to it, and we're not there yet.
Okay. That -- I think that takes care of Page 4.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There's just a typo under accessory structures. It says maximum building
height, and the "building" part needs to be removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, maximum.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just maximum height.
MR. ARNOLD: Where are you, I'm sorry, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The last box where it says "maximum building height" under accessory
structures, it should be just "maximum height."
MR. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, while we're still on Page 4, on the very bottom you have a small
fine -print language.
MR. ARNOLD: It's not that small. I can read it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, a conceptual -- the third line down. Yeah, you didn't make it quite
small enough. A conceptual exhibit showing typical building configurations, including building setbacks,
shall be submitted to the Growth Management Division with the application for the first building permit and
platted development tract. So you're going to give this concept plan to get your platting done and your
permitting.
But then the next sentence says, the concept exhibit may be modified as needed. So how does staff
know how to review that?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it just contemplates -- I think we could remove that language --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: -- but I think it contemplates that there are going to be changes, potentially, if the
developer decides he's changing configuration of future lots. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those changes will be within the rules that are -- you're already allowed
Page 46 of 85
March 21, 2013
to abide by, so why don't we just take that language out so --
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that little six- or seven -word sentence.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which one we're talking about, Kay?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It says the conceptual exhibit.
MS. DESELEM: The conceptual exhibit?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The conceptual exhibit may be modified as needed.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The conceptual exhibit may be modified as needed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to come in with plats, and they can modify their plats as the
rules allow. So you don't need that additional language in there.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay, fair enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments on Page 5, the footnotes that are there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the next page is the Exhibit C, master plan. Any questions on the
master plan?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Just for clarification, Wayne, the entrance, the first entrance on Wolfe
Road, which is a firehouse exit or entrance, I take it --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- is there an entrance there into Palen-no?
MR. ARNOLD: No. There's -- there was a potential interconnection to Palermo. I don't think we're
planning to implement that connection.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Because, yeah, you show a cul -de -sac.
MR. ARNOLD: It's stubbed out that way. I believe it's constructed in that manner.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Wayne, on the master plan, the left -hand side, you have the words, "No
buffer required," with an arrow pointing to the dotted line that surrounds the entire project.
And I know your intent is that you don't have a buffer from the Wolf Creek side, so somehow we
need to indicate that you're only intending that, right?
MR. ARNOLD: I am, but -- and it was kind of a -- I mean, if you go north, it becomes a preserve,
which far exceeds the minimum buffer requirement. Maybe I can -- I mean, I could certainly add a label that
says, "buffer per LDC" in the area that is the preserve, if that would help, because that is abutting Island
Walk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have not researched the adjoining PUD or yours in regards to the buffer
outside the one you were requesting a deviation for.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all I'm saying is if that's the only one that was reviewed because of the
deviation required and we agreed it only provided a certain release from the buffer between the two what are
now common PUDs, I don't think you can arguably say that applies to the whole PUD unless you give us the
opportunity to review it. You didn't ask for that in deviation. You only asked for the area between the two
common PUDs.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. So that's why Pm saying, maybe to make it clear on the master plan, I
would label an area where it's adjacent to the Island Walk PUD. It's a preserve, but I could label that "buffer
per LDC."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I don't -- I mean, it would have to go all the way over by the fire
station, over by Summit Place.
MR. ARNOLD: I can do that. We commonly have done that. We just put "buffer per LDC" on our
perimeters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, just so long as we don't make the assumption that that dotted
Page 47 of 85
March 21, 2013
line represents a typical scenario around the entire PUD.
MR. ARNOLD: No. That was meant to be our boundary, so, okay. rll label all those.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On that drawing, I notice that some of these preserve areas are very
fractured and narrow. Can they be functional if they're that tiny and that fractured?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, Mr. Midney. I missed your comment.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: About the preserve areas?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Some of them -- like there's one that's .5 acres, but it's very narrow,
and it hardly seems like it can be functional if it's so narrow and isolated.
MR. ARNOLD: Those were the -- for Palermo Cove, we have preserves that far exceed the county
requirement, and part of that was because of the Water Management District Permit that was obtained
originally for the project and is being amended to implement this master plan.
And a couple of small ones that are south of Summit Lakes, for instance, I believe those are -- I think
they're abutting Summit and they abut the preserve at Summit Lakes, and that's why they were included.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. So they are connected?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there are -- that's -- there's an aerial on Page 3 of the staff report, and
you can see where some of those are up against preserves and other neighboring properties. So it just
enhances them a bit.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we were just very cautious not to want to trade the game for the residents to
our north, and that was consistent -- we held the buffer and the preserves consistent for the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on then. We have the -- well, that's Exhibit C, and there
was two. There was -- the deviations were listed on Exhibit C as well, but you're going to modify those in the
manner in which we modified the ones during the text discussion of the staff report.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we've got Exhibit C1 and C2, which we already discussed with the
road cross - sections.
MR. ARNOLD: Exhibit C2 is the Wolfe Road cross - section, and that does need to change. Nick
and Reed asked for that to be more specific because it's being built to the county's standard, and then there's
language that contemplates a developer agreement that we've been working on. And I've got some of that
language, if we care to look at it. It's going to come back to you as part of your consent. But it establishes the
subgrade and the pavement lift heights on that cross - section. So it's not in question what standard it has to be
built to. And its consistent with your LDC provisions for those. It's just the cross - sections being modified to
add them. And I think I've got --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have paragraph -type language. You've got textual language to
amend the graphic?
MR. ARNOLD: I may have a cross - section of that road in here. I'm looking. I know it was going
back and forth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it going to get below 40 feet?
MR. ARNOLD: No. It's going to remain at the cross - section width that it is. Everything you're
going to see is subgrade notation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the fact that you're going to provide that on a -- if we
get to consent, that s appropriate. I don't think this board's going to argue with Reed -- transportation
department's need for subgrade or a limerock base, so --
Okay. Number 10 is just a massive legal description.
Now, Heidi, that would be something you might look at. Is it okay?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 11 is, again, the list of deviations, but those are going to
Page 48 of 85
March 21, 2013
change pursuant to the discussion we had from the staff -report section. And I'm trying to get through
Palermo Cove so we can break for lunch, and we're almost through.
Any questions on Exhibit El?
And, Wayne, on this one you're showing the two signs for the project entry that you're asking for a
deviation.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure staff understands that the way this is supposed to
be, it's either /or.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, there's a notation on the bottom left that was meant to make it clear that that
signage deviation is only if the off -site sign in Deviation 7 isn't obtained. So it's not to think that we're going
to end up with three signs in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's also if the V sign -- you're either going to get the V sign or these
two signs or one of these signs and the Sonoma Oaks sign, right?
MR- ARNOLD: Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somehow when we clean up the deviation to reflect those options, I want
to make sure this adequately reflects that to the point it needs to.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I'm thinking maybe, Mr. Strain, it might be easier if the sign - location exhibit
is inclusive of all three options.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was -- that's where 1 was going with it, yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you could -- there's plenty of white space, so you've got time to put it
on there.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we've got room, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit E2, that's where you're going to put an arrow indicating that the
-- or something indicating that the black lines along the roadways indicates the pathway plan that this was
supposed to represent.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I think what I had actually looked at in the office yesterday was I had
first labeled the sidewalks, and I thought, I'll just make it easier. And I think we can do a bold line, label that
sidewalk location, and then we'll label and point to the sidewalks depicted here. I think there's plenty of room
to do it, and then it's clear, because this is supposed to be the separate exhibit showing where the sidewalks
are to be constructed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I like the fact you've got your exhibits in here showing your
sign and some of the issues out front.
Again, on the -- you've got two graphics in there. Just make sure that this will be per whatever
option is selected based on the deviations approved.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I think we can handle that in the deviation language to refer to the exhibit
more appropriately.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got two more pages to finish up, and then we'll break for lunch.
Page 16 is the list of developer commitments.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Which are none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just correct a typo on 2D. Just add an E to Wolfe Road.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Very minor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the county attorney or staff have any questions -- Reed apparently
does -- to Exhibit F, which is the list of developer commitments?
MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, for the record.
What we'd like to do is modify F, and I'll read the modification. The new language; the developer
shall design and construct Wolfe Road at its cost as a public road consistent with the cross - sections shown in
Exhibit C2 of this PUD. That was talked about earlier. The county will accept the roadway and maintenance
responsibility upon completion of the roadway improvements to the county's satisfaction and the county's
Page 49 of 85
March 21, 2013
specifications and upon Wolfe Road's connection to Vanderbilt Road via Pristine Drive. And I think we've
talked about all those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means that Wolfe Road could be operating and functional before
Pristine Drive connects, but as long as it is, they maintain it until the whole loop system is together --
MR. JARVI: Has to be a loop system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in one big road. Okay.
MR. JARVI: That's correct. Because it doesn't benefit the county 611 it's a loop.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. JARVI: And I do have -- if you care, on the C2 exhibit I had written down it's 2 -- the
cross - section's 2 -and -a -half inches of asphalt and Base Group 9, and stabilized 12- inches, which is a fairly
typical roadway section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- now, on Pristine Drive, are you looking for 2- and -a -half inches of
asphalt, or is it inch and a half?
MR. JARVI: We would look at 2- and -a -half for the portion that's not built. I don't remember what
was designed before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: When we get to Pristine, same cross - section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: That is one change, Mr. Strain. You're going to see the same cross - section for what
the commitment will be for Pristine and the Wolf Creek PUD and for the Wolfe Road PUD -- or, I'm song,
Palermo Cove PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any -- do you guys have any objection to this language?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's not exactly consistent with what we committed to do. And I don't think
we have an objection to it but I'm not sure the county really wants to delete the first sentence, because we did
commit that we were actually going to build the Wolfe Road segment up to our entrance as part of our first
CO.
We have to have it for access anyway. I mean, it's kind of implied, but I think if you want to -- that
would prevent us from building Pristine without improving Wolfe Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what happens is, the first sentence stays in then.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: I think it would, just in fairness to the conversations we've had.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would think where it says, the developer shall design and
construct Wolfe Road at its cost, I think you mean at developer's cost, instead of the word "its."
MS. DESELEM: Or at no cost to the county.
MR. JARVI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the word "its" becomes "developer." It's a little clearer then. "Its"
could mean "its" is the cost of the road or "its" is Wolfe Road, or "its" is the developer. So just make it
"developer."
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Or it's the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you have any comments on that one? You had changed some
road language. This wasn't one of them you were messing with, was it?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. I'm just not sure what Reed was saying. There's one about -- are you
putting something about the stabilized road grade in this one, too?
MR. JARVI: No, no.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh. So this is as the language will read except for the first strike- through
will stay?
MR. JARVI: Yes. The stabilized road, where it physically is located, is within Wolf. So it's in the
Wolf PUD -- Wolf Creek PUD, not the Palermo.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And the F that's in their exhibit package says Exhibit C2 reflects the cross
sheet blah, blah, blah. Are you keeping that?
MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am. That's going to be the exhibit that shows the cross - section of Wolfe Road
Page 50 of 85
March 21, 2013
and also pavement section.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: I would make one change as well. Kay Deselem, for the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. DESELEM: In the next -to- the -last line where it says "counties," that should be an apostrophe
S; it's not i -e -s; the Y apostrophe S.
MR. JARVI: Where is that?
MS. DESELEM: The next to the last -- it says, the county will accept the roadway and maintenance
responsibility -- oh, did you change it?
MR. JARVI: I changed it in there.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got a different --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was saying, what are you -- we're all looking at it, and nobody can follow
you, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: I've got, apparently, a previous version; song.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all set on that one. That takes us to the end of the PUD
language. Why don't we take --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And you'll just see when it comes back, there's going to be our standard
language on the managing entity for the developer commitments. You've seen that language before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can -- Reed, can -- somebody or somebody talk about the interface
with zoning to the north which is the 9.4 -acre property that's the fire thing? But then it says, as well as the
final 16 dwelling units in the attached single - family townhouse product, line --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that's built and done, permitted and CO'ed. This has nothing to do with
Palermo Cove. It's just saying they're adjoining that. That's -- a long time ago before you were on the board,
Golden Gate Fire Department came through this board with a joint PUD with Summit Place, and that's how
that got built.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 60 units is referring -- they're in Sun-unit Place, and the two buildings,
by aerial, seem to be already built.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So we can cross that out then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It's still a reference, but I think it interfaces how they're going to
handle the water management and the entrance road going behind the lake and things like that, so it's still
needed, but it doesn't have -- the 16 units have got nothing to do with Palermo Cove, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. They're not in Palermo Cove PUD. It's just -- the access was
through the portion of Palermo.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Behind where that front lake and the sign are going to go, there's a road
going behind it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: See, history is important.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: If I may. For the record, Kay Deselem. I think there's one other thing that needs
to be added to the PUD commitments, and it's the typical language that we use for the one entity shall be
responsible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what she said.
MS. DESELEM: Oh. I'm sorry; I missed it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
Okay. Well, that brings us to the end of this, and we need to take a lunch break. And, Bill, I was
wrong, we didn't finish this morning; song.
Page 51 of 85
March 21, 2013
As far as the lunch break, can the Planning Commission live with 50 minutes instead of 60? Is that
okay? Because I'd just as soon we get back at one clock instead of 1:10. Is that okay with everyone?
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what it will be. We'll break until one o'clock and resume at
the --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I've got to leave about 2:00, 2:15.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I wanted to start at one so we'd get done before you leave.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Done before you leave.
(A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Midney is absent for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch break. And we'll resume,
not kind of where we left off, but on the same general principle. We'll move into the Wolf Creek PUD.
Wayne, is that where you were heading?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct. We were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any general comments you wanted to make before we walk
through it or you --
MR. ARNOLD: No. Just -- I mean, I don't know if you wanted to start with the staff report or if we
want to go into the PUD document as revised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get through the PUD document first, and then if we have any
remaining questions, we always can fall back on the staff report. We already did the deviations, which were
probably one of the biggest issues.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. Okay. Well, as I mentioned before, everything you'll see in this document
will be in strikethrough/underline format. We kept the original format since we had existing development.
The list of exhibits and tables changed to reflect the deviations and the new conceptual plan we have
for the portion that's under the unified control.
If you go to Page 4 of 25 on the PUD document, we've reflected the revised acreage and the revised
dwelling unit count. Legal description --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- if we're going to take it let's just walk throughout pages of the
document --
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and make sure there's no corrections. Up through Page 5 is pretty typical
stuff. Does anybody have any issues with the PUD document through the legal description on Page 5?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. I have one question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In one part in here, I see there is 85 more homes, and you mentioned
today 83. Is there --
MR. ARNOLD: I think we've -- I think the real number is, like, 84 point something. I think we've
said 83 only because it matches some of the conceptual planning we've done. I think we round up 84 point
something. It comes to 85,1 think, is probably the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you, though, Diane? What page are you reading from?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am on Page 4 of 25.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it says 85 on that page.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, no, no. What -- it talks about the maximum pennitted, so I took
the four dwellings and the acreage that they snuck from one or put in the other and changed things. And I'm
going, hmm. And when you mentioned 83 this morning, I'm going, that's not what I had, so -- what would
you like?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, we don't reference a specific number, but I think the math is correct as
expressed on Page 4.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're down through the legal description on Page 5. Let's go to
Page 52 of 85
March 21, 2013
Page 6. That's just a change to add a Parcel 2B. Page 7?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are so many different owners, and I don't know if they're all
represented here. I just want to make sure that all the owners know, and you're not trying to do something
over them on this. I see Prime Homes -- or Premier. I see Buckstone. I know Stock is in there.
3B -- okay. I found out. That's Prime Homes. I just want to know --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What page are you on, Diane?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she's on Page 7.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was on Page 7 of 25 when they're trying to break down all the parcels.
So I was going back and forth trying to find out who owned what.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, what we were trying to do there is, in the addition language, was really to
reflect the parcels under the joint ownership for the property we're talking about today and not changing the
other. I know the ownership has changed for the others, but we didn't update the other ownership within the
PUD. We just updated what's under the unified control of the application today that we're in for the changes
on, which would be the Parcels IA, 113, 2A, 2B, and 3A. And those were previously the Hoover and Catalina
Land Holdings, et cetera, and -- so now we're reflecting that currently the ownership is Raffia Holdings of
Naples, LLC, and the Wolf Creek Naples Holdings, LLC.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: It was really a clarification to reflect the part we're controlling and update that
ownership. We didn't feel like we needed to update parcels that weren't subject to our control, which was
kind of the theme for the changes we made, which is, let's not monkey with the rest of the PUD that we're not
impacting, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 8. Anybody have any questions on Page 8?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9? Anything on 9? Wayne, can you explain why on the top of the
page you added that verbiage?
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. At the top of the page, Mr. Strain, you asked me why we added the phrase
"along portions of the property boundary." And that's with respect to the water management system. And it
says that -- it in essence, it says there will be a permitted berm constructed along -- it basically assumes it's
along the entire perimeter, and that's not in -- that's not exactly true, especially now that we're combining
portions of this PUD with the development of Palermo Cove.
So there won't be a continuous perimeter berm, and I don't believe there was ever intended to be one.
It really -- it's probably a misstatement of the time. I mean, there is a perimeter berm in place, but it's not a
continuous perimeter benm through, because we take inflows or water through other projects, or from other
projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So it's a clarification, really.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on Page 9? If not, Page 10? Anybody have issues on
Page 10?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11?
MR. ARNOLD: Page 11, 1 don't know what other changes you may have, but we've been talking to
the County Attorney's Office in reference to Section 2.4. We had made reference to 163 units for this portion
of the PUD that was described in parcels -- the Parcels I through 3A as we've referred to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There was some new language I saw circulated, but I don't have it in
this package.
MR. ARNOLD: We did. We sent some language -- I think if you'll flip it. Yeah. The other way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must be a part of legal training, because there's some other attorney
that does that all the time, too, Heidi.
MR. ARNOLD: So this is language that Rich and Heidi worked on, and it's trying to capture that
Page 53 of 85
March 21, 2013
we're modifying and bringing in properties to our PUD. We think we control those units that we're bringing
in. And then, of course, you've heard reference to another allocation agreement that was in place before this
PUD amendment was revised.
So the language here, in essence, says that we've got 83 units associated with what we're bringing in,
and then there's, you know -- I can't read it from here. I'll have to come over and read it if we want to read it
into the record.
But in essence, the language is going to say, a minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to the
Parcels I A through 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels.
And, in addition, Parcels 1 A through 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the
developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 units on Parcels l A through 3A.
And that's really for, I guess, protection of the other owners as well to make sure that we're not
making a grab for more units than we think we're entitled to, nor are we going to put a bunch of density that
was unanticipated on the parcels that were originally part of the agreement.
So hopefully that works for everybody. I know that -- I mean, obviously everything's subject to
further wordsmithing, but I think that captures what we were trying to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned earlier today that -- I wanted to make sure that the
additional density was captured by those parcels so that it wasn't spread to others who may not have expected
it so -- because that would be a change in intensity. And I think you've kept it that way, so that's good.
Anybody else have any comments, questions? If not, let's go to Page 12.
Now, this is an amendment to an existing PUD, so some of the language that we tried to correct in
the Palermo can't necessarily apply to this because of the way -- this product's already started. You've already
got plats done and SDPs done and quite a bit.
MR. ARNOLD: But I do think under Section 3.4(ax4), which is, again, the reference to the
gatehouse, guardhouse, architectural features, et cetera --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all new.
MR. ARNOLD: -- that's new language that we added for Parcels IA through 3A, and I think it's
probably wise that we put in the same development standards that we talked about in Palermo Cove just for
consistency purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new language; I would agree.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? That's on Page 13.
On Page 3 -- I mean, on Item 3 of that, you have carports shall be permitted within parking areas, and
garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements.
With the setbacks and all the other standards for those carports and garages, I would assume, then,
that the accessory- structure language on the tables that follow apply to those carports or garages; is that a
correct assumption?
MR- ARNOLD: I think so. That was language that currently exists, Mr. Strain. It wasn't new
language we added if -- ifs A3 that you're reading?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just curious, because we -- that's the same kind of question that
started our discussion on 4. But I think staff on that one -- because carports would have to be accessory to
units, that would be more or less your accessory standards that you would be looking at.
I guess it could have been written better to begin with.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Didn't those come from the multifamily units? That's where you'd
normally have a carport.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not restricted to them, but I mean, I would --
COMMISSIONER VONIER: But this is a single - family dwelling project now, so it probably
doesn't make any difference. Carports aren't germane, I wouldn't think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this applies to the entire Wolf Creek PUD.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh, yeah; that's right. Okay, yeah. Everybody else, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 14, anybody have any issues? That's the existing language.
And on Page 15 is the new language. And we have some corrections from the other document that need to be
Page 54 of 85
March 21, 2013
incorporated and cleaned up in this table, which I'm assuming that you can make those. You know, you've
got the -- under single - family attached, you've got the rear -yard issue, the boundary issues.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct, yeah. And I think it would be a correction consistent with what we did on
Palermo. That note should be identical.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Minimum rear yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the conceptual exhibit may be modified as needed down below;
you're going to take that language out.
That takes us to Page 16. Does anybody have -- and that's just your footnotes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: How about maximum building height? Is that down under accessory
structures, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, that's correct. The word "height" will be removed when you see it
next time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the word "building."
MS. DESELEM: Building.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm sorry, building, yes. I should have had the brownie.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do it to you every time.
Page 16, that's the footnotes. How about all through Page 17; anybody have any questions on 17? It's
old language. There's not much we can do with it.
Page 18?
MR. ARNOLD: These were the deviations; at least on my Page 18 we're on deviations, and those
are going to be modified, as we've already discussed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Modified, yep.
Page 19?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22? All this is existing language, so there's not much to change on the
existing stuff, so --
MR. ARNOLD: The one thing we did add under H on 22 is the reference to both the current PUD,
Exhibit A, and the new A 1 that we've created for these parcels we're discussing today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 23? Didn't M -- are we proposing any changes to M?
MR. YOVANOVICH: New M?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I've got the old M. So why don't we start discussing the new M. So we
need to put it on the overhead, because there is a -- isn't there a new M?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No?
MR, ARNOLD: No. The M didn't change. The lettering changed, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't we learn that M isn't accomplished?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We still have the 30 -day requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need the microphone, Rich.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We're going to have to get you a lapel mike.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you leave it as written, within 30 days of the adoption of this PUD
amendment, we'll have to either finish the platting or give you a separate deed for that portion that we talked
about earlier up within the Wolf Creek --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And actually this was -- that language was written in, what, '09 or'07?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right, and that was originally intended to be addressed as part of the
platting, which stopped, obviously. But we'll finish it up.
Page 55 of 85
March 21, 2013
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 24, especially Item O, that's been rewritten. And there's a
whole new double paragraph on that one. I don't know if it's been distributed. I think I got a -- we got copied
by email from staff.
MR. ARNOLD: We did have changes to this, as discussed. I'm not sure how it may be revised, but
it -- we've discussed it, and that is the timing of the Pristine connection as well as the stablization of a
temporary connection, if you will, between Wolf --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's put something on the overhead that we can work from and we'll
go from there.
MR. ARNOLD: I think I have hard copies of that if I can locate them in all of my paperwork here.
Okay.
MR. JARVI: That's not quite the same.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Reed says he's got --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's different than the one I've got.
COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Yeah. I don't have that.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have copies of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So what they're showing is a new rewritten O. Even though the first five or
six lines are not underlined, that's all new language that's being proposed with developer's proposing to delete
the prior O that said no further SDPs or plats shall be approved.
As we understand it this change of language is part of what one of the neighboring property owners
is objecting to, the change in O as well as the deletion of N.
So if we don't get it -- my recommendation is that if we don't get a withdrawal of the objection from
the objector of record, then we need to stay with the existing N and O as its in the current ordinance, and I
can put that on the visualizer if you'd like to see how the current language reads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through this first and see if we have any questions while this is up,
and then we'll look at the new one. Is that okay?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. Uh -huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Reed, is this you -- you put this on the overhead. This is the latest
worked out?
MR. JARVI: This is as of this morning. I think I talked to Nick, and he added a sentence; Heidi did
some yesterday.
It has not been, I don't think, totally vetted through the petitioner, but it's, to a large extent, what we
talked about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions at this
point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, why did you add -- I understand the irrevocable standby letter of
credit, but this one says issued by a Collier County area bank. What's the significance of whether its a
Collier County bank or some other bank? A lot of firms do business out of town, and their banks aren't here.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, actually, I understand that recommendation came from someone
in the County Attorney's Office related to issues of enforcement of the security instruments with outside
banks, with banks that aren't located with a branch office in Collier County. So they're simply saying they
need to have a branch office in Collier County. It can be a national association, but a branch office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just seems kind of strange, because we're now saying, unless you do
business in Collier County as a bank, you can't issue a letter of credit that Collier County will accept. That
doesn't --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I would think a local one, as long as it was in Naples or Fort Myers
area. I don't know. It didn't come from me, but I do understand it was related to the enforcement issues we
were having with some subdivision plats and performance security.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd certainly question that, Heidi. Someone ought to look at -- I mean, I can
tell you on some things that I've been involved with, some of the letters of credit came from banks well
Page 56 of 85
March 21, 2013
outside -- didn't have any representation in Collier County. And I'm just surprised that we're now making it a
mandatory. I'm wondering how, legally, you can turn down -- if we're required to produce an irrevocable
standby letter of credit, you can turn down someone's letter of credit just because it's not with a local bank. I
mean, it's like saying you've got to buy everything in a store in Collier County. I mean, I m not sure that's a
good thing to do. rd be curious -- maybe you could follow up and let me know what legal grounds your
department felt it was necessary to impose this.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. Will do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's a small issue, but it just smacks of preferential treatment, and I
don't think we want to get into that.
It talks about an 18- foot -wide area of stablization. I think we were considering -- were talking about
24 in a previous discussion. Is there any reason why we shouldn't look at 24?
MR. JARVI: The only thing I would say is the more you make this look like a road -- like in the
Estates, some of the limerock roads -- the more people are going to travel on it and use it as a regular road.
And, you know, the idea of it was for emergency access and have -- you know, if the fire trucks have to go
down it, they can, if somebody needs to go down there, they can, but not to encourage people. Does it really
matter? Probably not. But the more it looks like a regular road, the more it's going to be assumed to be a
regular road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the safer it is the more dangerous it is?
MR. JARVI: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the safer it is the more likely they'll use it, and we don't want it to be that
safe, and that way we discourage the -- I'm not sure that's the right way to go either.
We'll have to wait and see where we go with this.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I thought Nick said 20.
MR. JARVI: I mean, eighteen is what we did as of, you know, 8 o'clock this morning. You've had
discussions since, and this hasn't been changed since.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only difference between 18 and -- or 20 and 24 is the base needed
for the valley gutter or fixed curb, whatever -- high curb, whatever goes there. And by putting all that in
ahead of time, you're encouraging the remainder to go faster because the base is already there. And base
work --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it would sure be a good base if everybody drove on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that doesn't make the base, though. You've still got to have a certain
inches of stabilization and limerock and all the other good things. I don't know. I still think that's an idea to
be considered. When we get to finish this up, we'll have to consider it.
Another question where it says in the last sentence of the prior paragraph, the security shall be held
for no longer than two years after Pristine Drive, as described, is completed. Ah, okay. You added the words
"is completed," because in mine, the copy I have in front of me, it doesn't have that. Now I see. That's good.
MR. JARVI: That was to try to get the difference between the five years and seven years that I
talked about earlier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: We were trying to further clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions on this one before we take the
next one that Heidi has?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, you had another one you wanted to introduce or something
else you wanted to --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you did.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. She said this was the section that we had an objection, so
unless the objection --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, but I thought you were going to --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. Except the second part -- if you can put that back up, Reed. The
Page 57 of 85
March 21, 2013
first part, the paragraph the right next to the O is the proposed replacement by the developer to the O that you
have that's stricken through --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- in your package. But regardless of however this plays out, this second
paragraph is proposed by the county transportation department to remain. So if this O doesn't go forward,
then that second one would be labeled, like, Q or R, or whatever number we're up to, just the second
paragraph that begins with developer of I through 3A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought the other option was to go with the strict reading of the
original, the -- what we currently have, not even get into a change.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct; however, the transportation department, Reed's department
and Nick, are recommending that separate paragraph go in regardless of whichever language. Correct, Reed?
MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want that to remain separate and apart --
MR. JARVI: The emergency stabilized road we'd like to have in no matter what. We added it to this
commitment with the idea that the commitment was going to change. And I think Heidi's saying if it doesn't
change, if it reverts to the commitment that's in the current PUD, we'd still like that second paragraph as
whatever the next commitment would be in order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking for my current PUD language, and I don't mean the current
PUD as underlined and changed. I guess the strikethrough PUD is what you're talking about, right? So it
would be the one on Page 24 on the top. So on that Page 24 on the top, No. O, it would still read like it does,
no further SDPs or plats will be approved, but you're saying in addition to that you're going to impose this
second paragraph.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Which would be Q. And if the existing strikethrough language is to
remain, since you've got, I believe it's about 12 acres from Palermo that's coming into this PUD, that acreage
would not be subject to this requirement. The additional acreage that we're now adding is not currently
involved in this commitment.
So we've put except for the blank new acres that are added to this PUD in this amendment, no SDPs,
and so forth, as the original language reads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but when we started discussing this issue, I believe we said
that O may not be able to go forward because of objections. And the objections -- and the reasons it couldn't
go forward is, I believe you were basing that on the fact that it is a change to the benefits or intensity of the
project by changing that specific language that currently exists in O to this new language in O.
Well, how is it not, then, a change to impose the second paragraph as new language on the existing
property owners?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that's a different transportation commitment that the transportation
division is recommending. They just tied it on under O, although its not necessarily connected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that new transportation commitment would fall on whose
shoulders to perform?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That would be under the Wolf Creek Holdings group.
MR. JARVI: It would be -- it states the developers of Parcels I through 3A, which would be these
-- this petitioner, not the base Wolf Creek people, if that makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the first paragraph doesn't go through, the second paragraph
would still be added, and the second paragraph would get the base limerock and road system put in, basically,
is what it says.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just the stabilized base area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pm sure we're going to hear more on this before we're done today,
so we'll hold off on that until we get into it further.
Let's move to Page 25.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Parks and recreation. What area were the playground and parks
Page 58 of 85
March 21, 2013
supposed to be?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you asking us --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- why we're deleting 5.10?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Where were the parks and stuff supposed to be?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There never was an identified location. This was one of these standard
reaching comments from parks and rees back then that said we're going to impose a requirement that you do a
children's playground. Nothing in the Comp Plan requires any developer to do a children's playground.
So over the more recent years we've basically said we're not doing children's playgrounds unless we
really want to do a children's playground. We don't want the liability, and all we're doing is deleting that
requirement because none of the existing developments within Wolf Creek were required to put in a
children's playground, and we're asking to be relieved of that requirement as well because there's nothing in
the Comp Plan that requires developers to do children's playgrounds.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what -- you know parks are very near and dear to me, don't you,
Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here it says that they will be operational before any issuance of any
CO for a permanent residence unit, and a lot of Wolf Creek is already developed. So I'm asking you, did the
first developers not put in anything as to location when it's right in there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe Black Bear Ridge has a small playground within its project. I do --
I can't tell you about the condo project, if it has a children's playground in it or not. I know the developer of
that is here, and they can answer that question for you.
But the whole point was on the vacant piece that we're in front you today, this was a reaching
condition of staff way back when. Its no longer been enforced by either the Planning Commission or the
Board of County Commissioners to force projects to have a children's playground unless that's an amenity the
developer of that project thinks the residents wants.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, this was put in in 2008, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And there's been nothing built?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's been a small one, I know, built in Black Bear Ridge. I don't know --
they were supposed to be subdivision or project by project, not global master planned amenity for the
development.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we're not -- on the PUD -- on the old PUD, because there's where
this is coming from.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The old PUD. There was never a rec parcel on the old PUD like we're
currently doing in the new Palermo PUD where we identify a rec parcel that serves the entire community.
That did not exist in the original Wolf Creek PUD. There were separate distinct anticipated neighborhoods to
be built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think to get to maybe Diane's concern --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It says before any CO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- regardless of your position on -- far - reaching of the Comp Plan -- and I
don't necessarily disagree with you on that -- this was a part of a legal ordinance for Collier County, and it
was required at the time of COs. And I think what happened is that the clubhouses were substituted or
expressly -- probably called the requirement that was meant to reach five ten.
I don't know; someone must have made an interpretation to that effect, because you got COs. And we
don't know if there's any parks there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: As I understand, there is a small playground in Black Bear Ridge, so they
complied with that requirement. I don't know about the condo, if they also have a -- I'm assuming the
interpretation was you'll do it in each subdivision or each condominium project, not a master planned
playground.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I thought it would be in the multifamily area is really where I
Page 59 of 85
March 21, 2013
kind of thought it would be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And they can answer that question; they're here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Portofino or whatever. But it says before any CO, so that's why Pm
asking. Didn't Black Bear Ridge -- they had their --
MR. YOVANOVICH: They have it in there.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand they're in there, but did they not come in after 2008? 1
don't know when they came in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They were -- Black Bear Ridge was built'04, '05, I think, was when it was
originally platted and started.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It just -- the "any CO" got to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then again, they both -- I checked, and they both have clubhouses, and
there may be the appropriate facilities within those clubhouses. That's not something I think anybody knows
here right offhand immediately today, but that could be the case.
Page -- well, actually, we'll move to the Exhibit A, which is the master plan and Exhibit Al. That's
the amended plan. And then we've got more Exhibit Is, then we've got the deviations.
And, Wayne, on all the deviations that show up on these various pages, they're all going to be
modified --
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the process we already went through today, so we haven't got to do it
twice.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one question, though, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: On -- let me see. Three of 3, Exhibit Al where it has the lake right
next to the Comcast. It said the Parcel 213 is 50 -- 5.0 acres residential area single - family.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to put homes in there, too?
MR. ARNOLD: No, but if I -- I guess I potentially could, but I think that we've labeled it only
because that was consistent with the prior zoning. It had single - family approval as a small subdivision on
that parcel. It was called the -- I called it McDaniel, but I think it was called Pristine Acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Lakes or Scenic Woods.
MR. ARNOLD: Pristine Lake or Scenic Woods.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that Scenic Woods?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that's that --
MR. ARNOLD: That's Scenic Woods.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- that RM56 -4.
MR. ARNOLD: Where are you? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because the lake took up most of it, okay. I was just reading, and I'm
going, the lake takes up all the acreage.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, but that brings up an interesting point. Under your list of
permitted uses for residential areas, you don't list lakes. You do list water management facilities as an
accessory use.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this Parcel l I's just being brought in. So that's a new parcel anyway.
So one way or another it's covered.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is water management, right?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the next exhibits are conceptual drainage and utility plan, Exhibit --
MR. ARNOLD: That was a holdout from the prior. That's not a new. That's the old exhibit that
Page 60 of 85
March 21, 2013
remains.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to be changing out -- oh, no. You've got the Exhibit C,
which is your road -- private road cross - section.
MR. ARNOLD: And there will be a new road cross - section that Nick referred to earlier and Reed
referred to earlier which is going to be a new cross - section for the Pristine Drive extension, which will match
the cross - section for Wolfe Road. And I have a -- I forgot that Reed sent us the revised cross - section details,
and we actually have that on a -- information on it. I've got it labeled Wolfe Road, but as I understand it its
going to be a mirror image for Pristine.
So what you saw prior on the -- previously on the Palen-no showed a cross - section, but it didn't have
the subgrade and the base material and the lift of asphalt specified on it, so we'll have a like exhibit that will
be inserted in Wolf Creek to show what the Pristine Drive will be, assuming we have a Pristine Drive
condition at the end of the day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions?
And the last entry is the Exhibit D, which is your alternative pathways plan. You're going to make
the same notation on that to clarify what the sidewalks are and pathway?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us through the PUD. So -- and, Wayne, does that end
your presentation?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Pin anxiously awaiting Kay's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are we. Kay, do you have anything else you want to add?
MS. DESELEM: Not really. We've gone into considerable detail other than to put the staff report on
record. Last revised date is shown on each document. Each document provides the findings of fact in
support of staffs recommendation.
And other than that if you have any questions, I'd be happy to entertain them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None, okay.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Call the speaker up, and you may use either microphone.
MS. DESELEM: Jorge Cepero, I believe is the name, and my apologies if I've mispronounced that.
MR. CEPERO: You got it perfect.
MS. DESELEM: With a name like Deselem, yeah.
MR. CEPERO: You got it perfectly.
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to hear us out. My name is Jorge Cepero. I'm here
representing Portofino Falls and Falls Builders. The latter is the owner of 32 acres that are vacant north of the
condominium community. The first is a condominium community. It's about 240 -some condos. It's about
halfway built.
We are one of the original developers of the PUD once the PUD started getting off the ground.
Unfortunately, as you all know, the economy hit everybody pretty hard. And this is not anything negative on
those that are no longer here, but it's a reality of the market that, unfortunately, they are not, and we find
ourselves with new partners now.
But, basically, this is good. This is part of the market recovering, so it's good that we have new folks
coining in and picking up where others left off, as much as we regret seeing those parties that were not able to
stay the full term.
We acquired our properties mostly from Mr. Hoover. We started building Portofino Falls, and part
of our agreement with Portofino Falls was -- and let me backtrack first. Let me start with where I should
have started, that although we have a couple of concerns, we really are here to support this amendment. We
are excited it's happening, and we are excited to see WCI and Waterman come in here and get the ball rolling.
Page 61 of 85
March 21, 2013
We are in the process of ourselves gearing up to start building again. We're excited about that, and
we find it a huge positive to see others come in and let people see and let the market see that things are start
(sic) moving again, and that can only help us all in the end.
So we're very happy to see these folks here, and we welcome it, and we're here to support that with a
couple of comments that I will get to.
Now, just to finish letting you know who we are and where we came from. We started building;
unfortunately, some of our partners in this PUD were not able to keep up with the terrible, terrible market
conditions we all know started slowing down in 2006, got pretty bad in 2007, and in 2008, not just
construction, but the entire economy basically collapsed.
We've been in the fight for our lives trying to stay afloat. We refuse to walk away from our
community. That just was not something that we wanted to do, and we stuck it out. We've fought it. We've
had our problems, our issues but, you know, we're there, we cut the grass, we paint the buildings, we maintain
them, and we're very proud to be able to say we're one of the few that have been able to do this.
Going back to Mr. Hoover, we had certain agreements with Mr. Hoover, some of which included
Pristine Drive. Our understanding -- and this is not in any agreement. It was a hand -shake deal. The
agreement was that Pristine Drive was going to get completed relatively quickly because the 32 acres to the
north of the condominium community need it in order to gain access.
The county felt that having Pristine Drive completed and connected to Wolfe Road would alleviate
the level of service of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Collier Boulevard, the intersections in those streets. Plus it's a
benefit for the entire PUD because it allows people a choice to go this way or go that way instead of having
just one choice and one place where they're loading up.
This is just a plus. And, obviously, in order for us to properly develop our acreage, we need to have
that access.
Our private agreements established who did -- who does what with funding and who's got what
responsibility. It's true that it doesn't say when. The PUD in 2007 incorporated the requirement. I think it
was the one in 2007, amendment, incorporated the requirement to complete Pristine Drive, and this is all
something we all wanted.
In 2007, we were still positive about what the market was doing. We didn't know what was going to
happen a little bit after that, and that's what we've worked towards. We've put in our requirement to -- before
that there were properties that were not even part of this PUD that were incorporated as we acquired them.
And once we did that, both the Hoover properties, ourselves, and some of the others in 2007, we
dedicated some of those properties.
It's true that we had some title issues and there were things that we had issues with that we just
couldn't do, our attorneys advised against, and we worked through it with the county to a happy ending and
with the help of key personnel at the county and their cooperation, and we're very grateful for that.
In 2008, Mr. Hoover called me up and brought up the issue of the time limit to build Pristine Drive
that was coming up, you know, and the realities of the market in 2007 were that everything was slowing
down. Residential was already grinding to a standstill. And we decided that the best thing was to request that
the time limit requirement be removed.
The best thing for us would have been to put in a new tune limit that moved it a little further. You
understand although we benefit from -- directly benefit from Pristine Drive's completion, we fund -- because
of the agreements we had with Mr. Hoover, we were only funding a portion of it. A majority of the funding
comes from what used to be Hoover and others now; I guess some of the ownership that's here now.
We -- what -- in a different environment what we would have done would have been to say, well,
let's postpone. You know, we've got a bad market now. Let's postpone it a couple years. But the market was
so bad that we just didn't know when things were going to get better, and we didn't want to have to bring the
county, you know, tagging along, oh, you know, we'll do it later, we'll do it later.
We wanted to be realistic and be honest with the county. We already knew things were pretty bad.
You've got to put yourselves, you know, back at that time where some people were predicting the end of days
and were predicting that the economy -- construction wouldn't come back for 10 years.
And in 2009, when the second amendment that removed that time commitment was removed, we
Page 62 of 85
March 21, 2013
just didn't know when things were going to get better, so we left the time commitment out.
It's something that we prefer to have, again, because it benefits us directly. We can't develop our
properties properly without the finished road. And it's not a question of just having minimal access. As I'm
sure you can understand, in order to market a property properly, you need to be able to have a properly
completed road that allows people both -- from both sides to find it to approach it, to see it's no different than
anything else, and it's not going to get half built.
So we need that commitment, and that's where we have an issue. We love for this overall project and
amendment to move forward. Our issues are limited to Pristine Drive, and some of you guys might not have
seen -- we didn't want to just say, hey, we object to it. We wanted to be objective and offer an alternative.
So we proposed yesterday that instead of 100 COs that we make it 100 building pen-nits and that the
road be finished before issuing any COs. And it's -- and that the 100 building pen-nits come -- be counted not
only in Parcels IA and 1 B -- I forget which are the numbers that were in there -- but the 100 building permits
be allowed for the entire PUD. Because just like we had in the building, you know, we think all the
requirements should be the same for everybody in the PUD.
So if we're going to have 100 permits, then we'd like to be able to participate with that and move the
process forward so we get to that completion of Pristine Drive as quickly as possible.
I've spoken with the applicant, and they -- I'm not sure where they ended up, but they may be
amenable to some of these things.
I'll move on to some of the other comments, which I think may be okay. I had a previous version of
the language, and that may have changed, but just to bring up the concern, you can address it when you see
the actual language.
On the Island Walk dedication, our understanding is that all the parties have dedicated the easement
for this possible Island Walk connection, interconnection they call it in the agreement.
The PUD as it currently stands says to dedicate the sign and permit. So there's been a sentence added
saying that we're in compliance. If we're in compliance, that we're good. We've dedicated our site, but there's
still the other requirements that are there that -- because the PUD doesn't discriminate between owners. It just
calls everybody a developer, which makes us all liable, per se.
We just want to make sure that that paragraph is either --if it's completed, it maybe stricken out. If
not, then if that sentence is satisfactory to everybody and it hasn't changed, then we'd be okay. We just want
to make sure that we don't get tangled on some interpretation of the word "permit" in the future.
These were -- again, the PUD is one thing, and there's an agreement between the private owners. Our
private agreement puts that responsibility on what is now WCI. And, obviously, we're going to work with
them with whatever we need to.
But our part is done. We just -- the county at times has come, asked us and, you know, seemed to
want to put pressure on us to move that portion, so we want to be sure that that is a paragraph that is
interpreted as being completed or in compliance.
If you'll indulge me for a second, I did have a question. I heard mentioned just now that there's a
new cross - section for the remaining of Pristine Drive that is going to be the same as Wolfe Road. I do not
know what the difference in cross - section is between the current Wolfe Road and the presently built Pristine
Drive, so I would like to know how the currently built Pristine Drive and Pristine Drive to be completed, the
future remaining part of Pristine Drive, will differ. Is that a width or whatever that difference is? We would
like to know. We don't know what it is, so I can neither support nor stand against it.
I would also like to clarify that we support everything that -- everything else that's being proposed
here. There's been some discussion on densities, and our understanding is that these are density changes
between their properties and the other PUD. I want to make sure it's understood that, you know, we don't
want to lose any density. And I don't think that's the case, but I wanted to put it on the record.
And, again, just going back to Pristine, we're willing to cooperate to get this done. We don't have the
resources that WCI has. So, technically, I heard the comments this morning -- you know, technically we
could build it but you know, that means that we go from little funding to big funding, and we all know the
limitations of that. We're dealing now in construction industry financing. We're financing -- self - financing a
lot of the stuff we do. And if we put -- you know, we fill this bucket, it means that we can't fill that bucket.
Page 63 of 85
March 21, 2013
So, you know, if we're building homes, you know, that makes it harder to build the road that is not so
easy to get reimbursed on when you sell the home. So that's where we feel a little bit protective. We hope
you understand that where, technically, it is possible for us to do that in a perfect world, we're not in a world
of equals here, and the requirement in the agreement is for the properties that now are WCI's to fund most of
it and manage that process; we'd like to encourage for that to remain the way it is because it -- it allows them
to do what they've got to do, and at the same time it allows us to also complete our community. We very
much want to complete and are working right now to that end, and we're starting up a process to -- the
undeveloped parcels to explore being able to develop those as well.
So we'd like to see both of us get off the ground, and we're just not in the same playing field that they
are, unfortunately.
But we definitely can do what we need to do and would like to move forward with that. And other
than what I've said, we -- believe me, they have our full support. We are truly very excited to see the market
moving and to see some homes moving and to see people drive by and say, oh, if WCI's building, that means
things must be good. You know, why don't we go look around. Oh, here's Portofino Falls. Maybe we'll look
at one of their homes and compare. Absolutely, we love this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I'm sure there's going to be some questions. At least I
have some, but let's go to Phil and Diane.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So are you withdrawing your letter of objection?
MR. CEPERO: Again, I don't think you guys saw our suggestions. We'd like for the board to
entertain the suggestions. I think Rich was gearing up to speak now. We did have a conversation earlier. If
they're amenable to that change, we would support that change.
Another thing we discussed, when I wrote the letter, I had not seen the new language that specifies
seven years. I requested, instead of waiting seven years for Pristine -- again, we can't get off the ground in
our undeveloped portion until Pristine is completed, not just because of the direct access, you know, which,
you know, it's been argued could be arrived at by building half of what's remaining to be built.
We would like for the whole thing to be built in order to provide that circulation that's going to bring
traffic in front of our property and to allow our homeowners that we've been promising for many years that
this road was going to be complete, allow them the option to, you know, go this way or go that way.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't mean to be argumentative with you, but my interpretation
at this point is -- and hearing what was testified to this morning with respect to the funding agreements which
are private agreements outside the purview here --
MR. CEPERO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that you folks were signatories to those agreements to fund the
road under certain conditions. And is this, to me, coming across like you want the petitioner to fund the road
without your participation --
MR. CEPERO: No.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- at this point because you've got too many buckets going.
MR. CEPERO: No, no.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Your words; not mine.
MR. CEPERO: That's not the case. What we're requesting -- we have a private agreement, and that
agreement is for us to further work out who's -- because there's no timing, we have to work out what's when.
Anything that changes in the PUD that might favor one party or the other, you know, we'd like to
have an issue with, because that changes the game in our negotiations.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm trying to understand what your objection is today, based on
what you've heard, to the changes that we've all talked through, proposed changes to the PUD, not to any
private funding agreement. What are your specific objections as we sit here now to the PUD as amended --
proposed to be amended today?
MR. CEPERO: Sure, sure. We are objecting to anything that pushes the completion of Pristine
Drive into the future. Nothing to do with funding. We were -- you know, we want to contribute our portion
and get it built as soon as possible so that we can build our property.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But I'm song. You said anything that pushes it into the future.
Page 64 of 85
March 21, 2013
Can you be more specific? I mean, anything -- tell me what "anything" is so that I can then focus on that
"anything."
MR. CEPERO: The agreement, as I saw before today, said that Pristine would not be built until 100
COs are issued. The agreement today, that I saw today, says 100 COs or seven years.
What -- we're trying to move forward in time the completion of Pristine Drive; that's why we offered,
instead of 100 COs, how about 100 permits, and you don't get a CO until Pristine is completed, and the 100
permits can be issued to anybody in the PUD so that, you know, it's not -- we're not just depending on when
X party builds, but we can start building as well, moving forward the start of --
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I guess we'll hear from the petitioner as to whether he
agrees with your suggestion.
MR. CEPERO: Our intent is to move closer to the present to make sooner the construction of
Pristine Drive. We want Pristine Drive to be built with our contribution, absolutely. We want it to be built,
but we want it to be built soon rather than later.
Did I say something that was not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. He's not participating in your discussion, sir. So just focus your
attention on us.
Richard needs to refrain from his comments.
COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm done, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. How many units are in your development?
MR. CEPERO: I will tell you one second. I don't know it off the top of your head.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And are these, like, townhomes or are they multifamily?
MR. CEPERO: They are townhome -style condominiums. So they're condos, but they look like
townhomes that are, you know, one building with five or six or seven units one next to the other. The condo
-- the community has the Phase 1 that's currently -- that has a road network, water and sewer completed, was
meant to have 246 condos, out of which 118 were actually built.
It was supposed to be a really happy story. We sold out in a weekend. We started building, and most
of those homebuyers, as the months went by and the economy started getting, you know, worse and worse,
most those buyers, unfortunately, backed out.
And this is where Pm talking about that we fought to keep this community viable and moving, and
we're maintaining a full community with only half the units built. And we've done our best. May not be
perfect, but, you know, we think we've done our best.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Is this the only development you have in there, or you also have
another section where you're doing single - family homes or something?
MR. CEPERO: Well, directly to the north of the condominium community that we referred to as
Portofino Falls, there are a couple other parcels; 32 acres, not including preserves and stuff like that. That's
just vacant land, undeveloped land. It has not been site planned. We are, right now, entertaining what would
be the right product for it. I can't tell you --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you still own it?
MR. CEPERO: We still own it, yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And how many units could you put on there?
MR. CEPERO: I can't tell you right now. I would have to do some math and workout some site
plan issues.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. One other question. On these townhomes and condos, are they
all sold, or are you renting them?
MR. CEPERO: Out of the 118 that were built, I believe it's 36 closed. So those are private
third -party property owners. The rest we are leasing, and we are -- some of that 36 includes some recent sales
that have started to pick up again, I'm very happy to report.
And because of this, we are working towards -- as these move forward, we're starting to build new
building. So we're very excited about that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane?
Page 65 of 85
March 21, 2013
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I'm going back to the parks thing. But because of the way it was
put in there -- the way it was put in the PUD, but I'll talk afterwards to the attorney.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. You access your property on that short spur of --
MR. CEPERO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- Pristine that's completed?
MR. CEPERO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: You're right at the end?
MR. CEPERO: Yes. Not quite at the end, but --
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah, I see.
MR. CEPERO: -- we're close.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few questions. You've got 82 unsold units but built and 126
units, right, that haven't been built in your first two parcels that you have taken down. How long do you think
it will be before those are out of your hands?
MR. CEPERO: Very hard to say, because it's just a new world we're entering, a new market. We
get interest in acquiring the current lease units in spurts. And it's one here, one there. The fact that we're
selling at all is exciting. It's certainly not you know, 2005 where, you know, you might sell the whole thing
in a weekend or even later where you might have 10 sales in a community, you know, per week. It's -- I
honestly can't tell you how long it will take.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think it will take more than six months?
MR. CEPERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less than 10 years?
MR. CEPERO: Ten years, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say, more than a year?
MR. CEPERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More than two years?
MR. CEPERO: I hope not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you do more than two years, you're probably doing more
than anybody else in this county right now.
You've got that to build out. How fast do you think you're going to build out Parcel 3?
MR. CEPERO: Well, the undeveloped -- again, as interest -- you know, this is a process, you know.
We're not going to go out and build, you know, 10 buildings and go out for sale like in the old days. We're
going to sell it, we're going to build it, and follow that process.
So as we complete the Phase 1, we're going to start working on a site plan for Phase 2, which will
take — I forget, you know, how long it's going to take to do a site plan here but you know, six months, eight
months, get through the process, get out a site plan, and then we're going to see where we're at. We'll start
doing some infrastructure.
I'm giving you a lot of speculations, again, because it's hard to say where the market's going to be.
We -- we're optimistic, I mean, six months and a year X and Y are going to happen, but, you know, things
change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, I know you've got a cash flow issue that probably hits you
constantly with what your unsold units are and your unbuilt units are and the taxes and all the infrastructure
you have in place for the 246 but only 118 are built. You probably have the same problem with maintaining
a bunch of empty units or rented units and rentals and all the other things to deal with.
And if you don't -- as you just said, you don't want to compete against yourself by developing
something before it's got the times where you can sell it. I mean, I can't imagine you being ready to move to
the property that you're trying to have Pristine built for within several years at the earliest.
And the way the current language in the PUD is written, Portofino or -- Portofino -- Palermo could
go ahead and build out all of the existing Palermo project without triggering the current language in the PUD
that would require them to connect Pristine Drive.
They're saying 101 units they'll kick it in. They can choose not to sell the south side of that first. If
Page 66 of 85
March 21, 2013
they were to do that with the new language being suggested and they hadn't built Pristine within the first five
years from the date of this PUD approval, if it were to be approved, they would have to put a bond up for the
amount of the road system to be put in and then complete it within two years so that in seven it's done.
Now, that's an -- that's an assured date. That's a date that you can more or less factor around if you
wanted to go forward. Any time in between, if you saw sales come up, you'd have the right to put up the
piece that you've got to put up for only the south side of Parcel 4, from my understanding of your agreement,
and they would -- had said here today they'll kick in the rest to complete Pristine Drive rather than if you want
it before they're ready to need it, and if they decide they're going to sell the north end of Palermo Cove out
first, you'd have to put the whole thing up if you want it done before that time frame.
So I'm trying to figure out why the current language is not going to work for you. To me, it gives
you assurances, it gives you an ability to basically know that something's going to happen where now you
don't know. They could shift around where they want to buy and sell from within their project, and you
would just be sitting there like you are today, and they could at the -- they're not forcing you to come up with
the cash flow because, the way it's written now, they would have to do it and come back, pursuant to the
agreement, and try to collect from you where, in the meantime, if you wanted it done before they took it over,
before they did it pursuant to the new language, you'd have to sit there with the issue of dealing with it with
cash flow.
So I'm not sure why you're objecting to this. But maybe there's some common ground that you would
feel are appropriate, and that's where I was leading when I asked you about the time frames for your
development.
If you're not going to be in a position to go forward for several years, which I can't see why you'd
compete against yourself, because your other product's going to lose -- instead of seven years, maybe there's a
shorter time frame that could be considered for that mandatory kick -in, and that would give you, I think, a
huge amount of headway to move forward.
MR. CEPERO: We did suggest that -- once I saw the new language this morning, I suggested,
instead of seven years, making it two years, which is what we thought we'd get to, you know, for that point.
I also want to bring up that it's not the issue of the undeveloped parcels that Pristine Drive -- the
completed Pristine Drive and Wolfe Road extension.
And if you don't mind, I'm going to pause here and go to something that was said in the previous
PUD about Wolf Creek and completing Wolf Creek. My understanding, if Wolf Creek right now terminates
or should terminate where it would -- is to intersect with Pristine Drive, and if that's the case, then it's good.
But if -- when you're talking about not completing Wolfe Road, it means that its not getting to Pristine Drive,
then we do want that connection to happen, you know. If Pristine Drive is completed, but there's no Wolfe
Road, it hurts us.
And it's -- what I was about to say is that it's not just about the vacant -- the future lots. It's a benefit
for the existing lots, because it -- there's no traffic through that road that's bringing possible buyers through
the finish -- finish -- I mean, infrastructure-wise not in terms of units, Portofino Falls.
So when somebody goes to buy there, if they can even find it -- if somebody goes to buy there,
they're going to say, well, I can only go through here, I've got to go this way, then I've got to make a U -turn,
instead of having that option. It just makes it a more difficult community.
And in this very, more than ever, competitive market, it puts us at an -- even more of a disadvantage.
And, again, this was a road that was supposed to be done quickly. We were in agreement when it was put on
hold because of the realty of the markets. We weren't going to ask Mr. Hoover to spend money on something
we didn't need at that moment, but now we would like it.
And, you know, we didn't come here requesting a PUD by ourselves demanding that you know,
there be a two -year limit on doing this. We're here because this came up, and we learned about it through
public notices. I think we could have worked much easier and better with the applicant had we had more of a
chance to do this. We want to work with them. They're our neighbors. We're probably going to need them
in the future for something we need.
And, again, we didn't come here saying no, no, no, no, don't do this. We're trying to offer
alternatives so they can do as much as what they can without -- you know, with lessening the impact to us.
Page 67 of 85
March 21, 2013
But there is -- we did request or suggest that the tune limit be reduced to two years. And if we can
work that out, we'd be amenable to that, you know, two years, to complete Pristine Drive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- I — based on the amount you still have to sell and the
undeveloped land you have, I don't see how two years benefits you. I understand it gives you a complete
loop through, but at the same time they'd be going through Palmero Cove. And anybody wanting to see your
project will probably visit it off of Vanderbilt Beach Road, because your frontage is right there.
MR. CEPERO: That's okay. We're okay with competition. The competition is good. And our
products are never exactly the same. You know, you go, you know -- because there's big advertising, you go
to see the big fish, but that's not quite your pond, and then you come see our pond and you like our pond
better, it works for all of us. Competition is absolutely good.
(Commissioner Brougham left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I haven't -- based on the county attorney's position on this, we may
not be able to make the changes in the road segment of this PUD. And I'll ask the county attorney to
embellish that discussion a little later.
And if you object, if you object to this, my opinion is you're going to be hurting yourself more than
you're helping. But that's -- you know, you've been in the business a while, you probably understand it; so
have I.
MR. CEPERO: Well, we want to help work this out. We want to work it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, two years isn't much of a compromise. I mean, if you take two years
off of seven, you may be talking something, because you're not going to get -- I can't see, based on the time
frames you've got to sell out and develop and clear and produce plans and in the shortfall of cash that you
seem to have, how you're going to do it any faster than a five -year period.
And all that's done concurrently to give a brand new road to a development that could be coming out
of the ground or producing or not -- getting to a point where it could be workable with a new road going in.
I don't see you doing it before five years even if you had every green light today. But, you know,
that's your judgment call. But I implore you to consider it, because that might be a solution for everybody.
MR. CEPERO: I'm open to considering. We think it -- we can do this. And I'd like to mention a
couple of times shortfall in funds. I'd like to clarify that it's -- I wasn't talking about a shortfall in funds, but
there's a difference between building homes that have a specific return once you sell them and then building
something that is — has a less tangible return, like a road outside of the community.
We definitely have the capability to build what we have outstanding in Portofino Falls and to build
the new portion of Falls simultaneously but, you know, that's going to carry some financing that -- you know,
some investors that are going to see a return from those sales. Pristine Drive is a harder sell. That's all I'm
trying to say. And it doesn't mean that we can't do Pristine Drive.
It's just -- you know, a big company can do many things at once. We can do the buildings with a
direct line from sale to, you know, return and then reinvest that money. It's harder to do with something
where you're investing the money and you're not getting it back directly. That's all l was trying to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I would agree with you. You could be investing a lot just to
move forward and have a lot of empty buildings that you've already carried some for quite some time.
I drive by your facility. I live just down the road. And I'm amazed at -- I didn't know who owned it
until today. But Pm amazed at how empty some of those units have been and how -- and being in the
business for a period of time myself, I realize what that carry is, and that's a lot of carry.
MR. CEPERO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, I know you're not going to -- especially with the
experience we've all had -- move forward and produce more of that. You're going to wait until the market
catches up to you.
MR. CEPERO: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just think you ought to seriously consider a more reasonable,
realistic time frame for that road completion. I'm suggesting five years. I don't know if WCI would accept it
or not, but I certainly would explore that with them if that was a point that would make this work. If it's not
going to work, then we're not going to waste our time, and we'll just move on. But that's something I need to
Page 68 of 85
March 21, 2013
know from you.
MR. CEPERO: If two years is too short a period, three years -- five years is putting us so far into the
future for us that it's almost the same as seven years, with all due respect. We do feel we need the road.
That's -- it's impacting our business and our ability to market what we have. Again, it's not about, you know,
just to complete it, future stuff. It's what we have now and the viability and the access and the productivity
that it has. Three years is probably -- it's actually close to half the seven years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CEPERO: I mean, would that -- I saw Rich leave.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: One question, just for my own edification. These properties, your
properties are interconnected; I mean, they're contiguous.
MR. CEPERO: Yeah, the one north of the next.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Will that be connected? You will be able to connect from the existing
property north to the new area?
MR. CEPERO: The original plan did entertain some connections.
COMIVIISSIONER VONIER: Okay.
MR, CEPERO: Those are interior connections, not main entry, which neither provide the level of
service.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: My point is, you do have access to that property through a fancy gate
that you have now.
MR. CEPERO: Right.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: So for initial development, you do have access to that property
without using Pristine Road.
MR. CEPERO: Again, it's an internal connection, so it's for internal circulation. It does not provide
-- when people go by, they're going to see either a nice finished big com rnunity, or they're going to see
something that, oh, my God, I've got to drive through all these homes to get to my home. And when I leave
for work in the morning, there's going to be 50 cars in front of me. It's all -- it all affects the decision of the
buyer.
So there is a -- an interior connection, but it doesn't provide the marketability, the access, the
emergency access, the facilities that a completed Pristine Drive does (sic), and hopefully three years is a good
compromise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Ray, were there any other public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to speak on this matter?
(No response.)
CHA RMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll entertain rebuttal -- go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: One quick thing. Your company -- the developer owns Parcels 5, 4, 9
and 3B?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One -- well, the parcels on the agreement are different than the parcels on
the PUD. So that's -- yeah, the ones on the left. So that would be -- the left two bottom ones.
MR. CEPERO: I apologize; 1 don't know them by number. This is the current condominium
community here, and then these are the other parcels that are vacant right now. This L shape is part of WCI.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, okay. So I -- okay. But those are the vacant ones, but you
actually own all the way up to the WCI property; is that correct?
MR. CEPERO: Yes, up to here.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's just trying to -- and how many homes was going to be the
total for the development?
MR. CEPERO: For the PUD?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, for the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 671 -- 671 currently, and it's being modified slightly by the actions taken
Page 69 of 85
March 21, 2013
here today.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But how many -- so 671 total for the Wolf Creek PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was what it currently is for. I can tell you what it's changed to.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're adding 83 more, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wolf Creek -- it would go up to 754, and the Palermo would drop down to
237.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, it's 83.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Palmeo is currently 524.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we have to take -- we have to take what Black Bear Ridge it, add it
to all this, but it can't be more than -- okay. You're right, the things are very confusing, your diagrams. Thank
you.
MR. CEPERO: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay. Rich, you want rebuttal time?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, please, briefly, I hope.
I really just want to focus on Pristine Drive. And I understand that, for whatever reason, the
developer of the condominium project is going to have the ability to dictate whether or not what we're
proposing as far as a change to the timing of Pristine Drive will occur or will not occur.
But I want to emphasize that in response to some of the statements that were said, there was never
uniformity of control between the Palermo Cove project and the Wolf Creek project to assure that Wolfe
Road and Pristine Drive would be built together into one loop road. There never was that commitment, but --
so the statement of their desire to have a loop road because they believe they always were going to get a loop
road, I don't know what the basis for that statement is, since the Palermo Cove project was always separate
from Wolf Creek.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that's the county.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That has always been the developer of Palermo Cove was going to build
some or all of Wolfe Road up to Pristine at some point, whenever the Palermo Cove project went forward.
The original Palermo Cove project was essentially, and is, if this is not approved, a multifamily
project with many more units that will be built by simply building Wolfe Road and will directly compete with
the condo project on Vanderbilt Beach Road. It will be new units, much easier to sell compared to an older
project that has been struggling -- at no fault of the developer's, but struggling. It's a little dated.
What we're offering to do is take multifamily off the table and go to a single - family product on
Palermo Cove, build Wolfe up to Pristine, create a more enhanced road than we expected. We expected 18
feet in width -- stabilized road so people can loop if they want to loop, all the way down to Vanderbilt Beach
Road in exchange for the ability to build up to 100 -- and CO up to 100 units within the Wolf Creek portion
of the project, and at the sooner of the 101 st CO or seven years, build Pristine to where it connects to Wolfe
Road.
Because keep in mind, I have to build Wolfe Road all the way, basically, almost to Pristine in order
to get my first CO in Palermo Cove. And we are providing certainty where certainty doesn't exist in today's
PUD regarding the timing of Pristine, nor does it exist in the current cost- sharing agreement.
We had originally thought the proposal was we got 100 building permits for our project but have just
realized that the 100 building permits he was referring to actually applies to his project as well, so I get to
compete for the 100 building permits that I thought was ours in the proposal that we saw for the first time this
morning.
If we have to live with the existing provisions in the PUD, the Wolf Creek PUD, it's a very simple
issue for us; we develop Palermo Cove fast, and we wait until the market gets there for us to build Pristine
whenever we feel like building Pristine based upon the market conditions.
We had tried to bring some certainty to this equation recognizing that we're all still feeling the effects
of a bad economy; we're all optimistic, but we want to be realistic, and we felt seven years to get the road
done was realistic, bad case.
Putting money up at the fifth year to make sure the road gets done gave additional assurance to the
Page 70 of 85
March 21, 2013
county that the road was, in fact, going to get built, and we all hope that everything sells really well and we
hit the 100 COs really quick, and we're ready to build Pristine Drive.
But that seems to be a problem for the condominium developer. He wants us to build him a nice
road that will bring traffic to his project to help him sell his project.
Right now he doesn't have any of that, will not have any of that without the project moving forward.
Unless WCI gets involved and moves this project forward, you'll stick with Palermo Cove as it currently is,
you'll have no certainty as to when and if Pristine Drive will ever get built on someone else's dime. They
always control when they can build it on their own dime under the cost - sharing agreement.
I watched my client shake his head "yes" on a five -year outside date for the construction of Pristine.
That's fine. We're not going to two years. We're not going to three years. We're not going to four years. If
five years isn't acceptable to Prime Home Builders today, we really want to know that because let's not waste
our time. We'll just go ahead and restructure our phasing schedule and deal with the marketing aspects of
what we need to do, because he clearly has the ability to veto any changes on the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Rich, that veto is not something coming from anybody on this
Planning Commission. It's a legal issue that we have to acknowledge.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand the risks involved in changing a PUD, and -- but -- so if they
feel that they're going to get -- if the county feels it's going to get sued if they were to change the PUD
condition to create certainty in return for the allowing of a few COs to be issued, I understand that position.
I'm not quabbling -- squabbling with it or quibbling with it, but if that's the answer, that's the answer, and we
just need to move forward with the PUD as it is.
My understanding is, the yellow is the areas we're bringing into Wolf Creek today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the 16 acres up in the upper left -hand corners, and then there's the
five -acre McDaniel Scenic Woods. I think Pristine Lakes, Mr. Vonier, was the other, maybe, reference to
that five acres. We would understand that that prohibition on platting and building permits would not apply
to that 21 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's what I heard.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The existing limitation would apply to the, essentially, remainder on that
property, which is labeled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not. It's those three rectangles in the yellow.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 1B. It's right here. It's basically -- it actually would apply to our property,
and it would apply to the condominium project. They would not be able to pull any -- I believe the exact
language is, is no certificates of occupancy will be issued on anybody's property until Pristine Drive is
constructed from its current terminus all the way up to Wolfe Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's what the developer of the condominium project is insisting upon and
will not accept a five -year outside date, then I don't know that we have any other choice.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There's also a limitation on the SDPs and plats until it's under construction.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, that's right. So it's even worse for them. I had given them -- my
mistake. It's even worse for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And an SDP and a plat is usually about a year ahead of vertical. So you'd
be out some time before you could even get SDP and plats.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why I was hoping that -- we're going to be taking a break in a
few minutes, and maybe you two guys can talk and try to come to the same meeting of the minds. If you
can't, then come back and tell us. You know what options you have.
Rich, you've always --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Have I got it right? I mean, I have the options correct. I mean, I understand
how they will be imposed.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, correct. Both you, as well as the -- Mr. Cepero -- did I say that
correct -- his business as well.
Page 71 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. CEPERO: Jorge is fine.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Cepero?
MR. CEPERO: Jorge.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. Both those projects would not be able to go forward with SDPs or
plats.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. That's why I think it's more pressing that if you can find a
meeting of the minds, you might want to try to do so during the break.
One item I'd like to clear up before break is another that was brought up during the discussion, and
that was the Pristine Drive cross - section that has been proposed today. Is it different than the Pristine Drive
cross- section that's been previously built? Because there is a concern that the two of them -- one was -- one
was consistent with the current PUD, and I'm not sure how the new one would be declared consistent unless
staff could research that.
And you don't need to answer me now, Reed, but I think we need to find that out at some point.
Because if we keep to Heidi's concerns, either someone has to accept the additional cost, if there's a change
cost involved, or we have to come back and go back with the existing drawing that exists in the current PUD,
if one does.
So what we'll do is we'll take a break, come back --
MR. CEPERO: May I quickly just clarify something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. CEPERO: On the Pristine Drive/Wolf Creek connection that Richard was just talking about, I
did -- although I spoke to the benefit of having this full connection, I did not speak to anybody being required
to us to build Wolfe Road. All I said was that the agreement between Hoover and us called for him to finish
Pristine Drive. I did not address Wolfe Road on that portion of my statement. I did talk about just the benefits
of connecting the entire road.
And Pm perfectly happy to get with the applicant once again. I thought we were in agreement this
morning. They asked me to clarify whether my letter talked about the -- both PUDs or just the Wolf Creek
PUD. And I said the Wolf Creek PUD, so I thought we were on the same page that it was 100 permits for the
Wolf Creek PUD, and I did offer them two years before.
So now they're bringing up five years, so I do want to talk to them about it, because it's not quite
what we discussed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand. But I think you heard the options that are available
today, so it's a better timing to discuss it. And we'll take a break to 2:45, and we'll see how far you guys can
get by that time.
MR. CEPERO: Appreciate your help.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. The break was a little longer, and the parties that were
discussing things on the break, you can still discuss them. We have another agenda item that's rather short,
and we can interpret it at any time. So we're just going to move on to those real quick and kill some time
while you -all are working on final discussions on this Palermo Cove and Wolf Creek.
* * *So with that in mind, let's move into the old business, Category 10A, which is a review of past
staff clarifications. And there were five of them submitted to us for review.
Ray, do you want to take us through them?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first one, Attachment 1, deals with LDC Section 2.2.3. It's the Estates
zoning district. And the staff clarification was to determine, when someone wants to do a lot -line adjustment,
where along the property line that that could be done. And this clarification basically says a 150- foot -wide
lot frontage, the part of the lot line that's going to be adjusted on, say it's a side yard line, that has to be at least
75 feet back. That is the setback requirement of the Estates.
So you can't do a lot -line adjustment coming off the road, because then that would lower the lot with
less than what's required for that zoning direct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe this is already incorporated into the code and it also is
Page 72 of 85
March 21, 2013
typically what we do for cul -de -sac lots, isn't it?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, something similar to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have questions or concerns about that particular
clarification?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- we can vote on them all at once, can't we?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: All at once?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we'll do them all at one time.
The next one is one on March 2000, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Where's my Attachment 2? Oh, my copier missed a page. I don't have 2.
Which one is 2?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, are you out of luck then. We're not going to tell you. It's a
clarification of the status of roofs, screen porches with regard to setback requirements. They have also
expressed concern that the LUC does not require a separation between screen enclosures and other structures,
that this could result in a conflict with fire code requirements.
And the bottom line is that in any case, for any unattached structures, the minimum separation of 10
feet between these structures would be required. And I believe that's already how we apply it.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It was just to help make sure that that is clear in everyone's mind when
they look at accessory structures. And I think the confusion was that people at the front desk, when they look
at -- some permits come in for accessory structures, a shed, so to speak, that that wasn't clear to them, and that
this clarification helped make that clear for them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's either got to be attached or it's got to be part of the main structure.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one -- I don't if you have it, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I've got 3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2000 -02.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This is another one dealing with accessory buildings and structures in the
old definition section. And, basically, in all zoning districts, accessory structures may be constructed on a lot
adjacent to the lot on which a principal structure is located when lots are under common ownership.
And what's basically happened is the code does not allow a property owner to place an accessory
structure without a permitted use or permitted structure.
So if it's a residential zoning district, before they can build a shed or some other accessory structure, a
garage, they would have to have the dwelling there, and that would have to be constructed in conjunction
with the accessory structure; however, if the dwelling's on the adjacent lot and both lots are under the same
ownership, the property owner is allowed to build the accessory structure on the vacant adjacent lot subject to
their providing an affidavit that if they sell the property, the vacant lot, that they have to take down the
accessory structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a reason why we wouldn't have just required them to
combine the lots?
MR. BELLOWS: We normally would try to do that, but sometimes they have a long -range goal to
sell the property, and they just want temporary use of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this has, effectively, been incorporated into the code? I don't
remember. I haven't come across it before.
MR. BELLOWS: No. This particular one probably has not; that's why we still kept it as a valid staff
clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good. Because I think if you were to incorporate it it would
only encourage people to do it, and I'd rather see them combining lots, so --
Okay. Anybody else have any questions on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You withdrew No. 2000 -03, and you have included 2000 -05. So that's the
Page 73 of 85
March 21, 2013
next one, 2000 -05. Do you have that one?
MR. BELLOWS: That's Attachment 5, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's for nonconforming structures?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, it's Attachment 5.
MR. BELLOWS: This one is in regard to Section 12.8.10. Now its 9.03.03(b)(2) of the current
LDC that states that the construction of a nonconforming structure by any means to an extent of more than 50
percent of its actual replacement cost at the time of destruction must be rebuilt in conformity with the current
LDC regulations.
Work on a legal nonconforming dock in this case, of this staff clarification, to the extent of 50
percent or less of the replacement cost may, therefore, be performed provided that the original location and
dimensions of the dock are maintained.
There was some confusion on, when you read the nonconforming sections, how that would apply to
a dock, and this staff clarification was helping to apply that 50 percent rule to the actual replacement cost of
the dock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, this is based upon the fact that we computerized
recordkeeping prior -- from'89 up until -- well, after 1990.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I recall we have an exception in the code for building permits
after '97 because we don't have the copies of building permits prior to '97 in a lot of cases. Do you recall that
issue?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there was an issue --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Prior to '90 it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, that's why Pm questioning why ifs'90 and not'97, because
there was -- at some point --
MR. BELLOWS: There was a recordkeeping issue in'97. I believe the County Attorney's Office
issued a legal opinion that when there's lack of evidence and record of a building permit being issued or not
being issued for a structure, because of the poor recordkeeping --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can rely on --
MR. BELLOWS: -- if other issues meet code, you can consider that to be legal nonconforming
dock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If there was -- something about relying on, like, the property
appraiser's record or something else to prove --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the existence of the issue.
Why wouldn't we incorporate -- first of all, has this been incorporated into any kind of language in
the LDC specifically?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have incorporated that other piece, and that's probably
just as well, because that covers the time frame that this would have been for, so -- okay, well, that answers
that, at least for me.
Anybody else have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is there a motion to approve the staff clarifications that were
presented?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Bill.
Discussion?
Page 74 of 85
March 21, 2013
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -0.
Okay. Who wants to talk? Richard? Since you're walking up this way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: ** *Okay. I think we've agreed that, assuming the parties can workout an
agreement between now and the board for a private agreement, right now I think we're all agreed that we will
build the road, Pristine, at the earlier of the 101 st CO or five years. Since we're going to do it within five
years, we no longer need to post the security at the end of the fifth year, so that would come out.
The parties — this gives Prime Home Builders their ability to still object when we get to the Board of
County Commissioners if we don't reach an agreement between themselves -- between the parties on some
earlier language if necessary for us to extend all or a portion of Pristine to the mutual agreement of the parties
between now and then.
But I believe that hopefully between now and then we'll have our private agreement in place. It
won't affect the county, but that gives them the right to still object at the Board of County Commissioners'
hearing to even that five -year language, and I think that's -- that is hopefully a win -win, and we'll get there on
the private side. But on the public side, I think this is a win -win for the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then before I ask the gentleman from Prime Builders to come up
and acknowledge what you just -- you and he have talked about, I'd like one more clarification to happen by
Reed in regards to the cross - section for Pristine Drive.
I think what Reed explained to me was that the cross - section is the minimum county standards
whether it's now or later. Whenever it's built, that's the standard it has to go to, and that's what this
cross- section represented. But I want to make sure that he says that for the record, and then we'll ask Prime
Builders to talk with -- address us on the issue that Rich just did.
MR. JARVI: Yes, Reed Jarvi, for the record. The previous PUD language -- this goes back to, I
think it's'07 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. JARVI: — stated -- and I'll read it. It's No. O, the -- yeah, the developer shall start construction
of Pristine within one year. It goes on, the rezone -- we changing that, but the last sentence of that O says,
said roadway shall be complete within -- no, wait a minute. No. I read it. I got to find it here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
MR. JARVI: No, it's the first sentence. The developer shall start construction of Pristine Drive
within one year of the approval of the RPUD, the rezone, and said roadway shall be constructed to county
standards and accepted by Collier County through the normal acceptance process.
So we believe that the road that was done before will be similar or should be the exact same as we
have now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- but, regardless, the road that will be constructed has to be to
whatever the county standards are.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's to the extent you're requesting?
MR. JARVI: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that doesn't change anything, and that's fine, thank you. I wanted
to get that acknowledgment, so --
MR. JARVI: We're trying to put it in a section so it's not as vague right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And, sir, you're with Prime Builders. Could you kind of tell us where you stand now at this point?
MR. CEPERO: Yes. Thank you for allowing us the time to work this out. We very much wanted
Page 75 of 85
March 21, 2013
an opportunity to not simply say no or object or slow down their process, so we appreciate that.
We do want to have -- add one specification that we did talk about. We're going to work out the
logistics in a private agreement, but the -- what we would like -- the language that we would like to go to
counsel would be giving the option of the earlier of three, one being the 101 st CO, two being the five years,
and three being -- again, the earlier of -- three being that Pristine Drive construction will start at the same time
that the Phase 2, or basically the undeveloped portion of -- the undeveloped property that we hold would start
construction.
And also Mr. Wolf wanted to make specific that it was -- as long as it's required by the county that
that entry -- a direct entry to that new parcel be provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm confused on the number three. Can you kind of shorten
that up in a succinct way, or is it --
MR. CEPERO: When we start construction --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "We" meaning Prime Builders?
MR. CEPERO: Any -- when the construction for the vacant parcel starts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which vacant parcel?
MR. CEPERO: The 12 acres and the thirty -- the 32 acres north of Portofino Falls, also known as
Medeiros.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Parcel --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me put it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's got a different parcel number.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your settlement agreement or your previous road construction agreement
called that Parcel 3, the Medeiros parcel. So when construction were to start on the Medeiros parcel, that's
when the road would start?
MR. CEPERO: That's when the road would start. As long as it's -- that a requirement of that new
project be that there would be a connection to Pristine Drive by the county, a requirement by the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- yeah, so it would -- that's the third trigger, if the county required the
connection to Pristine Drive.
MR. CEPERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, that's the extent of what you need to acknowledge
now? Are you comfortable with that?
MR. CEPERO: Yes. Aside from any voluntary, if they want to be generous and build it sooner, or if
we decide to build it sooner, that's aside from any of that, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. CEPERO: Otherwise, I really appreciate your time. I know that this is, you know, a little bit of
a pain in the butt. There's a lot of history here, and I appreciate their patience. We did come on this very late
on. We could have worked this out, hopefully, sooner, but we're very happy that we were able to positively
contribute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, they all seem to be like this anymore, so --
Richard, can you comment on — I understand that you -all -- in your first discussion the 101 is
understood, the five years is understood, but the last condition, which is the construction on Parcel 3 and
contingent access to Pristine Drive, are you in agreement with that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand that to mean that if they were to build a totally separate
neighborhood from their existing condominium project, then we would -- and the county says you -all have an
access for a totally separate new neighborhood and they start working on that we will work with them to
build Pristine Drive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's all going to be subject to you guys working on a private
agreement once this goes ahead today.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But right now, if it's a separate stand -alone neighborhood on those
two parcels, we will participate in the construction of that road.
MR. CEPERO: The county still requires a second --
Page 76 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if the county -- I guess if the county requires a separate emergency
access to the -- for the first project, which I would think would be kind of odd since they didn't require it
when they originally approved it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But regardless.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but if they do, if its also required for emergency purposes, then we'll go
ahead and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like to understand then that for consent you guys will put
this into some succinct form so that we can enter it as a condition of this project, and it will be reviewed at
consent. Is that where you believe this is headed? Do you have any problem with that? And then between
consent -- or between now and the Board of County Commissioners, you guys will reduce it to formal
agreement so that at the board hearing you can come forward and agree and everything, or leave it on
summary if you don't disagree by that point.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will endeavor to get to the county language that we believe address the
situation, recognizing that Jorge's boss is gone for three weeks.
MR. CEPERO: One.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you told me we couldn't deal with the private agreement for three
weeks.
MR. CEPERO: No, because you said two weeks. He's out one week. He wanted two weeks after
he's back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far are you out from the Board of County Commissioners' hearing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in May, so we should be able to get close, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a whole month and a half
MR. YOVANOVICH: But, I mean, I don't know about timing -wise for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not --on consent I just need you to acknowledge what you just said.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And have you guys -- as long as that's done that way, and at this meeting
Prime Builders is acknowledging that they're in agreement to move forward like that, whether they succeed
by the Board of County Commissioners' meeting or not, that's what you guys can work out.
But for this meeting the Planning Commission can rely upon those conditions, we're willing to go
ahead -- we can take a vote on that and move forward.
MR. CEPERO: And any development of that vacant parcel, if the county requires an entry to be
made, then that would trigger the construction of Pristine Drive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what you guys can work out so you have a finished agreement
prior to the board.
And, Heidi, does that work for you and how we approach the Items N and O and the changes in the
PUD?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know how to answer it because there's lack of clarity as to this third
condition. And, you know, we don't -- there's no clarity on where -- whether this is going to go on regular
consent agenda at this point for the Board of County Commissioners, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regular consent meaning in front of the board?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree with —
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd rather not be getting this language the day before the board BCC
meeting is my concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't have a -- I understand. I don't know anybody's expecting it to
go on summary agenda or consent unless an agreement's worked out and nobody objects to it. I'm just trying
to get it past the Planning Commission today postured in a way that will find a solution by the time of the
board hearing one way or the other.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. As I'm hearing it, you've got three conditions. The third one, that if
Parcel 3B is a separate stand -alone project and the county requires separate access, then you'll construct -- are
you going to construct or complete it at that time, construction of Pristine Drive?
Page 77 of 85
March 21, 2013
MR. CEPERO: Not only if its a separate project. If it's a Phase 2 to the current project but the
county requires an entry, another entry to the north -- any time the county requires another entry than already
exists on Pristine Drive on the west side, then Pristine Drive would have to be completed in its entirety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I see WCI's reps shaking their heads yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, we break ground on Pristine Drive when they break ground on
their project, is what the agreement says. We will start the road when they start their project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by starting of the project, you're going to work out what that --
see, what starts the project, application or issuance?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They're going to get their plat and they're going to start moving dirt,
really moving dirt, putting infrastructure in and things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moving dirt means it's either an SDP or a confirmed plat.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about submitting
an application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you get an approved plat or an approved SDP, that's when
that Trigger No. 3 is made.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And then they have their required construction meeting, and then they
actually start construction. Because, as you know, you get a plat approved and sit for a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But a plat and an SDP require impact fees. And if anybody's going
to put up a bucket of money to pay those impact fees, they're going to be moving ahead.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We hope so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would think that's a more reliable -- that's a reliable factor, so --
MS. DESELEM: If I may ask for clarification. I've heard two different words. I've heard "start
construction of the road" and I've heard "complete the road."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They won't know to start until the plat has been approved or the SDP
is approved, because at that time the applicant would have had to pay for a pro rata share of impact fees, plus
to follow the process of the county. So they wouldn't want to -- I don't know how we could have anybody
practically start something until we had the assurety that the plat and SDP are approved. But once they are,
the roadwork would start.
This is a small segment of the road. It's only -- it's narrow. Anybody could knock that out in no time
at all far in advance of a multifamily or even single - family housing that would go up as a result of an SDP or
a plat.
So I think the applicant is safe in assuming that the road could be done quicker than they could get --
need COs on Parcel 3. I think that's a pretty safe bet.
MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Heidi, does that --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They would start construction and then complete it within, what, like 12
months, or what would be the tune frame? Twelve months? Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It would take anybody else that long to move forward with the rest
of the other projects, so --
Okay. So the conditions that we just went over and that -- what Heidi has made notes of and, Kay,
based on what you made notes of, will result in new language for O. That conditional language will be what
this Planning Commission will send forward as a stipulation assuming it's voted on here today, along with all
the other stipulations that we've gone through on the various two documents which are way too numerous for
me to list here today.
So we're just going to assume that Kay has done her job and that we're going to see those -- I've
made notes on the various pages, but I'll have to review them after I get the list when it comes back in fresh
form.
Is there anything else that anyone wants to add before we close the public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the
Planning Commission, and I ask that the motion be subject to the discussions and notes that we've made here
Page 78 of 85
March 21, 2013
today and that will be refined as the consent agreement -- if the consent item gets up.
We talked to a series of -- we went through all the deviations, we went through the various buffer
requirements, we went through the road, the conditions of that, Wolfe Road, and the signage, and all that will
be part of whatever motion's made as far as getting corrected by consent.
Is there a motion to recommend either approval of this project -- these two projects? And we've got
to start with the first one, the first one being PUDZA-PL20120000680, Palermo Cove PUD. That's the first
one. Is there a --
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Barry, seconded by Karen.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Who had "yeah "?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I'll wait till the other one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 -0.
* * *Is there a motion for PUDZA- PL20120000650, the Wolf Creek PUD?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by -- motion made by Bill, seconded by Karen.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I need some clarification on some items. I prefer that it not go on
consent agenda. But there are a few things in the old PUD that I want to make sure, to be honest. So just so
it doesn't go on consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what you mean by not go on consent.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, in other words, that the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't -- we're not changing the language in the old PUD, so what did
you -- what is it you're trying to get to?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's -- Heidi and I, there's a couple items that we have to speak
about that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay. You guys can speak about them but, I mean, at this point
I don't know -- I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to do. I'm a little puzzled. Are you trying to change
something?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. There are some questions I have with pulling a couple of these
things out, parks, number one, that I know it's in the old PUD, not in the new, but I don't know why it was
really pulled out. I mean, I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the first -- the basis for the removal of the parks criteria ought
to be something staff should address. Kay, it was removed. Staff approved the removal. Can you explain to
us the basis under which you made that approval?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
Yeah, the applicant requested that it be removed, and staff has no objection to that based on the fact
Page 79 of 85
March 21, 2013
that there is no Land Development Code or Comp Plan requirement for said park, but that doesn't preclude
anyone that develops within the PUD to provide a park should they desire to do so.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The way its worded, in here, Kay, it says, the playground shall be
provided in a common area but be operational before the issuance of any CO for permanent residents. Long
before this came, there were COs, whether they were in Portofino or something. I'm thinking because there's
so many developers, he should have one in his 246, because its the way its written. I guess I need that
clarified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a clubhouse in that 246 -unit condominium project. I see it when I
drive by, and you can see it from the aerial. There is a clubhouse in the other village that's been created there.
Both of them have pools in them. That's what shows up mostly in the aerial. They are functional clubhouses,
from the best I can tell.
I'm not sure that requirement could have gone beyond that, and staff may have felt that the
clubhouses met the requirement of a recreation area, park.
And if I'm mistaken, you guys speak up, but that's the only way I can figure it got CO'ed at this point
is that the clubhouses met whatever criteria was felt to be needed, or not?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And there's is a PUD monitoring report that was filed in September 2011
that indicates that this is completed as to the Black Bear project.
In my conversations with Ms. Ebert, her concern is that there should be one in each of the -- oh,
excuse me -- projects within the PUD. And what I've relayed to her is that it says they'll provide ACPSC and
ASTM - certified grade playground. So to me that only indicates one, and --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because it's the wording.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- which has been built. But, again, they're recommending or requesting
that that commitment be removed from the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With the amount of -- there's only two projects left in that PUD.
One that was currently under this requirement to begin with, which is the one to the south, and the expansion
of that to the north and the new properties that are moving into Palen-no.
Is there any -- any reason to expect that, first of all, either one of them can't meet this criteria based
on the fact that we've already got some projects accepted that way, namely the clubhouse that's in Bear
Creek? So maybe it doesn't hurt just to leave it in and ignore it if there's going to be an issue over it.
Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: May I, Mr. Strain? Wayne Arnold.
I think — the reason that we offered to delete the language is it really is -- it's one of those things they
go in waves. You know, at one point in time, this was a comment we were getting from parks and rec to try
to put requirements on developers to put in a neighborhood park for small children in each of their
communities whether you knew you were going to have small kids and market toward that group or not.
There is no standard anywhere in the parks and rec department for designing something to an ASTM
standard 2 to 12- year -old. I mean, there are national standards, but that's for construction of certain
playground equipment. We didn't feel like it's -- it's kind of past.
In the last two years, I haven't worked on a project in which anybody's ever asked us to add this type
of condition. Just like we've gone through the period of affordable housing. We've now got a process to get
rid of all those affordable housing commitments because we realized that really wasn't the way to deal with
this issue.
So we asked to eliminate this condition that's no longer even being requested by staff, period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- with the way we've handled affordable housing and other
exactions, wild (sic) exactions and things like that, unless it's required by code, the market's going to be
driven by which -- in the way you build that project. If you have -- are trying to cater to families with
children, you'll be putting these facilities in. But that generally isn't the demographic in Collier County as a
whole.
But -- go ahead, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And the concern I have about leaving that requirement in, I don't want
anybody to interpret that what's in Black Bear Ridge is open to everybody in the PUD because it satisfied the
Page 80 of 85
March 21, 2013
PUD condition that there be a children's park. So I'd just as soon eliminate that so nobody can argue, let me in
to Black Bear Ridge to use the children's facility. So that's why I think it needs to come out.
And in addition to, it probably -- it was one of those exactions that found its way in that shouldn't
have gotten in there in the first place.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- and you don't want it -- with WCI coming in and building, you
don't want it in that portion, and I see that. It's just the wording that's in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. It's there. Those words are there, and it was, for whatever
reason --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because "any CO." Then I'm thinking, okay, somebody bought this, so
he had to have one. And it's the way it's worded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike's got something to say.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, interim director of planning. Just to give you a history of -- and real quickly,
of why that point was in there.
hi the previous GMP, parks and recreation rose the recreation open space element. There used to be
a provision within -- the county was going to provide regional and community parks. They also mentioned
neighborhood parks, but they never had a standard. They never had a level of service. It was just referenced
within there, and I think that's where the parks department would ask for these park facilities. They recognize
that without a level of service, without guidelines for how you could make these requisitions, those were no
longer -- were really -- were valid requests to place on the individual applicants.
We've subsequently, through the EAR process, eliminated the neighborhood park references;
therefore, this issue will no longer be asked of an individual developer. It's at the developer's discretion as to
whether they feel it's appropriate to put a playground for their individual development based upon type of
development they're putting forward.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I understand that, Mike, but this isn't a real old PUD. This is,
what, 2007, 2008 that this was put in there.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's not that old, and that's my concern.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. And also remember the EAR -based amendments were just finally approved just
two months ago, so it's a relatively new change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Diane?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, there was a motion and a second, discussion. And unless
somebody else has got anything, it's over with.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries again, 5-0.
Thank you for this enjoyable, entertaining day.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will look forward to seeing the results on consent, and hopefully
you guys can all go to the BCC hearing in unison. That would be very beneficial. So thank you all.
I've got to ask that you -- we've still got an agenda item to discuss, so --
One item that we have lingering from another agenda that I was requested to clean up is the request
that a member of the Planning Commission sit on the Affordable Housing Committee, And at the time we
wondered why. Well, there is a statute that requires that the county have someone from this commission sit
on that board because we take a certain grant from a -- SHIP funds, I believe it is.
Page 81 of 85
March 21, 2013
So I don't know the -- I don't recall the dates of that committee meeting, but if this board doesn't
mind, I'll be glad to sit in on those meetings when they occur and take care of that, and that will be something
else that we haven't got to worry about.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any problem?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by consensus we're there, okay.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, so moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I will be sitting on the affordable housing position until further
notice, I guess.
Phil's item, since he's not here, we won't be discussing it, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'd rather not have a surprise on something that has the onerous name of
petition and validation process. So could you try to get that information from him so we can have a heads -up
on where he's trying to go.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's old business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- and if it's something that staff has already resolved, save us
the pain at the next meeting in not having to go over it all again.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll contact him and see what he wants.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was going to speak on that, too, but I don't want to -- he said he's
withdrawing, and I said I'll just wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, its his. He may want to put it on the next agenda. I'd just like
to know ahead of time what it's about.
MR. BOSI: It's about -- it's sort of like what we dealt with today. Mike Bosi, interim director of
planning. Sort of what we dealt with today, having PUD amendments and having parties that aren't party to
the actual amendment, how the effect and what type of consent is required from other property owners within
the PUD when an applicant's moving forward to amend the PUD. And if — what is required for the consent
from those individual owners that maybe have no relationship to the proposals that are being changed, if its
applicable only to a specific portion of a PUD.
And that's the type of discussion, I believe, that he wanted to have, just to give you a heads -up of
what the issue was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But is there a reason he can't have that discussion with either you
guys or the County Attorney's Office? Do we have to spend meeting time on it?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, we did -- excuse me. For the record, Ray Bellows. We did pass that
information on to Mr. Brougham. It was in regard to Brooks Village and the ownership of Tract C, we
explained to him the process that staff goes through to validate ownership. But I still think he had a concern,
and he wanted to discuss that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you resolve it with him? I mean, I would rather see it done
on a one -to -one on all these issues rather than have to spend time, because it can go on nine different
directions on this board, and I'm not sure that's productive.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, then I want to say something on this. This was kind of -- we had
the real long break in between. They came and said to us that they were representing the three outparcels,
and everything was the three parcels. If you look at the -- if you look at the ownership, it was 100 percent
similar and everything else. We get there. And after all that time and we've discussed it, and even staff
wanted clarification that if it was a drive - through, it would have to be on the east side of the most westerly
lot.
And we were to -- we were all thinking that Sembler owns all three of these lots. And at the very
end, when it's being rushed through — and then they want consent because their attorney wasn't going to be
here today -- and they pulled it. They pulled that last lot. And I'm going -- they did pull that last lot. So in
Page 82 of 85
March 21, 2013
other words --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody remember this?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was here, but I don't remember it like you just said it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, you just --you said, they're pulling that lot out of it, so it's not in
the agreement. So it was really only two lots, not three, that they proposed. So they were not being honest
with staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, they -- no, no, Diane. They were —no, they weren't pulling it.
Their restrictions for the hours of operation were not going to apply to that lot, and they were pulling it from
those operational hours because of its proximity to a residential home. That was a good thing, not a bad
thing.
Mike?
MR. BOSI: No. I was just agreeing. I think that's what it was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, see, there was three of them, and when you looked at the
aerial it was clear that the C was very close -- I think it was C -- was very close to residential lots.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when -- I asked them, would you mind pulling that out and limit your
hours on that so its not like the other two, and they agreed. That's what they pulled out. It was a beneficial
thing, not a bad thing. They didn't -- so what is the problem?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But the problem -- they didn't own the lot?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that's something the County Attorney's Office would have
verified at the time of permit -- PUD application. So we approved a PUD with one of the property owners
not acknowledging it?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, there are a lot of PUDs. In that PUD there were about three
outparcels that were not owned by Sembler. There was one on Collier Boulevard, and there was one on Pine
Ridge --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's two on --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- and there was one other parcel I don't recall offhand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But, I mean --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And they were requesting 24 hours operations for that parcel, yes. But
when it came to placing a time limitation, Bruce didn't feel that he had the authority to agree to the time
limitations. So it just reverted back to the shopping center hours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, nothing was changed without -- against the property owner
because it didn't get changed.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: If you would -- if -- I went home and I was a little frustrated. I looked
at this, and I am going, wait a minute, because it says that Sembler was 100 percent ownership. And I
understand, everything that they pushed onto the Land Development Code was three properties, three
properties, you know, three parcels. And then at the very end, they didn't own the parcel, so they couldn't
give their approval either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what's wrong with that? So nothing -- it didn't change. The parcel lives
by the existing PUD. We didn't -- there was nothing wrong with the - -1 don't understand where the problem
was.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, it was the way it was done. I don't think that they were honest
with our Land Development Code people.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the job of the staff and the County Attorney's Office is to find out if
things are honestly approached and approved, and I think they did that for that PUD, and that's how it went
forward, and that's why certain changes couldn't be made, but —
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was never brought up that they didn't own it. They just said at the
very end, well, we don't own that parcel. We didn't know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The disclosures -- I can't remember the application. Were the disclosures of
ownership in the application, Heidi?
Page 83 of 85
March 21, 2013
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't recall. I mean, they would have been provided, but some of the
applications do not give you the full ownership. They're only giving you the ownership of the part they're
claiming they have unified control over.
So we're making sure that when the staff reports go forward, that if there are parts that are not owned,
that we'll make sure that we clearly state it in the staff report so at least the CCPC members and the Board of
County Commissioner members are aware that some of it is not owned by the applicant or owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if they're not making changes to those parts that aren't owned,
then is anybody -- is that wrong? If they're not making a change to something they don't own, what is the
concern from any -- from a legal perspective? Is there any?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I didn't have a concern with the way the staff reports were written before;
however, in light of some of the members' concern with not realizing that some of it was not owned --
because sometimes that's not real clear -- we'll make sure that its addressed in the staff report when they don't
own the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that acknowledgment of ownership make a difference in the
process?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you could see on the ones that we did today, I'm pretty certain we
stated who all the owners are and noted that they did not own parcels -- you know, six or seven of the parcels
that they didn't own so the members will know right up front that there are some parcels that aren't owned.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that was the important part. It just was not done properly.
MR. BOSI: And I think some of -- the part that failed upon us as staff is we didn't call that out in
staff report. When you -- after that, the Brooks Village, we decided -- we said, we realize that it created some
issues with some of the members, and we said we have to do a better job of indicating which parcels that they
own within the PUD when it's not -- when it's not all of the PUD that they have ownership of
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But part of what all of us do here as planning commission members
is we check on the appraisal site on the ownership of the parcels. I mean, that's second nature. So we would
have known that already.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't check on the appraiser. I read what's in the book. I don't make
a separate inquiry. I take what's put down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I understand.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I think, as Mike indicated, we are now -- and Heidi, we are now
taking the extra precaution of putting all the different ownerships, like was done on the petitions today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you let Phil know then that maybe the issue he has is cleared
UP.
MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just as soon get it cleared up that way than having another discussion. It
works the same way.
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any issues for today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Bill. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Karen.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 84 of 85
March 21,2013
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were out of here, 5-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chair at 3:33 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
c .,., ,,‘ p _..„..., _
MARK RAIN,CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on hi-- 18 (3,as presented or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES,INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 85 of 85