Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/07/2005 R July 7, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 7, 2005 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 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Lindy Adelstein Kenneth Abernathy Donna Reed Caron ABSENT: Russell A. Budd (Chairman) Paul Midney Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt Ray Bellows Patrick White Jennifer Belpedio Marjorie Student-Stirling Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRA TION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 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 VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 19, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 7, 2005, SPECIAL MEETING; JUNE 7, 2005 JOINT WORKSHOP 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-7185, George Jordan represented by Quin Kurth of Turrell and Associates is requesting a 31-foot boat dock extension to allow for a modification of an existing dock facility protruding 51-feet into a waterway that is 214-feet wide, to allow the mooring of two vessels. The subject property is located at 158 Windward Cay, Port of the Islands, (The Cays), Phase II, Lot 38, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084, Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., are requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as Bristol Pines RPUD to amend the existing PUD document and master plan for a residential subdivision to add land and units to allow for a maximum number of 298 residential units and recreational amenities. The project density is proposed to be seven (7) units per acre subject to the approval of the companion Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 128 units at 3.0 bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-income residents that will include a maximum of 30 units designated as affordable housing units. The project consists of 42.61 acres and is generally located at 14750 Collier Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR-951), approximately I mile south ofImmokalee Road (CR-846). Access to serve the project is proposed to be from Tree Farm Road in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) C. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3588, Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., requesting a rezone trom Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to amend the Clesen PUD, pursuant to the sunsetting provisions of the LDC, to update the PUD document in compliance with the current LDC PUD requirements, for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whippoorwill Lane and Pine Ridge Road intersection, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 4.33± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) FROM JUNE 16,2005 D. Petition: VA-2004-AR-6449, Ashley Doctors, property owner, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a variance for a 4.98-foot encroachment into the 20-foot required rear setback for a swimming pool and screen enclosure leaving a 15.02-foot rear yard on a waterfront lot located at 149 Flamingo Avenue. The property legal description is: Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot 25. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) FROM JUNE 16,2005 E. Petition: CU-2004-AR-6384 Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses, represented by Mike Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2 of Section 2.04.03. The proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square feet. The existing 4, I 36 square foot church building will be used for expanded church activities. The property consisting of 5.15 acres, is located at 3480 Golden Gate Boulevard S. W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 1 I, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike 1. DeRuntz) F. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-663 I, Norman Taylor, represented by Kelly Smith, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., requesting a rezone from the (E) Estates zoning district to the (CPUD) Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning district for low intensity transitional commercial land uses, convenience commercial land uses and intermediate commercial land uses as identified for the Neighborhood Center Sub-district at this subject property in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of Collier County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject property, consisting of 5.46 acres, is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Everglades Blvd., more particularly described as all of Tract I, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 77, in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike 1. DeRuntz) 2 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN July 7, 2005/CCPC AgendaIRB/dc 3 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Roll call. Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti is absent. Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Strain is here. Mr. Budd is absent. Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Midney is not here. Addenda to the agenda. So far I will announce we have two continuations. One is for Petition BD-2005-AR-7185. It's the George Jordan dock extension. That one will be continued to a date unspecified. The second petition that was continued is PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084. In layman's terms that's the Waterways Joint Venture IV, which is the Bristol Pines project on 951. That one has been continued. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain, that's been continued to the August 18th Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Bellows, would you bring your microphone closer, please. MR. BELLOWS: I also have been informed that Item 8-F will also be continued if Mike DeRuntz can explain a little bit why the continuance was requested. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, really? Page 2 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Item 8-F is the Golden Gate Estates Big Bear Plaza commercial center. Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I just want Mike to put on the record the reason for the request. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the -- for the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The Golden Gate Civic Association has requested that they have an opportunity to meet with the petitioner before it comes before the Planning Commission to be heard. They'd like to have this -- this petition be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then the -- I understand the petitioner has agreed to do that as well? MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's good. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there any showing that they could not have done this prior to today? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I think that's probably why they're realizing they should go back and revisit it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There isn't any reason that they couldn't have done it prior to today? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. MR. DeRUNTZ: They -- excuse me. They were contacted, I believe, in the past week by the association that they wanted to have an opportunity to talk to them. They were notified when the neighborhood information meeting notice went out, but they were just contacted last week by the association that they wanted to meet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, is there any other changes to Page 3 July 7, 2005 the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That brings the agenda down to three items. I think -- guess we need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. MR. WHITE: Commissioners, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe the statement for Big Bear was for the next meeting. I just want the record to reflect accurately that that is, indeed, what the motion maker and the second are intending. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. And what date was that, Ray? July? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 21st; right? 14,7,21. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. July 21st. Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is it okay with the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That leaves us three-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm opposed to the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, you're opposed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To the Big Bear, yes. I don't Page 4 July 7, 2005 think there's been a showing of a good reason why it should be continued. If people have a neighborhood information meeting, which was some weeks ago, why all that time has elapsed and here on the -- at the 11 th hour they want to meet with the petitioner? It doesn't make sense to me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The motion passes five to one. Okay . We have three petitions left. First one is Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-3588. The second --which is the Frank Clesen & Sons. The second one is V A-2004-AR-6449, which is Ashley Doctors, and the last one is CU-2004-AR-6384, the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. So if you-all in the audience are here those are the three things that we'll be hearing today. The Planning Commission absences for the July 21 st meeting -- everybody going to be here? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes of the May 19th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Schiffer. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: BCC reports, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. On the June 7th Board of County Commissioners, the Board heard and approved the PUD rezone for Page 5 July 7, 2005 Regal Acres. That was approved by a 5-to-0 vote. The rezoning for the Home Center Plaza was approved by a 4-to-l vote. The rezone for the Palermo Cove PUD was approved 5-to-0. The conditional use for the extension of the model home for Florida Homes was approved, and the parking exemption for Mr. Miceli was denied by a vote of 4 to 1. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, on the Palermo Cove, this Board had recommended certain time frames for that project's approval. Did those time frames stay intact with the approval of the BCC, or did the BCC modify them? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think I do, and I believe they made some changes to the timing of that project. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development Environmental Services Division. Mr. Strain, they -- they did not incorporate those exact dates. Basically, it was phased in, as I recall, phased in. Certainly, it has to meet all the requirements of our concurrency rules, but it was a phasing plan that created what they -- that -- the applicant then went back and created what is now being termed as gap -- gap housing, that housing that -- in a market range above our -- our affordable housing criteria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Just -- I have -- I haven't gone back and checked the transcript from our minutes, but I will. Didn't the applicant agree to the terms that we had recommended to the BCC? I mean, if it was agreed to, I'm wondering how it changed between here and the BCC after we had a -- worked out a situation right in this room. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. DeRuntz was the planner on that, and I believe he can provide -- shed some more light on it. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner. Yes, they -- they were receptive to your -- to the recommendations by the Planning Commission. They came back at Page 6 July 7, 2005 the -- the first meeting for the BCC and -- and requested a gap housing option, and the board -- and the -- and with that gap housing option they wanted to modify the time frame that was proposed by the -- the Planning Commission. That was continued for further review by the -- the Board, and it came back at the -- the last meeting. And if I'm -- if I remember -- if I remember correctly, the -- half of the -- the units could be C.O.'d before the time period that was October 1st, 2007, but there would be no C.O.s until Pristine Drive was improved and all access would be -- gone through Pristine Drive down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And there was the gap housing element where 10 percent of the -- the units there would have to be -- meet that and sold as such. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I -- my -- my point was that we had recommended something, and between the time it left here and went there, even to what the extent of the agreement was at this meeting, it somehow got changed again before the BCC, so what they ended up reviewing is not necessarily identical to what we reviewed, and the outcome was quite different so... MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, there was an addition. Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That was -- the Joint Workshop meeting was included in your report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Was the BCC Joint Workshop meeting also included already? You had all -- there's two reports you noted here. One was the Special meeting, and one was the Joint Workshop. Is there anything else to be said, or are you done with your report? MR. BELLOWS: I'm done with my report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The chairman doesn't have a report. I simply made my comments already. Just -- is there any addenda to the agenda? I skipped over that one. I didn't know if Page 7 July 7, 2005 anybody -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a request I'd like to make. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Certainly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Joe, we found that they're now parking -- the parking lot back here is by card only along the side of the building. I have one, but I understand that many of our Commissioners do not have one. And I wonder if it would be possible for them to get one, the identification cards. MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. We discussed this probably 6 to 10 months ago. Every one of the Commissioners is -- certainly can get an ID card because of your -- your position as a Planning Commissioner. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think they knew that that existed. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, okay. Well, I'm somewhat surprised because I know everyone was on the -- on this Commission when we discussed this quite a while ago. The cards are available. They give you access. It may not give you access to the rear parking -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It does. MR. SCHMITT: It -- yours does. Okay. I would -- I would say it should. We could work that through -- through facilities. If you want to get an ID card, let me know, and we'll coordinate it to make sure you get an ID card. They -- they did, of course, put the gate back here. And -- and -- and given your volunteer duties even -- even -- if not, when you pull up to the gate, if you call -- you tell them you are an appointed Planning Commissioner and you need to park back there, it should -- they should allow you in to park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be very helpful. I was here before 8 a.m. this morning, and there were no spots left at all in the small area. And sometimes we have to lug an awful lot of heavy stuff so... Page 8 July 7, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I understand. But we can get -- the best way to do this is to get you a card. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any additions to the agenda? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hearing none we'll move on to the advertised public hearing. First one that we're -- we'll be talking about is Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-3588. It's the Frank Clesen & Sons, Inc., called the Celsen's PUD. Will all those people wishing to testify or offer comment on this please rise to be sworn in. (Prospective witnesses were sworn by Commissioner Strain.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, I guess you're representing the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, I am. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. Also with me today if -- answer any questions you may have are -- is Dick Clesen, the owner of the property, and Bill Hoover, the Professional Planner on the proj ect. This is a PUD that the Planning Commission has seen before and has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. On the visualizer is the location of the project. It's on the north side of Pine Ridge Road just west of 1-75. It's in the interchange activity center. It's an existing PUD that's sunsetted. In lieu of requesting an extension of the PUD, we are requesting an amendment of the PUD to bring it up to the current standards. The PUD is virtually identical to the previous PUD that was approved except for it's been brought up to the -- to the standard-form PUD that's in place now for Collier County. We have worked with your transportation staff and FDOT to address access to the property. Access to the property win actually occur through Pine Ridge Road on -- it will go across our neighbor to the west, and, basically, on that property line it will then come south Page 9 July 7, 2005 and connect with Pine Ridge Road. We're working with the County and FDOT to make that happen. There will be no access through Livingston Woods Lane, which is the residential neighborhood to our north. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does your neighbor to the west agree with that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that in his PUD? MR. YO V ANOVICH: It will -- it will be in his PUD. What is currently in place, Mr. Abernathy, is -- all the PUDs in the area have what is -- is a reverse frontage road system where everybody provides access to everybody else to get to one access point. We provide access to everybody to our east and will continue to do that. Our neighbor to the west will provide us access. His neighbor to the west will have to deal with his prop -- that property owner to their west. Suffice it to say that the neighbor to the west of our west neighbor has been less than cooperative with us in making the access work, and that's why we've had to work with our neighbor to the west and your Transportation Department to obtain access on Pine Ridge Road on -- on the west portion of our neighbor to the west's property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, a couple of diagrams that have found their way into the record -- one of them sort of indicates that that access, that north-south road, if you will -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- straddles the property line. The latest one seems to indicate that it's all on your immediate neighbor's property. Is that the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. It is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is all -- it is all on their property, on the ba -- on the neighbor to the west's property. There's no access on our property . Page 10 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, you had sunsetting problems. Does your neighbor to the west have sunsetting problems? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- Commissioner Abernathy, I don't know. I -- I didn't look into that. I -- I -- I have not been involved in that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ifhe -- if he has would-- would this arrangement that we're talking about be valid? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think he does. I think -- I think he came through and -- and extended his -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We'll probably hear from him. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I think you will. Again, I've already got into the -- that our master plan continues the reverse frontage road system. Staff is recommending approval. Since you've seen this before and your staff report is very detailed, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the revised PUD document. Again, it was simply revised to incorporate the current standard provisions in a PUD document. As you can see, they're relatively minor changes. And with that I'll answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have more of staff but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. I'm looking at the strike-through and underlining -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on page 11. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Buffering requirements? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Why is two out of there? According to the Exhibit A, the plan, there is -- are 10- foot buffers on both the east and the west. I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's a standard requirement. And there's -- there's no reason to revi -- to put that re -- that language in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that the case, Joe? Page 11 July 7, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: I -- I would have to check and find out. I'm not sure what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Does anyone actually know? I mean, it was in the original PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Bill, do you know why we struck that provision? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That was a request of staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we -- we struck the language at the request of staff. COMMISSIONER CARON: So Kay can answer that question for us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope so. Do you want to do that, or do you want to finish with -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right. I'll ask Kay when-- when I speak to her. MR. YOV ANOVICH: When staff makes their presentation. COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 17 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- N -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: N. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it's different from -- the wording is different from 1 7 on a -- on another strike-through and underline that we got. One N says the County will require adjacent developments to provide shared access. This one that I'm looking at says adjacent developments have been designed to provide, and I don't know which one is correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I note your staff sent out a recent revision. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but I don't know which one IS -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm going to ask Kay -- the one I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: To answer that as well. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm reading from the same one you're Page 12 July 7, 2005 reading from, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which would be... MR. YOV ANOVICH: The County will require. COMMISSIONER CARON: Will require. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the one I'm reading from. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's the one I understand is what your staff is proposing, but if that's not correct then we'll -- we'll address that with the staff. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. I'll wait for staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody have questions? I have one for you, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Actually, a couple when we get to staff. You have an FAR for a hotel in here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that different than an FAR requirement with the LDC, or are we consistent with the LDC? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure that the LDC -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not sure either. That's why I'm asking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- specifically addresses an FAR. That's a carryover from, I believe, the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The only time I've seen an FAR reference in the GMP is in activity centers for industrial, and I think there was an FAR reference in one of the documents for a hotel. I haven't had time to find it, but I did note seeing one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know there is a reference to an FAR for activity center PUDs, which we are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe this is consistent because I think Page 13 July 7, 2005 when you get to, you know, a destination resort hotel the number goes significantly higher, but I think for a regular hotel it's a .6. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't front the Gulf. You don't front the Gulf so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not asking for a destination resort hotel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can ask the planner when we get to that point. Under your traffic section of this PUD under 4.78 it reads, "The internal roadway design shall prohibit traffic from the commercial zone into Livingston Wood Lane." You're prohibiting all traffic into Livingston Road -- Wood Lane; is that correct? MR. YO V ANOVICH: That -- that's true, Commissioner. There -- there is no connection point for our proj ect onto Livingston Wood Lane. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that was more the global since we're -- we're in an activity center. That's what they mean by commercial zone. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The project next door that has to have access for you, are your hands tied until that project goes forward? Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Well, no. We're -- we're -- -- we're-- our hands are tied until we build that access point, not till that proj ect moves forward. We could build the access ourselves, assuming we have an agreement with our neighbor to build the loop road, and -- the -- the frontage road and then come south. We could build that road and go forward. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But according to the PUD for the Page 14 July 7, 2005 project next door -- which, by the way, that PUD sunsetted on July 1 st, which was last week, so that PUD isn't at this point even active. According to that PUD, that access way for their part doesn't get-- doesn't have to be installed until they go in for their first site development plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They don't have to build it, but their -- that doesn't prohibit us from working out -- working it out with them to go ahead and build it ahead of time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have of Richard. Does staff have a presentation? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. You have, hopefully, the right staff report. And my apologies for the fact that you were sent the incorrect staff report. You should be looking at a staff report that's dated for a hearing date of June 2nd, 2005, rather than March 5th, 2005. And the PUD documents strike-through/underline that you should be looking at should be date revised May 5th, 2005. So hopefully we're all on the same pages on the same documents. You -- as I said, you do have the staff report in front of you, and it explains what the requested actions were. This particular PUD would have sunsetted. The petitioner opted, rather than extending it through the extension process, to amend it to address some changes they wanted made, and those changes are reflected in here. The applicant did work with transportation staff, and Don Scott is here to explain what all went on with that, and I can respond to the fact that -- you were asking about the Pine Ridge corners, the extension. There has been a second ~xtension request submitted. It's identified by AR No. 7951. It was submitted to the County on July 5th, 2005; however, there's apparently some documentation still missing, so it has not been distributed for review. But in any case a petitioner can seek two PUD extensions. That's Page 15 July 7, 2005 a maximum for an extension time up to 10 years. But the County, like I said, has not reviewed it, so we don't know, one, if we will support it. And, of course, we have no idea whether the CCPC, yourselves, or whether the Board would support it, but it will be under review probably shortly once we get all the information. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Out of curiosity, if they fail to move forward with their extension request, can this applicant still move forward with putting that road in by agreement? MS. DESELEM: I don't know. I -- that might be a question for the County Attorney's office. MR. WHITE: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the access is by some lawfully recorded means it would be a real property issue not a regulatory one and would fall, in my opinion, outside the scope of the County's regulations unless that was somehow made a part of either a condition of this approval or otherwise existed in the LDC, and I'm unaware how it would at this time. So in sum I don't think that it is a regulatory concern so much as this is a real property. Those rights are·perpetual in nature assuming they're lawfully recorded and created. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. White. MS. DESELEM: Now, I would just note for the record that we are recommending approval. We have recommended that it be found consistent with all phases, all portions, objectives, policies, and goals of the Growth Management Plan including the transportation section. And we have provided the strike-through and underline for you so that you can see the difference between the PUD document and, also, the clean copy, so if you wanted to look at that you can as well. And other than that I'm open to any questions you may have. If you'd like I can go ahead and address the questions that you had posed to Mr. Y ovanovich first; that way we can get those out of the way if you like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Certainly. Page 16 July 7, 2005 MS. DESELEM: Great. Okay. On page 8 where you were talking about the floor area ratio, that is what code would require, which is correct, that's what we would normally require for a hotel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is it .6 or .45? MS. DESELEM: It's .6. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Point six. MS. DESELEM: And on page 11 you were asking about Item No.2. That is pursuant to code requirement, so it -- it's redundant to keep it in there. I wasn't the particular staff person that asked for it to be removed, but it seems logical given that that is the code requirement. And I believe -- I didn't catch all of it, but I believe your question was on N on page 17, right, and you were questioning whether the County will require -- and you had some different language. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It's all right. Kay, you've already addressed that in which strike-through and underline we should be looking at. MS. DESELEM: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's the May 5th. MS. DESELEM: Great. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the May 5th it says you must. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Okay. Any other questions you may have, I'm here and Don is here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. I have a question for Don Scott. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question for Kay, so let's finish. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. Yeah, Kay's up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, would the hotel fall under the architectural standards? MS. DESELEM: I believe it would, yes. Page 1 7 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Are you sure? MS. DESELEM: And I believe the actual PUD document was revised and one of the revisions included the architectural standard requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it says commercial buildings. Some people consider hotels a residential building; that's why. But it can be -- MS. DESELEM: No, it's not residential. It's commercial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions of Kay before she departs? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Scott. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER CARON: One more time, are we going to use actual peak hour or p.m. peak hour? We're -- we had determined that we were going to use actual peak hour. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, well, in this area -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And in this case it's a.m. peak hour, not p.m. And does that change whether or not the three percent is affected? MR. SCOTT: Well, first of all, when an actual submittal comes in, then we will look at, you know, exactly what they're building versus what the trips are on the system and at that time. In this area, actually, p.m. peak hour would be the worst-case scenario. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not according to the information we have. MR. SCOTT: Maybe for the trips of the actual -- what they're building, but the road itself is p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aren't -- aren't your calculations supposed to be based on worst-case scenario? MR. SCOTT: Yes. Page 18 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Have you reviewed this to see if it was based on worst-case scenario? MR. SCOTT: It's trips -- for trips, yeah, I'm sure we have, but if you take the worst trips and apply it at whatever time of the day -- if it's p.m. -- if it's any peak hour, then that's what we would apply to the p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, Don, under worst-case scenario you're also supposed to look at the most intensive use that's requested in the -- in the -- for the PUD; is that right? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The choices made by the applicant in this case are a fast -- I think a fast-food restaurant -- well, here. I'll tell you what they are. The worst-case scenario on this one was 3,000-square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru facilities adjacent to Pine Ridge right-of-way and an 82-room motel on the balance of the property. The trip-rate generations of a motel, are they more or less than, for example, a thing like an auto supply store? Because auto supply stores are pretty intense, and they're constant. And if that's the case the worst-case scenario would be a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru and auto supply store. The reason I'm bringing this up is because the threshold they've got to, using the hotel or motel combination, is 2.7 percent because they're trying to stay below that 3 percent threshold. If they were to use a higher intensity use that's requested in their uses that could be applied to that site, which they could easily put an auto supply store there, I'm wondering if they'd be breaking that three percent threshold. MR. SCOTT: And they might depending on what they actually build at the time they do submittal. W e'lllook at -- when site development is submitted, we'll look at the concurrency situation at that time. Obviously, it'll be further in the future, also, from the time frame of adding trips to the system. Page 19 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then from a policy viewpoint or an LDC or a code viewpoint in the presentation made here today, are they supposed to be using the worst-case scenario to present to us, or is it just that they're choosing subject to whatever they want to change at the time that they go in for either their final site development plan or -- MR. SCOTT: It should be worst-case scenario, but it -- I'd like it to be closer to what we really think they're going to build there, but obviously we don't always know exactly what's going to be built there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Then -- so the worst-case scenario that's being presented to us today is, in fact, not the worst-case scenario. I'm just wondering. Maybe we -- someone might want to take a look at that and see what the worst-case scenario is, see if they break the three percent threshold, and if they do what that means. MR. SCOTT: Well, even from a -- even from the standpoint of the concurrency side of it, if they break three percent, less than three percent, those trips are being applied to the system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which trips? The worst-case scenario or the one -- MR. SCOTT: Whatever they come in for a site development plan when they do that for approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm more concerned about the procedural aspects for today's meeting. That's what I was trying to understand. MR. SCOTT: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So your department apparently, then, hasn't checked this out in regards to that issue? MR. SCOTT: They -- they probably looked at the number of trips that were submitted and saw that -- you know, obviously we're looking at it at the time now. When they submit there's going to be more trips in the system at the time. The site development plan will bet Page 20 July 7, 2005 a little bit different. That's when it will be subject to concurrency, and they will at that point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the significance if they had come in today with a greater than three percent impact versus what they have come in with, which is less than three percent? MR. SCOTT: Well, we would still be looking at the links out in front. What would -- you end up doing is looking how many links down the road, so you could be looking at another link that you weren't looking at previously. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So there would have to be additional material for today's meeting that's not here if they use the worst-case scenario? MR. SCOTT: That's possible, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more questions of Don. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, the -- on the lining up of the access roads, wouldn't it make sense to line it up with that Lawson Way? There's road cuts out there and everything or what? MR. SCOTT: The -- the issue that we have for the first -- I think there's other lots that aren't shown there -- is that's limited access right-of-way for 1-75. And we tried to get it as far over as possible, but based on the -- the -- a property owner over to the west that isn't cooperative -- and that's why we have it on the line there -- it is going to cut the limited access right-of-way somewhat. But if -- ifhe's -- okay. There, that's shown. The limited access right-of-way comes to this point here. They're going to have to cut some of it to get access down to it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But -- MR. SCOTT: FDOT's okay with that, but I can't -- we can't push it any further to the east because of the limited access right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how -- I'm concerned about pushing it to the west. In other words, wouldn't it be best to line up Page 21 July 7, 2005 with Lawson Way? Is there going to be a road cut there? I have a drawing that shows road cuts which may be -- MR. SCOTT: It will be a right-in/right-out. There will not be a-- any -- there won't be a med -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Median opening? MR. SCOTT: -- median opening. There won't a median cut. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Either a directional or a full median opening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it doesn't matter where it falls with Lawson Way? MR. SCOTT: No. I think at one time it did line up across there. Obviously, that was based on the plan. When we're dealing with the -- the issue we got in here was that if we don't allow some type of access it's a taking, and that's what -- why we had the dealings with FHW A, FDOT, and ourselves on trying to get access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do have a document in the presentation that follows an enclosure from Hoover Planning that does show a road cut proposed in that area. That'll never happen? MR. SCOTT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An island cut? MR. SCOTT: No, the closest one would be Whippoorwill Lane. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there any more questions of Mr. Scott or any of the staff members? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker, Garrett F. Bryant -- Byron. MR. BYRON: I'll waive. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other speakers, anything -- any further comments from the applicant? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not unless you have -- excuse me. Not Page 22 " -~",.."."--"".--~".."..-. July 7, 2005 unless you have more specific comments. I just do want to point out, Mr. Strain, that we've been in this process for a while, and our T -- our TIS has been in the system for a while, and nobody's made any comments, so this is the first -- the first comments that have come up regarding maybe that issue. And I don't think it would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're smarter, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're smarter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're smarter? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Okay. But with that I'd just -- please take that into consideration that we have been in the process a while. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You might want to consider continuing to the next meeting in order to address that issue before we vote. Okay. With that I'll close the public meeting. Commissioners, is there amotion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR 3588 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval subject to the following condition: that no traffic from commercial zone onto Livingston Woods Lane, also that the subject -- that the staff have -- subject to their recommendations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's a second. Okay. Is there any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My only comment is that I don't particularly like the fact that the worst-case scenario that was supposedly needed to present to us today was not presented to us today. I'm disappointed that it wasn't reviewed that way by transportation; however, I think if we could add a stipulation to the Page 23 July 7, 2005 motion that that worst-case scenario will be revised before it goes to the BCC and the TIS is reviewed by Collier County Sheriffs transportation staff, is then looked at under that worst-case scenario to see if there's any other links that need to be adjusted -- all that's done before the BCC hearing, then I would feel more comfortable. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's -- that's a good suggestion because I think the BCC should have the most correct and up-to-date information. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will accept that in the motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the second accept that as well ? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the motion carries six to one-- six to zero. I'm sorry. Okay. And with that we will move on to the next public petition. That would be Petition V A-2004-AR-6449, Ashley Doctors' extension to a rear yard -- or waterfront boat dock. I'm sure the whole room is here for that one. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, could I indulge just -- we had some people come in late -- just to announce those items that were Page 24 July 7, 2005 continued so that -- just in case anybody is here for those -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. I'll be glad to. MR. SCHMITT: -- for those items. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have continued to future meetings the George Jordan boat dock extension, that's AR-7185; the Waterways Joint Venture IV Bristol Pines PUD, that's AR-6084; and the Golden Gate Estates Big Bear Plaza, AR-6631. If you're here for those, they're not going to be heard this morning. They're continued to future dates. And with that would those wishing to testify on behalf of this particular application please rise and be sworn in. (Potential witnesses were sworn by Commissioner Strain.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I just have a disclosure. I got an e-mail from B. J. Boyer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think we all did. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- yeah, same here. I got one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I may have. I had -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Again, good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. What -- what you have before you is a request for a -- a rear setback variance for a pool. Your executive summary -- I'm sorry. Your staff report goes into great detail on what happened in this particular situation, but with the -- the pool and the home were permitted through the County's permitting system. All the required information was provided at the time the permit was issued. The pool and enclosures were constructed exactly as our -- the documents that were submitted. All the required spot surveys were passed by Collier County. A C.O. was issued for the pool and for the home. My client closed on the property after the C.O.s were issued. About three years later my client was contacted by the County Page 25 July 7, 2005 and advised that the pool violates the setback requirements, so we were required to go through this process because of a pending code enforcement action, and we are -- we are going through the process and requesting a variance. We believe -- and I -- the property is across from a County park, so we're not -- we're not impacting anybody's view across the water. We're not impacting our neighbors. I'll -- I'll just put a picture up for you. I'll let Ray do it. To -- to kind of give you -- you could see the alignment of our pool versus the alignment of the pool to whatever direction that's in. I'm not going to pretend I know -- to the east. And you can see where, you know, we're actually a little bit further away from the water, so we're not inconsistent with what was already there. The property immediately adjacent to us faces -- we don't in any way impact their view, so we're consistent with what's around us. Obviously, we did everything we were supposed to do as far as we knew. We went through the County process. We bought a home that had a C.O. issued by the County. We're -- we're in a stage now that we believe a variance is warranted under the circumstances, and we're requesting that the Board of County Commissioners follow your staffs recommendation to forward this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. If you need me to get into greater detail, I'll be happy to, but I think this is kind of short and simple and sweet on where we are in this particular situation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This seems familiar. There seem to be a number of them. The Board of County Commissioners recently heard one, and I believe -- didn't they introduce the idea of a hedge as being a means of overcoming this? Otherwise, this is a requirement to Page 26 July 7, 2005 build an additional wall; isn't that correct? MR. SCHMITT: That was the last -- a petition similar but in a different area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: But, yes, it was the one -- the last one you had heard in regards to the -- the same type of variance. We got into a discussion of raising the seawall versus the -- the appearance that that would have versus putting in a -- any -- some kind of an increased buffer to somewhat buffer the effect of the height of that wall. So it was -- it was not a requirement of the Board in regards to setting policy for that to always happen in every one of these. That was just -- I want to caution that was applied to that -- that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- that petition and that petition only. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: An effort to find an answer, however -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as I understood it. But this-- this appears to have such a hedge. Just orienting me so I know I'm on the right track. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: This other petition was up near Little Hickory Shores, up in that area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Excuse me. Can that -- in that particular issue wasn't it a matter of a -- the builder making an error and then the job got finished? In this particular case, we're dealing with a situation where the County approved all of these things. Actually, when they finally finished it getting the occupancy on December 14th of2000, the County said, "Yes, we've given you your permits." How could we possibly take it away from them? It doesn't Page 27 July 7, 2005 make any sense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think in the other situation -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is a completely distinct issue. They did -- the owner did everything they could possibly do to follow what the County said they should do. And when the County said they were -- had done the County then said, "Yes, you may occupy it. You've got your permission." I think we're just wasting a lot of time on this particular issue. MR. SCHMITT: I -- I -- we don't argue that. This was prior to the point in time where -- if you note when this took place in 2000 when it was approved, the setbacks were being reviewed right at the front counter. That has since changed. This is one of many you've seen. We've probably had -- we were in -- somewhere within 18 to 20 of these through some sort of, at least, resolution. This is one of the many you're going to be seeing here, but -- but this goes back five or six years. And, of course, we were not checking to ensure that they met the 20- foot setback if there was a 4- foot increase in elevation. And Mike Bosi can get into that. But, yes, this is a -- there was somewhat of an interim process that -- the builder building the home, then putting the pool in, and then putting the cage in. And, of course, the criteria is based once you go vertical. Once you go vertical on the pool cage, then you have to have that 20- foot setback. So we can go through all that if you want to hear it. Mike has the history of it -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. SCHMITT: -- as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the point. It is a situation in this particular case where there is no fault as far as the owner is concerned. I'm not saying that -- I know you were -- how you were doing it then and you're not doing it that way now, but the staff at that time gave this -- people the right to build it, then when they finished building it gave them the right of occupancy. Page 28 July 7, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think -- we're waste-- we're just literally pushing wheels around. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nobody's arguing with you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's take a vote and get it done. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm trying to here. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY : Well, since Mr. Adelstein is making his closing argument on this thing, I'll chime in and say I think we ought to suck it up, approve these things, and get on with our lives. But just for the purpose of cleaning up the record the staff says you need the 4.98 variance. The application that you submitted indicates that in addition to directional deficiencies you have a math problem. It asks for a 6.2-foot variance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just got that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now you -- you're really only asking for 4.98 if you look at the survey, I think. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's margin of error for an attorney. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I've told you about my direction challenges. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We can't stop to kick every dog that barks at us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. So noted. COMMISSIONER CARON: So 4.98 is the actual -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Based on the survey that's in there, I believe 4.98 is the right number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: The -- the ordinance doesn't specify Staff Condition No.2. How come? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, Mr. Abernathy in my defense Page 29 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: There is no defense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is. There's an exhibit, and this is where I made the error. The first -- the exhibit I was reading from says 13.8 to the front of the seawall, and that's where I got my 6.2. The survey I got didn't give me the dimension all the way to the end of the seawall. I mean, it's wrong, but I'm showing you where I got my numbers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's very honorable. I thought you were going to blame it on your paralegal so... MR. YO V ANOVICH: No. No, that's me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions of Richard? Did he answer your question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I haven't gotten an answer. Actually, Rich -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a staff question. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's staff, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Richard, I've got -- I'm going to put myself on a -- out on a limb here. I've got a question -- a legal question. Is there a statute of limitations in which these kind of things can apply? Because it looks like this has been almost five years. I'm just wondering how far back this can happen. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I will tell you that in my opinion there should be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was looking for the facts. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And -- and there -- but I will also tell you that your Code Enforcement staff and the Attorney that advises the code enforcement believes that there is no statute of limitations, and they are going back -- I've got one that I'll be bringing back to you -- bringing forward to you that has been in existence since 1973, and I'll be coming forward with that to get a variance where my clients own the -- they didn't own it in 1973. Page 30 July 7, 2005 They bought it. They've owned it for about 10 years, and now we're going to have to do another variance, so -- and I -- I argued the same thing, but I've been told that I'm going to the Code Enforcement Board if I don't do the variance, so we're going to do the variance in that case as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT-STERLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Sterling, Assistant County Attorney. Just to give you a little background on that, it's considered that if a permit is issued and it violates the code in some way that it is void from the beginning, and there's no statute of limitations because it is void and it needs to be fixed in the appropriate processes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, we could probably spend a lot of time debating all the pros and cons of that, but we -- MS. STUDENT-STERLING: But that's the case law. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- we certainly won't do that today. MS. STUDENT-STERLING: No. That's the case law in Florida so... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifnot, let's move on to the staff report. MR. BOSI: Good morning, commissioners. Mike Bosi, Zoning, Land Development Review. As a note, this is for a variance request, and it's related to dimensional standards. This will have no effect upon the Growth Management Plan's consistency. In relationship to your question, Commissioner Caron, the ordinance has been updated to include that second provision. With or without it, it was still subject to the -- the nonconformity regulations contained in the Land Development Code, but that was an additional Page 31 July 7, 2005 stipulation that was added, and the ordinance packet that win go to the Board of County Commissioners will -- will reflect that second commission, what's in there. It has been updated by Miss Student-Sterling from the County Attorney's office. The -- the one thing I will say, all the issues have been heard before with the Ross variance and the issues that were brought up. I will say that I'm working right now with Catherine Fabach -- Fabacher in Zoning Land Development Review to close that loophole in terms of the seawall elevation in ter -- the proposed language that -- that we're going to initiate for the -- for the next cycle is the established benchmark elevation for the seawall can be no greater than the -- than the mean average of the two adjoining properties; therefore, you would get away from the ability of someone to increase a seawall by four or five feet to increase their elevation to be able to qualify for the rear yard -- the reduced 10- foot rear yard setback for accessory structures. And with that I'll open myself to any questions the Commission may have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, I asked you to get the drawings, but you said you -- the drawings weren't available for this house. MR. BOSI: I believe the drawings should have been attached with your staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But I got an e-mail from you saying you couldn't find the construction drawings. MR. BOSI: Well, there was a period of time where we could not find the -- with the -- with the private company that -- that stores our records, we could not find it, and what happened was it was actually sitting with the Code Enforcement officer where all the original drawings were. The -- the original building permit application for the house and Page 32 July 7, 2005 for the pool enclosure and -- and the pool should have been included within the packets that you received with the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have one sheet. I wish you'd have let me know because you sent me a fax saying the drawings weren't available. MR. BOSI: At that period of time, that was the situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You never sent me one back saying you found them. MR. BOSI: Well, I didn't personally find them. The work of the individuals from the Records Department located them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I would have liked you to have brought them to the meeting today because I'm concerned as to what did the applicant do that may have caused this situation. If you look at the site plan, you can see where he's dotted in the building setbacks appropriately on it, the one you did provide, but there is shown a 15- foot pool setback. There's never a 15- foot pool setback, is there? MR. BOSI: No. It would be 10 feet, and I think that's what they were operating -- and I think for the purposes of compliance I think they indicated that it was 15 feet, well within that 10- feet eleva -- or 10-feet setback. It's -- that -- that could only be my assumption. I'm not sure if they were trying to say that the -- the established rear yard setback was 15 feet. I -- I can't determine that by -- by reviewing the individual plans. MR. SCHMITT: If you note on the building permit that was actually issued, it does show a rear setback 10 feet down on the middle of the page of the permit. I have the whole series of -- of permits from the original building permit to the pool permit and then subsequent to that for the pool cage, so all three of them indicate exactly that in regards to the setback and were reviewed and approved by the county building review staff so ... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do they show floor Page 33 July 7, 2005 elevations and stuff like that, the elevations of the floors and -- MR. SCHMITT: No, at this time there was no requirement to show the elevation. There is now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the drawings of the building, the sections of the building would show -- the elevation would show all this -- these improvements on them. You can certainly sense where they are. MR. BOSI: Yes, you can, but you -- I don't believe that the elevation of the seawall was provided to estab -- the elevation of the seawall is the benchmark -- is which the dimensional standards fall -- fall from, and without -- without that key component it wasn't -- there wasn't that nexus that -- that -- that was provided to -- for the building department to put two and two together, and the issue wasn't in the forefront. Obviously, as Joe -- Joe has mentioned, the processes have been -- had -- have been changed, but in 2000 when this was submitted for -- right or wrong, the elevation component of the seawall in relationship to the -- to the accessory structures was not something that was scrutinized. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Joe, what was the effective date of the new rules for staff approval here? MR. SCHMITT: Gosh, I -- I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: When did you put the new rule into effect? MR. SCHMITT: It's probably been in effect for almost two years. I believe December -- in the December '03 time frame. Actually, what we do now is we no longer check any setbacks at the front counter. They're all -- they're all done by the review staff away from the front counter, and these kind of things are now -- certainly are -- are -- are checked, and they've been -- been -- been doing that for over two years. Page 34 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And I believe it was -- December '03 seems to be the date when we -- we -- I directed the building director to remove the setback -- all the spot surveys and setbacks are now done, like I said, away from the front counter by the -- by members of the review staff just to preclude these type of things from happening. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a couple of other comments here on this staff report. Under No.1, "Are there special conditions?" you were trying to use a FEMA requirement here as some sort of rationale. I would question what FEMA would say if their rules weren't followed. I guess we're okay if we don't follow our rules, but I doubt if FEMA would say the houses can stand if it were not up to the height it was supposed to be and certainly -- MR. SCHMITT: That's incorrect. MR. BOSI: No, I believe the -- the ability to obtain insurance would be impacted by -- by -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. MR. BOSI: -- not -- nonattaining the FEMA regulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you can't -- MR. SCHMITT: All the FEMA -- all the FEMA elevation -- if I can correct the record, all the FEMA elevations are checked by the Building Department, not by FEMA. They're checked by my staff. I have a -- basically FEMA coordinator. That's his -- one of his responsibilities is to ensure that all homes are built above the base flood elevation as designated for that area of the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so you've only been doing that for the past two years? MR. SCHMITT: Probably -- the BFEs have been probably since -- oh, my goodness, probably since the '90, '91 time frame when base flood elevations came into effect, so there's been -- I mean, you're -- you're catching me off guard here. Probably in the 15 years of checking there's never been a Page 35 July 7, 2005 variance in regards to allowing for a home to be built below the base flood elevation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So it seems to me that the-- the builders in this town can get the FEMA regulations right, but they can't get our LDC regulations right. And certainly we've known about FEMA regulations since they came into effect, and we wrote our LDC with those in mind. So there should be -- these things just shouldn't be happening in the building industry. In addition -- let's go to No.7 where you're talking about national -- natural conditions. It says if and when the home -- a home is built on the neighboring location -- well, I just would submit to you that we shouldn't be writing staff reports this way. It's not the other guy's responsibility to correct for an error made on his neighbor's property, so I just -- I found that a ridiculous statement to have been made. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, have we heard from the neighbor to the east, which would be the vacant lot? MR. BOSI: There has been no correspondence sent into Zoning Land Development Review either supporting or detracting from this petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he's been notified and -- MR. BOSI: It's been notified. The signs have been up. There's been -- there's been adequate notification of the process that's undergoing here today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, while you're here, put the last thing that you had up on the overhead. Put that on the monitor. MR. BOSI: The -- I'm sorry. Put the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The image you had prior to this. MR. BOSI: Oh, the visualizer. Page 36 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to me here's what happened. If you look at what -- and, again, I know Joe thinks this is a guy in his staffs job, but look at what this drawing did. It kind of setback -- he shows all the setbacks. He shows a pool setback. There never was a 15- foot regulation for a pool setback. And -- you know, and I think that the person who reviewed this plan trusted that. I mean, this is the document that caused the problem, and this document was done on purpose. MR. BOSI: I could only spec -- speculate as to the intent of that -- of that indication of that 15- foot setback, but use -- using deductive logic that -- that -- that you just presented I -- you can make a relatively strong foundation of a case. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And look. He shows the setbacks for the side. He shows that everything's fitting within the setbacks, but the notation of a 15-foot pool setback is not an accurate document. MR. SCHMITT: The pool setback as noted on the permit is shown rear yard setback at 10 feet. When the building was built, the setback -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point, Joe, is that this document was presented showing all the zoning regulations and alluding to the fact that the zoning regulation on this site is a 15- foot pool setback, and it's not. For example, look at the side setback. It's 7 1/2 feet. The building's not up against the side. I mean, it's showing what you can build on this lot. The professionals preparing it is showing your staff what you're allowed to build within the Land Development Code, and it's wrong. MR. BOSI: And I guess that would be a conflict. Within the application that they submitted, though, they did indicate the rear yard setback at 10. The drawings, however, submitted showed it at 15. Whether -- where -- where the fault or where the intent is, I mean, Page 37 July 7, 2005 that's determined by this Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners, I guess. MR. SCHMITT: On the building permit that is attached to that drawing and the middle of the building permit itself, it shows the -- the setbacks. The rear yard setback as noted by the permit technician at that time when this went through was 10 foot. That -- that is the criteria that it was used, a 10- foot setback. There was no requirement COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the legal setback is 20, so what you're saying is the person -- MR. SCHMITT: No. No. That's incorrect. Well, it is 20 if you raise if you -- you have a 4- foot raise in elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you want the pool in -- MR. SCHMITT: It was not checked at this time by staff. The pool setback is -- is -- is 10 feet as -- as shown on the permit. That's the -- that was the -- what the staff approved, a 10- foot setback. The only time it's 20 foot is if you have a 4-foot increase in elevation, which at this time was not being -- which was not being enforced by the building department as best that I could piece together right now. Again, back in 2000 any -- any rear yard setback was a 10- foot setback for the -- for the enclosure unless, of course, as -- as in this case, you increase -- you have a 4- foot increase in the elevation, then you have to have a 20- foot yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not varied. When professionals and when your staff looks for what the setbacks are, it's obvious it's 10 feet unless it's higher than 4 feet above the seawall. Then it's 20 feet. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes, and that -- I think what you could argue, as I believe Miss Caron was pointing out, there is -- there is some responsibility certainly on the industry to -- to understand the code and comply with the code regardless of what was approved. I mean, I don't argue that. What we have here is what was Page 38 July 7, 2005 approved when the permit came in. The building -- when the permit came in for the building itself, the building was approved at a 25- foot setback. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think you guys are -- are in an agreement to disagree. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I think the facts of the issue are pretty well laid out as far as that goes and how it happened. Is there anything, Brad, that we can get into that's new material? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, my only concern is the -- from the little documents that I saw -- and I wish I'd have seen all the documents that -- I asked for that and I didn't see it. The document is -- is an erroneous document, and it's -- and I think that Joe's staff has to realize that the professionals are representing themselves as being straightforward, and that's what caused this problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My -- I follow what Mrs. Caron said to a point about the FEMA elevation. Frankly, I think it's a red herring when you -- in your explanation of why this went awry. To me it's not -- certainly it's not the proximate cause of this having happened. I mean, it's almost -- there's a rough analogy. It's almost like saying, well, the reason this guy's in jail is because he grew up in the ghetto. I mean, it doesn't follow from the fact that you grow up in a ghetto that you're going to be in jail. It doesn't follow because you've paid attention to the FEMA elevation that you're going to stub your toe on these other regulations, so I would just eliminate that from your narrative if I were you. MR. BOSI: Understood, Commissioner. Understood, Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions of staff, we'll move on to public speakers. Ray, are there any public Page 39 July 7, 2005 speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None registered. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Any final comments from the applicant? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- I do feel that I need to address what Mr. Schiffer's saying because I don't think it's fair to assume ill intent by a builder. I mean, it could have been a legitimate mistake, and I believe that's what the facts are. You -- staff has caught other mistakes before issuing a C. O. Staff also knows the regulations. That doesn't mean that the builder shouldn't know the regulations, but staff also should know the regulations. And not only did this pass a review where they should have said, 'Your correct setback is 10 feet versus 15 feet" -- if the builder was trying to really get away with something, he would have built out to 10 feet and maxed it out instead of building to 15 feet. Also, your staff did some inspections and said it's okay. This, I believe, was an honest mistake. It happened. You have a buyer who's now after they've lived in the house three years being told, "Rip the pool out and bring it down," which it could have easily been done at the time the building was originally -- the house was originally constructed. I don't think anybody was trying to get away with anything and certainly not my buyer who -- who bought a house and lived it in for three years and now is being told there's a problem. I think this is very different than the other situations where it was caught prior to a C.O. and it could have been fixed before the buyer closed and spent the money. Other buyers decided to go forward with the risk that they'd get the variance. My client wasn't even given that opportunity, so I would hope that you'd follow your staff recommendation and realize this is a different situation and there would be a motion to approve the -- the vanance. Page 40 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Mr. Chairman, I would make such a motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let me close the public hearing. And, okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I move that V A-2004-AR-6449 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners subject to the stipulations of staff Nos. 1 and 2. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The motions's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I really think it's wonderful the expeditious way in which we handled this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's hope maybe in the future we don't have this many -- many coming back. Hearing no other discussion, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion carries four to two. Thank you. The next public hearing is on Petition CU-2004-AR-6384. It's for the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. All those persons wishing to speak on behalf of this petition please rise and be sworn In. (Prospective witnesses were sworn by Commissioner Strain.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Gentlemen, understand this is a conditional use. You have a form to fill out, please. Page 41 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, it looks like you have a crowd waiting for you today. MR. BOSI: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, and disclosure from commission members. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then it's just me. I have spoke (sic) to some of the neighbors, Mr. Raimer, Mr. Fraley (phonetic). I spoke to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. I think that's all. MR. LANDY: For the record, Mike Landy, Landy Engineering, representing the petitioner and all these folks behind you. I'm -- I' m really not here to put on any kind of dog-and-pony show for you. I'm here to answer any of your questions if you have anything on -- on the application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Landy, I have pages and pages of questions, but I'm not sure now's the best time to answer them because hopefully during what I thought would be your presentation and if not yours maybe staffs some of mine can be answered and I'll save a lot of time that way. So I'll reserve my questions of you after I get into it further. MR. LANDY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have no other comments on your presentation? MR. LANDY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does anybody on this Commission have any questions right now of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Mike, what's going to happen to the existing building? Once you build this, what will be the use of the existing building? MR. LANDY: It remains. The -- the proposed building that's Page 42 July 7, 2005 going to be constructed is nearly identical to the -- to the building that's on site right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will they both be worship centers? What I'm -- what I'm-- MR. LANDY: Yes, they're both -- they're-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would one become a day-care or something or a senior center? MR. LANDY: No. The proposal is they're both worship centers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. -- Mr. Landy, just while I've got you up here, did you do the TIS, or how is -- did you have a subconsultant do that? MR. LANDY: No, I did the -- the trip generation analysis myself. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your TIS I didn't notice you address the traffic on First Avenue Southwest. MR. LANDY: The trips that are being generated by the -- the church -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. LANDY: It's Sun -- Sunday services and evening services. The most -- the -- the critical element of -- for traffic analysis is peak season, peak hour, and the church is going to be generating traffic at times that are off peak, off-peak times. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you're -- you're going to-- you have five congregations that are going to use this facility, and each one is 110 members. You're going to be meeting Saturday evening 6 to 8 p.m., every day of the week from 7 to 9 p.m., and four different times on Sunday. That's quite a bit of people. That's 510 (sic) people spread out over various days and various times, but on Sunday they're even more concentrated. That's a lot of traffic. MR. LANDY: I -- I understand your concern. When we had the neighborhood information meeting, the neighbors were concern about traffic as well, and -- and specifically on First, but I think everybody Page 43 July 7, 2005 understands that the reason for -- for that peaking and spiking of traffic on First is the school that's about 800 feet down the road on -- on First Avenue. And the -- the church expansion or what's being proposed is not going to impact or make that situation any worse because they're not going to be generating traffic at the same time that the school is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to -- at some point I'm sure we'll get traffic to provide us comments on that. MR. LANDY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you aware that you have a current conditional use on the property that limits your access to Golden Gate Boulevard and to the roadway that leads to the park, not First Avenue Southwest? MR. LANDY: I think that's why we're back here going through this process right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The expansion is what I thought you're here for. But you've also got an access showing on First Avenue Southwest at today's meeting. MR. LANDY: Yes, I -- I'm aware of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. LANDY: I mean, the -- the -- in addition to the expansion, we are adding an access point on First Avenue, that's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Landy, I noticed in the neighborhood information meeting a couple of points were brought up. Someone suggested some -- eliminating the access parking -- and then another item that I want to see whether or not for the record anyone addresses beyond -- having to do with a three-foot berm and vegetation to help mitigate the sight-and-sound problem. Has that actually been promised? MR. LANDY: That has been promised, and that has been added Page 44 July 7, 2005 to the -- to the drawings. What we'd agreed to do -- the original access on First Avenue was approximately 40 feet off of our eastern property line, so there was about a 25-foot natural area that we were going to keep there. What we did was we grabbed the -- the whole parking lot, the proposed parking lot that we're -- the expansion and moved it east and increased the green area along the -- the neighbor to our west's property line. He's now got 60 feet between the limits of the parking -- actually, it's a -- it's a driveway -- and his property line, and we also agreed to build a berm and do some additional planting on top of that along -- along the western property line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Has that party or part -- or other parties -- have they been consulted with regard to that and have they -- MR. LANDY: They -- they were at the -- the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that, but have -- have they been given the information about what you intend to do? Because here it said it's something that you would think about. I'm -- I just want to know whether or not that's actually been reconveyed or conveyed to those folks. MR. LANDY: I have not directly talked to the -- the neighbor to our west since the neighborhood information meeting, but I -- I know he -- no, I assume he was given the revised site plan that went out when the public hearing was announced. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the concern that one neighbor had particularly was the question of car alarms that would go off when people go -- and -- and sight and sound. Sound in this case is significant, especially in the evening. And so I'm wondering whether a three- foot buffer on its own and such vegetation -- I -- if you were going to use that as a means of mitigation, I would hope that you would intensify that, make it much more dense and -- and allow that -- that party -- if we do approve it, that party does not have to suffer Page 45 ____.~'~..~...,..".,_,M,_.~_,~_._,."_._.""'.._~_~._._....._~._ July 7, 2005 those noises, that loss of quiet enj oyment. MR. LANDY: I understand your concern. I mean, just to -- just to give you some perspective on, you know, what is proposed between his -- between the limits of what we're developing and -- and his property line, you know, on top of -- besides the berm there's -- there's going to be a 45- foot-wide swath of native vegetation. I mean, he's going to have the -- the perception of having a vacant lot next to him, I would think. I mean, there's a lot of lots in town that are only 60 feet wide, so, I mean, we tried to accommodate him as -- as best we could. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where is that 45 feet on this plan? MR. LANDY: That would be this dark crosshatched area up in there somewhere. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that means if he has his house on the street frontage of First Avenue Southwest he has 45 feet, but if he -- do you have an aerial showing where his house is located in relationship to that 45 feet to see if that's in proximity to where the 45 feet is? MR. LANDY: This is -- that's -- that's his house right there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So he's further back on the lot. He's not just in front of the lot. I'm not sure that 45 feet's going to help him that much, Mr. Landy, but -- because what you're going to do is take that building that's there now and expand it southward. And I notice that in the staff report it says there's going to be 135 feet to separate the church from the adjoining property to the west. I don't think the building and the church is as much of an issue as the parking lot. How much is separating the parking lot from this gentleman's house next door? MR. LANDY: Well, there's 60 feet between him and -- and the property line, and I'm -- I can't speak to how far away his house is from his property line. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But your parking lot is much closer Page 46 July 7, 2005 than 135 feet to his property. MR. LANDY: Yes, it's closer than 135 feet to his property. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, the concern is -- you know, it sounds like a lot of feet, 60 feet, until you start hearing car alarms going off and a lot of racket. And that person is certainly entitled to enjoy their property, and that is a major concern that I would have. There ought to be some way of helping that party at least. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what kind of lighting -- there'll be lighting in the parking lot. MR. LANDY: There is lighting. I want to say the poles are -- I mean, they're -- they're very low-intensity type of -- type of poles, and they're only about 10 feet tall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then what kind of buffering from First Avenue -- in other words, if I lived right across the street on First Avenue, would I be looking right into a parking lot? MR. LANDY: That -- yeah, that -- that's going to be a standard Type B buffer, which is trees every 25 or 30 feet and a double hedge row right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's residential across the street? MR. LANDY: It's residential, but it's vacant. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's move on to staffreport. MR. DeRUNTZ: Good morning. My name is Mike DeRuntz, the Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The site is over five acres. This is as a -- as was mentioned, Page 47 July 7, 2005 there's an existing conditional use permit for the existing -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, could you get a little closer to the mike? MR. DeRUNTZ: -- church facility on the property. This conditional use is for an additional church on -- at this location. The staff has found that the -- this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and -- and with the Golden Gate area master plan criteria of the gro -- Growth Management Plan. We did hold a neighborhood information meeting. It was well attended. There was a couple of neighbors that was in -- in attendance that adjoined the -- the property. We had a good dialogue. It was their recommendation that a berm be -- be incorporated into the plan. A three- foot berm was recommended, and -- and that was incor -- incorporated into the plan to run the entire length on the western property line. There was also concern about the entrance and -- onto First Avenue Southwest, and as requested it was moved further to the east on -- on the subject property than what it was originally shown at the neighborhood information meeting. The staff is recommending approval, and if you have any questions I'll try to address those. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mike. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That lot on whatever it is, First Avenue South, it's right on the corner, isn't it? MR. DeRUNTZ: Not necessarily because-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. Not necessarily? MR. DeRUNTZ: There is -- there is -- there is land, I guess, right-of-way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Put the aerial-- could you put the aerial back up so we can see? Page 48 July 7, 2005 MR. DeRUNTZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There you go. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pretty -- pret' near the corner. MR. DeRUNTZ: The access -- I guess if you -- if you consider the entrance to Haas Park as a roadway easement, then -- then it would be, but it's not classified as -- that entire lot as -- as part of the park. That's the entrance to the park. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. My question is, by moving it east, are you -- is that really good planning to have an exit from a church where people who use Max Haas driveway to go west on First they're going to turn right right into the path of people exiting the church? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, there is -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It would seem to me it would be better off if it was further west for the common good, maybe not for one or two property owners, but for the common good it would seem like it was better off -- maybe Mr. Scott can enlighten me on that. There must be some standards as to how close things -- how much closer they cannot be and then how much closer they shouldn't be. MR. SCOTT: We do have distance things. I'm trying to figure out from looking at the dark picture in the back. We tried to get -- it's, like, distance between drive -- driveway entrances at 330 -- 330 feet for minimum spacing. Obviously, there are other things that control it, particularly if the lot's not that wide. And in some of these cases if you look further down the road, if you look at, like, the housing and stuff, . , It s -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I can't tell how wide that lot is back there, the adjoining lot. MR. SCOTT: Well, Mike -- Michael was making the reference that he thinks it's about 200 feet from the Max Haas Park entrance Page 49 July 7, 2005 over to the edge of that property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But you think all things considered that's far enough? MR. SCOTT: That's -- yeah, that's far enough. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're Don Scott for Transportation. MR. SCOTT: Yes. Sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don, there was no traffic impact statement that addressed First Avenue Southwest. Should there have been one or -- MR. SCOTT: From the standpoint of -- let's say from the concurrency standpoint we'll look at collectors and arterials. This is a local road. We do look at things like operational issues on local roads. It would have been, I guess -- I started looking at the numbers and figuring out, at least by what numbers they put in there, visitors, how many trips might -- it's hard to say who's going to use which driveway. But, obviously, if you're looking at putting turn lanes or things like that it would be nice to have the numbers to go with it versus some estimates that you're -- that either we're going to stab at -- as a -- as a bigger impact, obviously it's not -- it's a large impact for a short amount of time, but from -- you know, the road can handle that based on the fact that you can carry, like, five or six thousand vehicles per day, not that you want to on a road like that but ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, this is a typical residential roadway as is in Golden Gate Estates? MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you know how -- is it improved in any manner above a typical Estates road, or is it the same width or MR. SCOTT: I think it's pretty much the same width as other Estates roads. Page 50 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any sidewalks available on that road? MR. SCOTT: No, I believe that's actually been some requests in previously to put sidewalks on that road. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if the traffic from this church decides to go down to Weber to get access north or south to the Boulevard or to White -- MR. SCOTT: As some would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- as some certainly would, this residential street, then, is going to have that traffic impact on it. The children on bicycles and walking will have to be on the street with that traffic? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. LANDY: Can I -- can I correct something? There -- there is a sidewalk on the south side of First Avenue. MR. SCOTT: Does it go the whole length of the roadway? MR. LANDY: It runs down to the next intersecting street that-- that ties into -- into Golden Gate. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Because I have actually seen some recent requests, too, for -- and I don't know if it's on both sides then or -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Are there any further questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Landy, for the -- for the second because I may need -- this Exhibit 3, which is your plan here for your parking and -- and the facility, is this the plan that was presented at the NIM, the neighborhood information meeting? MR. LANDY: That's a revised version of the plan that was-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And was this based -- is the revision based on any of the recommendations that were made in terms of excess parking, reducing that, and -- MR. LANDY: Those -- those adjustments were made on that Page 51 July 7, 2005 plan, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Has this -- this is the best that we can do to -- have you considered a C buffer or what the impacts or implications would be if you were to more heavily buffer that area? (Cell phone rang.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who's got their phone on? Could you please turn it off? MR. LANDY: I'm sorry. I thought I did that already. Sorry. When you -- when you talk about a C buffer, are you talking about building -- like, constructing a wall? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am talking about trying to help mitigate the issues that were raised, which I think are very valid issues among all the other questions that have been raised. I just want to know if that was given consideration and what the implications were if it was. MR. LANDY: I don't think the -- the subject of constructing a wall along that property line was -- was brought up during the meeting. You know, when I'm -- when I'm out there and I -- I look at what -- just as an example, you know, when -- when you look -- when you're -- when you're standing over here -- and the vegetation in this area, which is also going to remain, is very similar to what's over there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. LANDY: And you look at property from -- from that vantage point you could hardly see the building. I mean, it -- it -- it is a fairly densely planted, you know, natural barrier, and it's not like we're going to be going in there and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but trees grow and trees fall down and bushes die and things change, but the concern I have -- and I don't want to become -- I'm not trying to beat this to death, but a three- foot buffer maybe should be considered as a five-foot buffer if the wall is not coming in there. Page 52 July 7, 2005 MR. LANDY: When you say-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm driving at is I want to see if there's any possible way that we can lend comfort to the people in the community other than these folks who wish to use their church. MR. LANDY: I understand. When you say a three foot -- what we're -- what we're proposing to do is build a three- foot-high berm. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. LANDY: And then plant on top of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. LANDY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And maybe five foot is inappropriate. Okay. I think I've made my point on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about a three-foot berm with a wall on top? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A six-foot wall of a structural nature, that's allowed pursuant to the GMP in Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You stand out there in that existing parking lot, and you can see that house over there. It isn't all hidden by this thick foliage that you're talking about. MR. LANDY: Well, can I consult with my client real quick? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask Mr. Murray a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're concerned about the First Avenue view of the parking lot or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm really -- I'm -- I'm trying to establish that -- we need to make sure that the adjacent property owners benefit from their rights. That's really all I'm trying to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which includes the First Avenue people? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, right. There are properties Page 53 July 7, 2005 that are vacant now, and at some point somebody might want to build a residence. I know they're coming afterward but... COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a house just to the west that -- that you can see through this foliage that's there the parking lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was concerned about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Landy. MR. LANDY: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you have any-- MR. LANDY: No. If that's something that -- that everybody thinks will improve the proj -- proj ect and help the gentleman next door, we'd be willing to do that, construct a wall on top of a berm, you know, along the west property line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that certainly helps me understand something. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Better than -- MR. LANDY: And -- and we'll-- we'll-- I think what we're talking about is constructing it from the front -- the front property line that fronts on First Avenue, right, back to the -- the limits of his house, or we can pick a number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I -- MR. LANDY: Do -- do we need to construct it the entire length of the property? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would think the entire length of the property line. He's got a right to enjoy all of his property, not just the part that he was -- wherever you've got a parking lot there should be a buffer if that's what their -- a wall if that's what's going to be decided on today, but something we can debate further on as we get into the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, how about the southern property line? Because -- because I'm concerned, you know, Page 54 July 7, 2005 you're driving down this country road. You come into this area on First Avenue. You're going to be looking at an urban parking lot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I agree. You know, you could be putting 10 pounds in a 5-pound sack in this regard. You've got a lot of expansion going on. You're double -- over double what you currently have there, which is doubling the impact on the neighborhood. Your conditional use originally was restricted as to some of the uses that you could provide there. In fact, I think you're on record as telling everybody you're not going to have certain functions in order to at that time mitigate some of the concerns, and the functions you weren't going to have were recreational activities, day-care, nursery, and youth programs. I'm assuming that's still going to apply. But by doubling the size of the facility, I mean, it's almost a moot point. MR. LANDY: I guess when I -- when I look at the intensity of use of the adjacent park sites I just feel like the church facility is a much less intensive use than that. And there -- there is a transition of intensity of use between the park site, the church, and the residential uses. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the park -- but the park empties out onto Golden Gate; correct? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That park entrance road. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's the only exit or entrance; correct? MR. LANDY: Yes, but they -- they use First Avenue, too, obviously. COMMISSIONER CARON: They use First as well. Oh, okay. MR. LANDY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. I wasn't sure if they were COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, they have a -- when they built the separate road, the county acquired a tract of land that ran a road directly to the Boulevard. And, I mean, that's the park I use all the Page 55 July 7, 2005 time so-- , COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I know about that. I use that road. I don't know -- I wouldn't use First Avenue because that's a residential street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have an aerial showing the park? MR. BOSI: It's dark, but the area in the lower right-hand corner is Max Haas Park here. Here's the access road that goes to Golden Gate Boulevard. Here's the subject property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does the -- the parking lot in -- in the park have light -- lighting on it? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If there's no more questions of the applicant or staff -- staff, are you done with your presentation? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I'd like to move on to public speakers. Ray, how many public speakers do we have registered? MR. BELLOWS: Four speakers. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker, Jeff Raimer followed by Lionel Pereira. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Will the speakers please come up to the podium and -- at least the first one and the second person standby. Mr. Raimer, were you sworn in? You were here? MR. RAIMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. State your name and address for the record. MR. RAIMER: For the record, my name is Jeff Raimer. I am the gentleman that does live directly west of the church. That is my property pretty much that we're talking about taking care of. Page 56 July 7, 2005 And -- and my objections -- I just want to kind of give you my thoughts, my family's feelings on -- on the expansion of the church. With the expansion of the church, we feel that the current and future noise and the traffic will definitely increase should there be an entry on First Avenue Southwest. You have an entry for Max Haas Park. You have the main entry for drop-off and pick-up for the school children. You have the main entry for -- excuse me -- the Presbyterian church, so within about a 600- foot area you have three entrances where people are coming in and coming out up and down our streets. My mailbox has been hit four or five times because of the width of the road. There's a lot of traffic on that -- on First Avenue Southwest. So we're concerned about -- about the noise. We're concerned about -- you know, the expansion will only mean more cars, more car alarms, more children in the parking lot at night. They do meet until about 9:30, 10:00 in the evening, which is -- which is fine, but, you know, it's not a lot of peace and quiet for my family and 1. My two children's bedrooms face directly east to the church. They're a little bit older now. They're 5 and 10, but, you know, four or five years ago when they were little, you know, they'd be waking up from the car alarms going off and et cetera. So it does affect our peace and quiet in the neighborhood. My wife and I moved to the estates, quite honestly, for peace and quiet and rustic vistas where we live, not to have to look at -- at a possible parking lot in our front yard with lights. You know, you're sitting on our front porch -- and as you see where our house was the back of our house pretty much comes 10 -- 10 feet or so into their parking lot, but if you add the parking lot -- yeah, if you add the parking lot here, now you can see that the parking lot is going to be in my -- pretty much my front yard, and we're going to be sitting out on our porch, and we'll be able to, basically, see lights and a parking lot. And, you know, certainly it's going to be bermed, but still my Page 57 July 7, 2005 concern and my wife's concern on top of this is also our property resale value when the time comes. I mean, it's certainly going to affect that when you have a parking lot in a residential area right next door to your house. So we're certainly concerned about that. Our street, quite honestly, is like -- unlike any street in the Estates in the effect (sic) that there is a lot of traffic on that street. I mean, you can see where our house is, and you can see if -- if you continued down First Avenue Southwest to the east down to the school, which isn't even in the picture, every day in the morning and in the evening -- in the afternoon cars go past our house to pick their children up at school. That's fine. I mean, you know, we -- my wife and I didn't do our research when we bought that piece of property. The point is there's a lot of traffic. My guess is five, six hundred cars a day. I mean, they have -- that's the only entrance that they can come pick their children up from that school. So the traffic is impacting, basically, for what we have -- where we're at. So I'll just close and say and should you decide that, you know, this expansion proj ect has to happen for the betterment of Golden Gate Estates -- I feel it doesn't, but I would please ask that you consider the needs of my family and our neighbors' privacy and how the expansion will affect our daily lives and our -- our rustic vistas that we paid quite a bit of money for to -- to look at each day and deny the entrance on First Avenue Southwest and possibly have the wall that you have spoken about be built so that, quite honestly, I don't see a parking lot, I don't see lights. Certainly, the noise is going to go over the wall. There's nothing we can do about that, but that's -- those are my concerns. I just thank you very much for your time, and those are my concerns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to verify something with you. You mentioned it, the wall. And that would help to accommodate you in the event that we went forward with this? Page 58 July 7, 2005 MR. RAIMER: It certainly would help, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. RAIMER: Yeah. And, of course, I'm sure it would be landscaped and maintained and, you know, that stuff so that I don't have to worry about it, but it certainly -- you know, it certainly would help. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. RAIMER: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Raimer? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. RAIMER: Thank you for your time. MR. BELLOWS: Lionel Pere -- Pereira. MR. PEREIRA: Lionel Pereira. I'm a member of the church in question, and we feel for the concerns of the neighbors. Of course, as you know, there's an influx of people coming down to South Florida, and some of our members are moving down also. And the Golden Gate Estates have been kind of restricted for this type of buildings, and this is really the only spot that we have available, and making available a place for them to meet is part of our society, you know, what we do. They need a place to worship, and we ask that the Commissioners take that under -- under consideration. If there's any questions or something that I can answer you, I'll be glad to -- to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sir, you -- you stated your name. What's your address? MR. PEREIRA: 3340 29th Avenue Southwest in the Estates. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's not on -- you're not a -- you don't live around -- close to this church, in the neighborhood of this church? Page 59 July 7, 2005 MR. PEREIRA: I don't. I live closer -- closer to 951 on the west -- south side of -- of Golden Gate Boulevard off White Boulevard, you know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. Next speaker, please. Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Michael Casady followed by Wallace -- that is a good one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Spell it. How is it spelled? MR. BELLOWS: Endres. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: State your name and address for the record, please. MR. CASADY: Yes. Good morning. My name is Mike Casady. 2174 42nd Street Southwest in Naples; that's my address. And we appreciate the -- the gentleman's concern about living next door. We really do, and we want to have peace in the neighborhood. A little bit about our organization. We do have five congregations that do meet there, and we have a great -- we don't have a day-care center there. We don't have any activities like that with children during the day, playgrounds or anything like that. Our activities are on Sundays and on -- in -- in the evenings, and it's all considered inside the building. There's no activities ever outside. There's no -- no parties. There's no church gatherings outside anytime during the year. Everything's inside. And we have a great teaching benefit that we offer for the community, and we help many of the students that go to the church there to become better students, and they -- it's been reflected by their grades in school that they have been good students. It's helped the community business-wise. A lot of our -- our attendees there are good businessmen that's in -- in Naples that operate reputable businesses and that have true and honest business practices that they -- that they use as well. So we -- we feel that this expansion is -- is very necessary, that -- Page 60 July 7, 2005 and the approval for this conditional use is necessary so we could keep that fine work going in our area to -- to build up and to help the Naples area to -- to maintain good families -- good, strong families, and have good -- good -- a good service for the community. So we ask and petition the Board if they would approve that. DO you have any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many Jehovah Witness -- I hope I'm using the right terminology. How many facilities similar to this one exist in Collier County? MR. CASADY: In Collier County I would say there's -- in the City of Naples themselves, there's one. We have one on the East Trail. There's one in -- north. So there's four, six -- there's about six. We have about six right now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And as far as the demographics are concerned most of your members live out in that area? MR. CASADY: We have quite a few that live in the Estates area. Some live in Golden Gate City, also, that attend there. And most of our traffic that we have always goes towards the area on Golden Gate Boulevard because everybody wants to get down the road fast. You know how technology is today. They want to get home quick or go someplace. Very few people that attend the church there now -- they have the option to make a right-hand turn there and go by the park and -- and go that -- and there's very few that go that way. And we feel that the ones if it's -- if we do have the permission by the Board on the First Avenue driveway, we feel that most of the people will make that left turn, go towards the park, and then exit onto Golden Gate Boulevard because most of the people don't -- won't want to go 30 miles an hour down -- down the street, you know, and -- because most people want Page 61 July 7, 2005 to get where they want to go very fastly (sic) or quickly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That First Avenue entrance, let's call it, is it both an entrance and an exit? MR. CASADY: I believe -- I believe so. I believe so, yes. MR. LANDY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Following up on that very thing, let me just play with an idea for a moment. MR. CASADY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Inasmuch as that First Avenue is -- is used, but I -- I thought I heard you say that -- not very much or used initially to gain entry and then exit is usually the other way around. MR. CASADY: Yeah. Very, very few of our members go that way, I mean go down First Avenue. Because nobody -- very few people that might live down that street or in that area right there that go -- that go to the church so ... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then with regard to that, I think we'd always want to have an ingress and egress of two forms to allow for fire department and emergency use. MR. CASADY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But what would your feelings be with regard to restricting use of that to all -- only emergency applications? Would your churches object to that? MR. CASADY: No, not at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would -- MR. CASADY: I think that was the only reason that was there because of emergency -- emergency services to -- to allow them to come In. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe added that as a stipulation that -- you would have no objections to that? MR. CASADY: No. Page 62 July 7, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CASADY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. Thank you, Sir. MR. BELLOWS: Wallace Endres. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, you had a comment? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. That is exactly the reason for that -- for that entrance on First Avenue was the recommendation -- request by the fire district to have that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I understand that, but that -- that could be -- that could be some kind of a chain -- or some other restrictive form could be applied without violating any rules; correct? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why didn't you tell us that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sir, if you could go ahead, your name and your address, please. MR. ENDRES: For the record, my name is Wallace Endres. I live in the Golden Gate area and have been there for 15 years in the Golden Gate area. The -- the problem that we have is the fact that there's a great influx of people. And you can see the majority of people here today are Jehovah's Witnesses. And our congregation, which was built in 1997 -- it was permitted in 1997, built the next year -- has only 185 -- or 187 seats, and so you could see to have such a group of people it's necessary that we do expand our facilities. And this is only for this Golden Gate area. The rest of the areas are taken care of like in North Naples, in Naples itself, and even in the City of Golden Gate there's a congregation there. So this is in question -- the one on Golden Gate Boulevard is only for those who are really east of 951 and who go to this -- who live in this area and attend that congregation. I just wanted to n1ention that when we first started the -- we got Page 63 July 7, 2005 approval for the hall, at that time when the approval was given we understood that there was room for expansion because -- of the original conditional use approval, and this is what we intended to do, but it seemed like that the regulations changed and we needed to come before the County Conmlissioners again, so this is why we're here. But as far as the First Avenue exit I have already explained that it's basically for -- for fire equipment or -- that would come into that area. As the last speaker brought out, I don't know of anybody that belongs to our congregation that lives down White Boulevard or -- or Weber, so most of then1 would be exiting that road -- park road and then onto Golden Gate Boulevard. Does anyone have any questions that I can help you with? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I have one. MR. ENDRES: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you examine the possibility of putting a second exit onto the -- the Max Haas road there? In other words -- MR. ENDRES: Well, we-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- west of whatever the direction is there. MR. ENDRES: We could do that except that that -- that area there is owned by the County for the park, that -- they've got -- they've got five acres of land in there -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. MR. ENDRES: -- that the park road runs through, and that -- in other words, our property butts up against that, but we'd have to have an egress there on the county property. If that would be permitted, that's -- that's fine because all of our traffic are going to be going that direction anyway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that little entrance and exit that you have right now, it must be something of a bottleneck when your services are over. Page 64 July 7, 2005 MR. ENDRES: Well, it's not really. If -- if you -- if you go there and see, it doesn't seen1 to be any congestion in that area. The only congestion is when you get on Golden Gate Boulevard up there. Then -- then you have to wait for the traffic. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. MR. ENDRES: Eventually it might have to be a stoplight there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ENDRES: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLO\VS: No other reg -- registered speakers. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: With that I'll close the public hearing. Oh, before I do -- I'm sorry -- is there any final closing statements fron1 the applicant? Then we'll close the public hearing. One thing that ,vas just l11entioned I wish to make the Commissioners aware of. In the n1inutes of the meeting that occurred in the original conditional use approval, Mr. Martin was the repre -- petitioner's representative at that 111eeting, and his comments in regards to the use of the facility was the following -- and this is part of the basis for the Commission's approval. "One reason that l11any of the churches do not have a number of congregations is tbat they are building and looking for new sites. I believe that there \vilI be a plan for this site no more than two congregations. Is that correct?" And I believe -- it says, "One is a Spanish-speaking congregation, and the other, of course, is English speaking." And so -- that question was asked of Mr. Martin by Miss Matthews who \vas C0111111issioner Matthews at the time. Right now we know that there's going to be five congregations, which is probably one of the reasons they're in here today. We know that each congregation, according to the staff report, is 110 individuals. We just heard testin10ny there's 187 seats in the original facility. Page 65 July 7, 2005 We also know that according to this staff report each congregation has a separate worship service. So if they have separate worship services and they're 110 individuals in each congregation and they have 187 seats in their current facility I certainly would want to ponder the question as to vvhere the intent of this is really going. And with that I have no other comments, and I'd like to seek a motion from the C0111111ission. Is there a motion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you-all won't make one, I will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's hear your motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My motion is to recommend denial ofCU-2004-AR-6384. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's a second to the motion. Now is there discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, are there conditions you could put on this \vhere you would find it favorable or-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you know, Brad, when we first started going through this and I was listening to some of the testimony and where it was going with the high -- the fence and all that and -- I thought, okay, we're getting to a reasonable situation, but then when I heard this gentleman state there's 187 seats in the facility already and then looking at the statistics saying that there's five congregations 111eeti ng there and each one has 110 people in it and they're all going to have separate hours of worship why then do they need a larger fac i Ii ty unless it's for a much larger expansion. And when they originally got the original conditional use for the representative to sa y that there are only two congregations that are going to be planning to use this facility -- well, planning is one thing. Fine. The times chzlllge. But this is getting to be quite a bit bigger than what it started out to be, and I'm not sure the original conditional use would have preva i I eel if they -- if this was known. Page 66 July 7, 2005 And having 1 i ved in that area -- and I use -- I frequent this area quite often. The intensity there, to me, is already too high, so -- Miss Student. MS. STUDENT -STERLING: Mr. Strain, as part of your motion, I would just like to ask you to articulate -- I think you have stated some reasons about -- that are in the code; for example, compatibility, noise, odor, glare effects, adequacy of ingress and egress, consistencies with the C0111p Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I would amend my motion to include that it is not con1patible with the neighborhood, that the intensity that is going to be provided would increase substantially from the numbers and values that were stated in the staff report, or at least it could, and I don't think that was the proper intent of this original conditioJ1Cl ¡use, that the access onto First Street Southwest is inappropriate for a ITsidential neighborhood, and that the restrictions that the applicant has included in their application are not enough to adequately protect the neighborhood or provide for compatibility. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would accept that as a second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, everybody in Collier County is disconlt()rted to one degree or another. And I've been here since 1982, and it certainly isn't like it was then. I think it's healthy that churches gro \\'. J thin k \ve've tried to do the best we can by this insofar as the neighbors are concerned. You already have a county park back in this same area, and I don't know ho\v 111:.;ny hundreds of people it draws, but it probably neighbor-wise is a bigger nuisance than this church, but they're . . necessary nUlS -- nUIsances. I -- I am inclined to approve this petition. There's some disadvantages to it. The -- the ingress and egress bothers me, but -- Page 67 July 7, 2005 and I think putting the -- the wall along the side next to the neighbors is -- is a step in the right direction. What we can do about First Avenue -- I would -- I would hope that some arrangcn1ent \:yith the County could be made so that you would have two sort of parallel exits out onto the Max Haas driveway to accommodate people 1110re expeditiously. But subject to those nuts-and-bolts types of things conceptually I think we ought to approve this. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that there have been several things that we've discussed that certainly help this project out. One is -- Mr. Murray discussed having a landscape buffer to the south so that it's not a parking lot -- you're not looking at a parking lot from First Avenue. We've talked about a berm wall and landscaping to go the entire west section. They have stated and I think we could state in any motion that there bl? no outside activities at any time of the day or night, which \vill help, and that they use that First Street strictly as emergency so it's nol a -- it's strictly for the fire department and it is not for the congregation. The congregat ions \vould have to use the entrance that they have -- and exit that they have now. Those seem to be pretty mitigating for the neighbors in 111Y opinion. COMMISSI0i'\!ER ST'RAIN: Brad. COMMISS ION r~R M lJRRA Y: Just -- oh, did you want to -- go ahead. COMMISS10NER SCHIFFER: I was going to say that I was concerned about 1ell''? urban look of the parking lot, but then when you look at the -- the :)~ rk. the park has kind of broken that feeling anyway. If they hJ''C ~1 lighted parking lot, a linear thing along First Avenue, then th~ll ~1¡11bience of the residential neighborhood is broken already so ... COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but we don't need to add to Page 68 July 7, 2005 it. COMMISSIONr~R SCHIFFER: But I think there's some things we could do. I 111ean, the \vall's a good idea, but then there's some safety issues with -- you know, you want to make the people visible in the parking lot, too. So I'n1 kind of against the motion and would favor some way to approve this. COMMISS10\fER STRAIN: Mr. Murray, do you have any comments? COMMISS10NER NIlJRRA Y: Well, of course, these are not easy decisions, but the thing about growth is -- I would assume this congregation or congregations, if that's the correct way of saying it, intend to grow further, and I would think that they will have reached a max utilization of this propeliy at the current number, and so I would imagine if we approved it that it won't be too much longer before -- if things go as they appear to be going, before they'll be looking for a new site in any event. r -- ! -- I've brought my issues up, and I -- I think we have to ta kc a 'v'ute. COMMISSI0\JER ST'RAIN: Okay. Well, there's a motion on the table. I would caìi for the vote on that. All those in favor of the motion denied signify by s'tying aye. COMMISS¡ONr~l{ ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISS¡ \fl~R STRAIN: Aye. All those in favor -- the motion denied :-~i~Tl :f' by saying aye. COMMISS, :\¡'~R :vIlJRRAY: Aye. COMMISS!CNL~I{ ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONI~R Cí\RON: Aye. COMMISS10N¡~R SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISS10NER STRAIN: The motion fails five to one. Is there another 11101 icn'.> COMMISS, !~R :'vIURRA Y: I would make one if you'd like. I would move to app¡'ove Cl J-2004-AR-6384 with the following stipulations: that ~h.~rc \vil] be a C-type buffer with a wall that extends Page 69 July 7, 2005 along the western property line from Point A to Point B, the full property line, that l:lcre shall be as well a means of mitigating sound and noise -- 1'111 so: ,'Y -- sound and light glare from the southern portion whether 111~:t he a \vall someone else may embellish -- and that the First Avenue cx i t be -- fínd a means of restricting that for ingress and egress except for cnlergency purposes. COMMISSIC'H~R ADELSTEIN: I'll second. COMMISS~C!'\~R STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISS¡Ci\ R SC'HIFFER: I'll second it. COMMISS1 Ci\ ¡~R STRAIN: Well, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Any further disc LIS:,> i () 11? COMMISSI()N¡~R C¡\RON: Are you going to be specific about what kind of lanc1sl'Clpe bu rrer you want on the south? COMMISSJ ': ~R I\DELSTEIN: I think we should. COMMISS¡CN~R l\/1URRA Y: I think you have to, and I -- I wasn't clear in 111" ¡rì ¡!lei \\'hat -- what should be appropriate there, but a C buffer -- it rnig 1t he contiguous. A C buffer might be appropriate, but there doesn't ~lppl-,ar to be any room, and that was my problem in the formulation of Lhi" 1110', 'on. COMMIS:~ ¡ ;~R SHIFFER: And let me ask Mike -- would you please get l: I . I he -- J!lei it's in their general notes. The lighting ordinance is such 1:1J: it's -- conceptually that nobody on the surrounding pro¡>.~ny \vou!d see the glare of the bulb; is that right? MR BO~f. '1'1' t', , IT-' t . '-.J'" ,,[,S cn"ec. COMMISS i _ ~R S( 'HIFFER: So we could rely on the county ordinance to d ( ,11 \\ i . ì t 1w 1'. MR. BOS l: \',>. sir. COMMISS, ()i'\ ~R SCHIFFER: In the application there's a request that sonlC () f the Pdrking may be grass type; in other words, not paved. So \vh:;: 1\[ like to suggest is that that far southern lane-- the lane itself c] i :_' paved, but the parking spaces be -- be grass-type parking, turfbJ c:< \', hatc\'cr kind of system they use so that there's Page 70 July 7, 2005 not that large pZlvcd ~¡rea on the south. And I think chat if \VC \vant to restrict the -- the -- the access off of First Avenue t )'JH~rgCI1CY access, first of all, it would be narrower. There would on!> he:l 20-loot-wide access. It could be gated. And that would take (¡\Vel) a lot of the paving down in that -- it looks like it would be the soulhc~l;t corner. So I think that would be a good thing to do. COMMISS, ON ER ~/IURRA Y: I think that's an excellent recommendati( n :'V[¡-. Schiller. MR. LAì<C i': <'ould . 111ake a recommendation as to the type of buffer that YOll g:~'nl¡ '111Cn ~ìre looking for? COMMISS: ER \i¡URRAY: Please. MR. LAN D :' 'he -- I think what's -- county code requires a Type D buffeL v '~i2'1 is a double hedge row and trees every 25 feet. I think -- I'm 1101 lO¡:.]!.. intcri_sted in putting a wall on that property line, but that Type r ¡ ., j r 'r is ;\ .. - the -- the hedge that you would be planting is six fc ,léd ¡ or hélS to be six feet tall within a year, and I think that \vollld ::1 :(~'vc \\'hat you guys are trying to -- are looking for there. CO~IfMISS¡ONER C/\RON: You're talking about along the south? MR. LA 1'-: [ ,': 'dong the south along -- along First Avenue. COMMIÇ~)¡'\,,'R C' i 'RON' Y h ,L.-' '. " . ' : J ' ",' \ . ea. COMMISS] )¡\!~R ìvI RRAY: But I do like the idea of the pavers that wi 1 ¡ c ¡\~a ll' -- Y () u're saying that that buffer would -- would -- would nlitigclt" CUP vi s i en into that area. MR. LANC ,': 'onTC. COMMIS:;. ) . ~R JRRA Y: Is that what you're saying? MR. LA 1'< ] ) : orrcc. COMMISS 1,) ! ~R~/¡ URRA Y: How do you feel about that, Mr. Schiffer? COMìvlTSS] )1'1 ER SCI-IIFFER: I agree. And you have no Page 71 July 7, 2005 problem with the gra(;s? ] rnean, that's what you're actually looking for. MR. LANO{: No. COMMISSl DN ER SCHIFFER: And then that way no one's looking at a sea cCpzlrking. MR. LAND : 0,] think we can design something that -- that will be softer. COMMISSI ()N ER i\ll URRA Y: It's important to find compromises tl1Z1l benefits everybody in this if we're going to do it. MR. LA1\D"{: ]'n1 trying to compromise. COMMTSS 1 0"\ ER SCI-IIFFER: But the concern I would have with a wall on dL' southern part is that it could be a safety issue. It's far away fron1 the church. You wouldn't want somebody hiding behind the \val ¡. COMMTSS!()1\;ER N!URRAY: And it will be a gate rather than a chain. I wou1c1 t11: :lk we'd have to have a gate. In order to allow the fire department to ~"1' "llccess, it has to be electronically operated. COMMTSS':) ER ABERNATHY: The western side is where we want the \v:d 1 i~'n't it? COMìvn~~ S. ON ER SCHIFFER: The wall's on the west. MR. Lf\"0Jj '{: '{ es, con"ect. COMMISSiONER ¡\BERNATHY: Period. CO 1Vf1\1 r ~ S : ,J N E R SCHIFFER: The southern side, no wall. COMMI~;:; ), ER ~:TRAIN: That wall that you're talking about, assuming it's g )11 ,g to be property line to property line along the west side -- COMMfSS 'J!~ER J\/fURRA Y: That's what I tried to say. I said A to B. COM?\1rS ' ')\~ER S'TRAIN: And it's going to a six-foot-high structural \V2] I. COM:v1ISS J. ER ìvlURRAY: Yes. COMMlc.:'('··-)' 'l'R (V-['RAIN Ok ,;:');:" ,\,.:, ,) : ay. Page 72 July 7, 2005 COMMISS. U;\J ER fVIURRA Y: A C buffer requirement. COMMI~S¡'~).'\ER STRAIN: I don't know how -- I'm not sure a C buffer is the hC';g;ll. I think the height can be shallow. COMMISSiONER MURRAY: I think the height is six feet, isn't it? MR. SCH lV1ITT: Just to clarify, we -- we were talking about a wall and \VC \Vi'" ~1:~() talking about a berm. Are they both-- C011IVI IS:; ; ER M URRA Y: No, this is a -- well, this would be supplanting J,lt. This \va11 would be six-feet high which would be properly l8ndscl, cd both sides. MR. SCB. iTT: A 11 right. But not on the berm? No berm? COMMTS ,.-=; ]~: ER M URRA Y : Yes. Oh, yeah, on the berm. MR. SCH T'T: So you're going to have a berm and a wall? C011:\1 IS.' ,,"- ,~R ~¡1 URRA Y: Yes. That's -- we -- we this way we -- we -- \ve j.. ¡ 1 cc l a I ¡ 0 f the noise going up into the stratosphere. MR. SCI-L . TT: AI! right. I want to make sure. A berm and wall ? COMMTSS. 'ER MURRAY: Masonry wall, yes. COMM I~' , : , 'ER SC:I-IIFFER: Let's talk a little bit about the length. Mi:~c. c .'ou put up on the visualizer the aerial photo again? And JllCl\í ',,: ,~ìe o\vner of the property would be the best one to consult on th:s. r ',:l ¡he COllcen1 I have is running the wall back through what's -- th',: rear part of this property's all vegetation anyway. What are \ve a .j ì ," ¡ [', g? \Ve're going through. We're cutting out vegetation ~f)! !~ 1 ,,::11. COrv;\11~' \:~R STRAIN: They're putting a parking lot in, though. As f:1r ;:<' l'; thei r parking lot goes. It goes almost all the way -- COMMIS»i about the GolcJ'_': COM\/. IS <; adding son~e :) .,. 1 ¡,~ spaces. ER ¡,\BERNATHY: No. No. No. He's talking (,teBoulevard end; right? ") :~R SCI-IIFFER: This would be -- I mean, we're Page 73 July 7, 2005 COMMISS!ONERABERNATHY: No, they're not adding anything to \Vl1 <l t :.; :.: 1 read y there, are they? COMMISSl(). 'ER lv1URRA Y: The gentleman indicated in his testimony that nc w\iuld be happy to have a wall recognizing that, although it's a JCdUCl ion in his property values and visualization, still it's better than ]O( king at the parking lot; that's why I think the wall needs to be for t1~ ~ l' :1tire property line. CO~11\1T~'S ~):ER SCI-IIFFER: Well, we have like -- maybe we could ask t\e c v',,',' ¡fbe \vants -- he doesn't have to come up. But it seems we're j u, "~', L 1 i ng through wild growth an eight-foot swath just to put a wall. MR. LA1'\ :)~{: r think from a water-management perspective you're going tc CI d up \'lith some type of little berm constructed there anyway, so thee' ~ ~i ing to be some clearing work that's going to have to be done ~ny ',':, ) I don't -- I don't have a problem with that. corv1lv1I~ S ' , '.~R ¡vI URRA Y : You have to protect the water onto the ot~~er pe.sclì'S property. MR. L^l'< [. r: 'I hat's correct. That's right. C01\1rl1TSS lJ>! ¡::R SCHIFFER: And maybe the wildlife are blocking -- 1 nl:, '¡, j '111 not sure the wall's necessary to go all the way back. C01\nvlI~ r~R ADELSTEIN: You've got to be definite. We can't say nl1yb ' 1, ,i: or Jllaybe that. COMMIS,) ~)ì\¡~R fVIURRA Y: That's -- that's my motion, though. Th,~ \V' ,¡] \\\)ldd be the -- all the -- MR. B/)~' [: '~><cuse JllC. The wall would go the entire length? COMMI<...· ,", )^': 'R ("'l~RAIN R· ht ,» ,,'< ¡ '., . ') I : Ig . CO;1~/lI>' < ,'~R URRA Y: That's correct according to my motion. COl\1\1I~,)r()\ER SCHIFFER: On the western property line. MR. BOS r: \1ìd it \vas a Type B buffer for the -- along the roadway?I Page 74 July 7, 2005 COMMISS¡:)~ER:VIURRA Y: Right. COMMISS:,,) '-fER i\DELSTEIN: There was also a condition here that a Sjx-io t-wide sidewalk shall be constructed on the sidewalk along with ìv1a~( La:ls Park Drive to existing church building prior to the issuance oi a 'c' ,·ti fica te of occupancy for the new church building. COMMI~ S¡)HiR SCHIFFER: I mean, there's one existing on the south and f1e ¡1( ïthern part of First -- COMl'/ISS') o,JER .:\DELSTEIN: It's one. It's open. It's a condition tl"lt \'/i.:< 1 ut Üll0 this. ¡ CO M11lS S lJ ~'~ER M UHRA Y: That was staffs recommendation COMt/rISSi.~ ~ER ADELSTEIN: By staffs recommendation, yeah. COM\::T~' S '~ER fVl URRA Y: -- is what you're saying. But before we -- Ivl 1k' 1 )eRuntz asked a question for clarification. I want to be absolute],r C \' lr on lb is. vVe're talking about a berm. On top of that berm is a \/2,:. MR. r O~ L:'( rreet. COM~~ IS Sl J '~ER M URRA Y: And then whatever appropriate buffering \\" :111 cnial1y be placed on that, I -- which I think is a B. MR. PU~' [: 'i at's correct, a Type B buffer. MR. LJ\ 1'. [ T: Yes. A nd I think the -- the way that works is they plant the -- the h 12 e on one side of the -- on -- on the -- the residential ~: de 0 't e wa J 1. COM ~ j , [~' s. ,n ~R VI UIZRA Y: Right. So we -- that would be in my motion. COM: rss. ,) ,n~R ADELSTEIN: Will you accept that, by the way, in Y011r nj,J~) ,,? COM1\HSS. ~JER IV1UIZRAY: Certainly. Oh, yes. That's a staff stipulation. CO M:\ J i ~ S I~] ~R srrRAIN: Does the second accept the staff recommenrl ~1 ti () n ' Page 75 July 7, 2005 COMMI~S, '.JER A.DELSTEIN: Yes. COM11I~ S ,lER srrRAIN: Okay. I have one final comment, and that is 1'111 :~c ;: ,', to be voting no on this. I think that the original conditional use i:ltC,lt when the applicant said they were going to have no more than t'vo c ¡ngregations is now changed radically. I don't think that bccatls _' they got it the first time that adding this many more people to th:s le:t' )orhood is the right thing to do, and I don't think-- had they told t:-,c 111nlission that back in '97 it may not have passed then, so I'm go' 11 :) stay \vith Iny negative vote on that so ... COMì',1T~ S i ~ER VI UlmA Y: I understand. COM1\1I~'S '<.J '.JER STRAIN: Any other comments? (No rccpcl1~ '. COM',n~S;~ER STRAIN: Ifnone I'll call for the question. COM~1r~ S ;JEI{ ADELSTEIN: Wait. One -- I have one more question. Do y n l1lt to at least put a stop gap on it now? C01f:' 11I~ S .;.~ER STRAIN: What difference does it make? They put o~'c ( 11 '. ; n front of the Commission back in '97. It didn't make a difc:?!"c :c .0 I'nl not sure it's going to make a difference if we do it here t';::: '. COM\::. S don't think t11::1', t;. I mean, fìv~ cc ¡¡.' the time CO'lc:l! :1 opinion it's -- : 'e COM\.: S the motion? CO 11 \ 1 !:- :'; /.J ER S CHIFFER: Well, but -- let's hope that a future B03rc: \'. ')" stop 1henl \vhen they're putting a parking garage up. COMl'/I. S ì~ER STRAIN: Yeah, they can just say congregati)'~j )C people instead of 110 or yadda, yadda, yadda, so why gei irt . . this point? .J] ~R M URRA Y : Well, at some point really soon I cou1d physically utilize the facility if they have -- <~,ìtiolìS and the use we're talking about now and :: in, it'~; at 111ax in my opinion, and -- and in your yond 111ax. .JER /\ T)ELSTEIN: Then why don't we put that in Page 76 COMÏ\1ISSJ ) -fER A.I3ERNATHY: I'll move the question. COMMI~':j, ~ER STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion? COMMI,,~ COMMIS ~,; COMMISS> COl\' If'\/ rr"~ 1 ; J. ." ' COMW',' .~ COMlY' ¡ c' ..' A~~~;~) Aye. The mIl ¡, .', Miss CCL:, probably ill' f\ " COURr;', .. COMW. COURrr :;1 COM~1!Ç . end of the -- (' ¡. here for. I'D1 ,. ' CO \11\ " . Conditional- . COMW.. . business for ' ¡ " (No resr CO M1\/1 ' MR.B Commi~<)ior:' L on the 27th ~, r COMM: 1 please. CO \11\/ . still hay c to . July 7, 2005 .~ER iv1URRAY: Aye. ;-JER SCHIFFER: Aye. ./ -fER A.DELSTEIN: Aye. -JER /\I3ERNATHY: Aye. ~ER C':':/\RON: Aye. ~ER STRAIN: All those opposed? .;~es five to one. )orter, for your benefit -- we can wrap this up ; n1inutcs. )RTER: That's fine. 1~ ~R S'rRArN: Or if you are all right-- d'~TER: That's fine. '-I ¡~R STRAJN: Okay. Just for all of you, that's the ,: issue on the agenda in case that's what you were l1g it 'vVas. And we'll go on to old business. ~J~R\DELSTEIN: We will get the 'nit signed, please. ~. ER (,n 'R A IN: Are there any issues of old :11nission'? . ,J ¡~R srI 'RA IN: Any new business? n:D1issioner Strain, I just wanted to remind the . 10]! a ve that Planning Commissioners Workshop U1 d -- ! ~R iVlURRA Y: Could we keep the noise down, .; ~R STRA IN: Everybody please exit quietly . We . ,e n1e~ting. You can -- you can leave, but please Page 77 July 7, 2005 refrain from d i c':'" U ' i (in until you get out in the hall. Thank you. COMMIS.';¡ ~L~R AJ3ERNATHY: We have two exits, by the way. MR. BOS.: I,' - if you haven't registered yet, please do that with -- with Connic ,: 0: ;on, or just tell me right now, and I'll -- I'll put you on there. CO MM~ ~.':; I ).'~ ER M U RRA Y : For what? I missed what you -- MR. EO: .:' . '.1t \vas that Planning Commissioners' Workshop that will be he] ¡ C';: ; 1110nt11 on -- on the 27th-- COMr/11 "J¡~R MURRAY: Before I could answer that I need to understanr1 \, ,;,.. rodifications were made. You know the issue I've raised. MR. PO::.: ',' :h1. \Vc have -- Susan Murray and David Weeks have been 8 c' k ' ¡; ¡ n C01'\)o ¡'a te a presentation, one on each day -- I think David';~: :, erst on the 27th, and Susan's on the 28th -- to bring the dj~(T' ; , 1:1at 'V:lS propo -- or that was planned to be specific witl¡ C=OLlntv's Growth Management Plan and Land Development ( K: ' .'l:gulatlons. But speaking in generic terms it will be more srI'''''>: ~, '1 ) 'Ir cun cl i tions. COM~;" c, 1 if !~R ì\1URRA Y: Okay. Mike, one further question by me. Hav2 \":! : cd the level of the overall program prast -- past the primer ~':' " MR. PO, has increased ;, ~ ( COMl\/f" 'J you let n1C 1, 1 ~ we -- I havi':l1 11~ need to un(l~:?~.: , [;¡ If I wer .; ~ ~ want to kn0'N ' , :~: ~ up before I ~ 1) applies 11 er". " -- ! hope so. I can't -- I can't say that it -- that it 'old or five-fold but ... ¡ ¡~R ¡v! URRA Y: Well, if you find out, then 1-- d then [ could give you an answer because unless ('r to tl at -- that's two days of valuable time. We '/11at it is \ve're going to do. t) coll:ge and I wanted to select a course, I'd }1lrse -- 'vvhat the detail -- what I'm going to pick ! tin1l~ '1nd n1oney, and I think the same thing 'd to k1 O\V n10re about it. That's my opinion at Page 78 July 7, 2005 least. COMMI~')IU"~ER A.BERNATHY: I may be a page behind, but what's the pur] 'is_ ( r the \vhole thing? Is it just an indoctrination for people that h8', ,_~ ? r '~idy been here for years? MR. BO~:: "/ .] I, the -- it was a recommendation by the -- the Planning C01l1:,:is j )}1 to the Board of County Commissioners to provide additio;;([ J !:1ding and -- for course work and -- and certification. MR. ~CTi '/r1'r ': Let n1e -- let follow up, Mike. This came up-- when Mr. L uc. . p ~ cntcd his annual report to the Board of County Commissior c¡ '. ]- 'r,ade 1\\10 recommendations. One is he recommenc'·'è :1:1 ,·':tffv/ork to create some kind ofa certification program or ~T:l il g " rog1'anl for Planning Commissioners, and the second 'va~ to :. dc\', ,'or COlll111issioners to attend certain training and be reimbl1r'~~c1 ¡ ')1' l1L se -- that training. Tho~(' 'H('~' ~ (1 ' t\VO recoI11111endations. The Board then gave staff clear dire('~ir"~ 'J ( ( -- inlp]C1l1ent procedures for both. Mike was -- I passed tn8t r~,' - )1' .)' . dity o!Tto Susan Murray, and certainly Mike, who work~ ; ¡¡' ',~ ~ ; 1 ing Departl11ent, was -- is the Project Officer to put that -- l"'~si'·.L/ "dt that together. Wh~t \ve':" C:ui,'g is ,111 ordinance that would allow Planning Commis5:c '''('c' to -- ~o seek reinlbursement. And, by the way, Mr. Murray, yrl'~':' \"a' :pprovcd. Your -- your individual request was approved "" t1 'T (' he LFt board meeting. C01\iff/ ~. . I ( ~R JRH.A Y: I didn't know that. Thank you. MR. ~~ (' ¡ I] r Y Cd i 1. So that was approved, and you certainly can no\V fi'e f).' n j11l1Urscr:lent. Bllt ",'''' 5~L l!), J )rocedure for Planning Commissioners to -- to attend tr8;"'i"~~ :rc ,aene! :lnd be reimbursed for -- for expenses for those -- t]y ~ t:: i '1 i l ~) Jnd t 11 c second piece was to create a certification progran1 or ~'l: ,,' : l:- 101' J ¡raining program to keep Planning Commissicnc' ":t." 1t ill -- in either state law or other type of Page 79 July 7, 2005 activities. We cont1ClcC ;¡ genlle¡nan \vho has done this training before, and that's basicaUy \'ll~ J1c .ve -- \ve set up. This has been done in other counties, and it -- /,') ¡Ire certainly not -- it's not mandatory. It was -- it's at the request ( f 1'le Boa rd. Weare scheduling it. We're -- we're certainly encourat ing YOLlr attendance, but that is strictly up to you if you wish to attellC. It -- I ~Tn\\' t ll',' ~ wcn.~ COl11111ents in regards to the -- the program of instnlcti ()n be ir. .'~" guess, s0111ewhat elementary or basic in regards to what \V8') ~'DillQ tc be di~;cussed. We -- we have since coordinated ~ '- with the -- 'v~th lb.~ 1 :dividual conducting the training, and he has agreed -- arò TV! ik ~ elll -- (';.10 highlight on that, but he's agreed to certainly 111J1:C 1~ 1.Lj 'C in line with training at least at the -- at the level where you' ! 1~,~ delL :1g \vith Conlmissioners who have already been in the -- in do:ng tLi: 1) )c of business for several -- for a year or two or three year~. f;at t) pc of training. So that's what we're doing. I'm complying \y;~h tIìc 1 nard direction. COM1</iS~:I(»:~R ABERNATHY: What is certification all about? MR. ~CI I~,l1 ': We!L there rear -- really is no official certifica tlr)', f1'0111 , ~.. andp\ )iot you have to be certified before you can serve as a PI~ ;111;n 1 ( 0I11111issioner. What the Board had asked is we -- this was, (l~8; '1. a ]'-.:'(' )}11nlcndation by Mr. Budd. WIlat .1" ~ r o:¡¡' had ([sked is for us to look at some program that would at Ie:'lst p:'o Jil.'~ the initial training for Planning Commissioners and eventu" 1;". ' f ,'\Vé11TJnted, create some kind of a certification pro gran' . The s~ )t,::, \'aJking ~lt that as well for -- for local planning authorities t'o --:0 - 0 basically be certified in some aspect prior to serving ;n; ':u1l:n '¡- basis on -- as a Planning Commissioner. CO 1\1 , ;IS~'IC : :~R A!3ERNATHY: The real problem with that is the fact 1]~~: '\'~' 'e '(.stann,'! rolling over-- Page 80 July 7, 2005 MR. SCI{L\nT~l : y cs. COM:\11SSIC r< ER ABERNATHY: -- members. MR. SCI-H,IJ "~, : Yes. COMM]S~'H . .~R /\BERNATHY: And you -- if you schedule indoctrination O:lC',: :. year YOll may have somebody that's been on the Board a year or ¡TI~IY ie even nlore. M:Z. ~c>u.. LJT: : I understand that. Normally as -- when we get a new CO[;l'''1; 1 S~'l 0; lei" - COM,LS~I()j¡ER ABERNATHY: It's an impossible task, I think. MR. ~C'T-I~\nr : -- I -- \ve vvork with them separately and have them conlC j~ltO th~' 1..ivisiol1. 1 usually give them an orientation and a -- and a ~)ri'r::lg. J t> ink I'vc done that with the Commissioners when they car"'':.' or bcard.\s thc ne\v commissioners certainly recall we did that. And it's ~ì, - - it: a -- as the new commissioners would understand -- they c cr' ,~ : '11 y k:, (; ,'/ j t j s (l - - so mething you pick up -- you don't -- it's hard tn t1kc -- :lLorb al! of this at once. It's somewhat of an interim rro'-- 'SS. J\! r. ,v1urray is -- is smiling. But that -- that's what this is about. fj":1S h8~:i" 'dly to try and provide some initial training in regard to ~. Tv:ng ~l.S -. on the local planning authority. COVl\llS~IC}ì l~R STRJ\IN: Okay. CO\¡f' ~ ~ SSIC T :~R SCHIFFER: Mike, one thing is -- you asked if we've ..,~. terx! j hink 1\/c registered multiple times because I keep gc~ '¡""T the q" jon 8sked. So could you do me -- maybe the smart tl-'1 . '('1 d ) 1,' ,,;ok and see \vho isn't registered or who is registerc ".~< n )ti 'y us \vhcther \ve're registered or not. MI'. ¡ "S1 1': .0 th(1 . yes, sir. CO '. \:: ~S ~ Ie ; ~ R S C H ¡ FF ER: I mean, I've done it more than once, I tl" ,t·. CC ~ I: \/11 S S I ( ì, E RM t J RRA Y: I'm going to go on faith because we just' . , ',~ vc j s ). nethi ng for a church, so I'm going to say yes, I'll Page 81 July 7, 2005 go. MR. SCI-II\1JTT: Thank: you, sir. CON1\1ISSIC)1',;ER SCHIFFER: Okay. You approved something for five Chll rche:-;. CO~~/1Ì\1ISSIC)1\ER STRAIN: You're right. Is there any other new business? COMMISSIOì\! ER SCF-IfFFER: Just one thing, Mark. We got a -- Sharon :"11il1i¡ s SC,lt us a link: to the County Codes of Laws and Ordinar"(' " z¡nc' \vh,-.' 1 you go there there's a description of the Plannin~~ (' ':llITlission. So I think all of us should go visit that. I'm not sure we'T 10in~' OLlr job after reading that description. CC'\TMISSI()NER MlJRRA Y: That's the muni code? CC \' ì,1TSSI(»'ER SC[-IIFFER: It's the muni code. CO\!'1'1TS~'IC)I" ER M URRA Y: That may not be our Planning Commi"s~ ':1. COì , .1TSSI01' ER SCHIFFER: Well-- but it's not the LDC. No, it's CoIl' e ':ourty C~)des of Lavvs and Ordinances, which is the second -- nle~l¡, \\', have 1 \VO codes that govern us, that plus the LDC and, ob' .( "('ly, 'be ìro\vth Management Plan. So I would just recomn~,'1 1\ CYC sheJy go visit that and see if they recognize us. C(ìÙ iÆTS~l()~\ER SrrRA.IN: Okay. Are there any other questi01¡s -- ('1'.: lll!_':~n, ne\v business? f1\.~ ì . '<";.l~("I"'C'e \..1..... ,) ..) . C( \ /I:S~I()1' 'F~R STRAIN: Okay. If not, there's -- obviously there c~ ' '"'C ZiliY ìl Jlic C0111111ent. No discussion of the agenda. Motion' "c1_; ou :'n. > () \vc're a11 -- we are adjourned. ***** Page 82 _.___~""..·_·.c_.,~._.·.·___·~_····_·.·,·,_,···_·"__~ July 7, 2005 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting \vas adjounlcd by order of the Chair at 10:39 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark P. Strain, Vice-Chairman Page 83 ,.... .''''''__ß_"''~_'''"~'_''_.'_~'"'-'''·'''''''''_'''"'~_'·___·_