Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/01/2005 R December 1, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 1, 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: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Russell Tuff NOT PRESENT: Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning Department Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION 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 MAYBE 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 A V AILABLE 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 6, 2005 6. BCC REpORT- RECAPS - November 15, 2005, Regular Meeting 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-8280, Martha Valle, represented by Joseph Cunningham of Turrell & Associates, Inc., is requesting a boat dock extension to allow for the construction of a "T" shaped dock to facilitate the mooring of two vessels by requesting a 25-foot extension from the allowed 20-foot, thus allowing the proposed dock to protrude 45 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 202 San Mateo Drive, South port on the Bay Unit 1, Lot 30, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4647, Mitchell D. House, represented by Donald J. Murray, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use to allow for the establishment of an eco-tourist facility in the Rural Agricultural-Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment Overlay (A-ACSC/ST) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property is located approximately % of a mile west of S.R. 29, on the north side of U.S. 41, in Section 25, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) Continued from 11/17/05 1 C. Petition: CU-2005-AR-7749, Living Word Family Church, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering is requesting a Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.04.03 (Table 2) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for the property to be used for a Church Facility in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of lS.1± acres, is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 1 1/2 miles east of CR 951 in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) D. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5431, Naples Gateway Land Trust, represented by Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" and "Estates" (E) to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Cambridge Square PUD by revising the PUD Document and Master Plan to incorporate a three (3) acre parcel, currently.zoned "E" into the existing Cambridge Square PUD and to allow a maximum of 80,000 square feet of retail or office use on the 3 acre parcel. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.75± acres. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN December 1, 200S/CCPC Agenda/RB/hr 2 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, if you could power us up, get the meeting rolling. Good morning everyone. If you don't mind rising for the pledge of allegiance to start our meeting this morning. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Madam Secretary, would you do the roll call? COMMISSIONER CARON: I will do the roll call. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is not here. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. Anything from the commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd like to add two items. One is a follow-up on that commissioners' seminar we took and then the -- just a planning question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mr. Tuff, did you get your -- oh, you really broke the computer. Huh? He was monkeying with the computer and it went down for good. I should have known. Page 2 December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nobody even called. I counted to ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other addenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Planning Commission absences. Ray, why don't we go through what's happening for the rest of December so we're all on track. There's been some confusion between everything that's been sent out. So can we just lock down the dates? MR. BELLOWS: Okay. On December 15th you have a regular hearing date on December -- that's December 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 15th is there a time certain often o'clock for the Bayshore/Gateway Overlay? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's a time certain. I don't know the time, though, on it. It's on my list here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the ad said ten o'clock. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean we have a regular hearing in the morning prior to that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have -- I don't know how many cases you have coming up prior to ten o'clock, but I want to -- are we going to running over; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I think two were continued so I made it a short agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And what's the other -- we have another December meeting too, don't we? MR. BELLOWS: You also have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AUIR on the 20th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twentieth. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. AUIR on the 20th. Page 3 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Nine o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the 15th, will everybody here be able to make the 15th? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All nods. Nobody's saying no. It looks like we will. Will everybody here be able to make the 20th? (Indicating. ) MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same nods. Okay. Nobody saying no. So we got a quorum for both days. Thank you, Ray. Approval of minutes for October 6, 2005. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Murray to approve the minutes of October 6, 2005. All those in favor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. Ray, the BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: The board met last Tuesday, but I unfortunately don't have the recap for you at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to give that at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Page 4 December 1, 2005 Chairman's report. Last week I had left some handouts that I had promised this board they would have by this meeting, and staff had told me they could produce them by this meeting, and I -- do you have them somewhere? MR. BELLOWS: They are being copied and hopefully by the end of the meeting though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like we forgot about them until we came in this morning. Huh? MR. BELLOWS: No. They're -- I didn't have them completed. They're still making copies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What that handout will be and I'll try to explain it before the agenda's over today is the laws and codes that pertain to the planning commission's operations, activities and things like that. Ray, another item I would like to mention, I've got a couple here under this agenda item. The Municode that we all use on the Internet, mostly we have to use it because our hard copies are not regularly updated like in the old days. The only problem with CD Plus MUNI code is if you notice they don't have -- they won't show the tables on MUNI code. They had them there for a while, but your use tables are no longer there. That makes it real awkward to look at some of the uses. F or example, we have a commercial proj ect coming up today that listed SIC codes and uses, and if you wanted to verify any of those, you can't do it. So you've got to go back to the book, but the book's not updated. Is there a solution in the works for this or do you know what's happening with that? I mean, if we're having trouble, the public's going to have even more problems. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'll check with Captain Fabacker (phonetic) that heads up the LDC amendments and see ifhe's -- knows of any fix. We'll get you one thing, an updated paper copy. We'll get that to you for sure. Page 5 CHAiRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Or -- or if you have a CD copy, but something so that when we have a need to research something for the Planning Commission meetings, We have the available resources to do it so... MR. BELLOWS: I'll check into it and make sure you get at the minimum paper copies right off the bat and we can get you CDs right away. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Let the record show that Commissioner Midney has arrived. How was the traffic, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Today it was good. CIWRMAN STRAIN: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Like always. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last meeting there was an issue involving additional space needed for a developer on Davis Boulevard, Ray. And through that discussion we saw the staff change their position ITom one of recommendation of approval to recommendation of denial. In further research, I notice that in your CD Plus that there were some outstanding rejections on that project and somehow it still had gotten to Our level. But it's interesting in reading CD Plus in seeing how staffreviews and looks at Some of these projects because it's a thorough review. They do a good job. And I think that would be of a tremendous benefit to this commission. Would there be any problem ITom now on when we receive a __ when we have a scheduled hearing that as part of Our packet to include a hard copy of the infonnation in CD Plus? It's just a summary of the staffs comments and how the project evolved to the point where it got to us. And it would also tell us what departments are still having problems. So it might help in our questioning and understanding of the project. December 1, 2005 Page 6 December 1,2005 MR. BELLOWS: I'll look into that. The staff report should reflect any negative comments in CD Plus anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It didn't last time though. MR. BELLOWS: I think what happened on the last time there was a last-minute change. It was complete and then -- then an issue came up and they turned it back to rej ect after the process was started for advertising and staff report. So there was some confusion along those lines with a late-minute change with a late-minute issue that was discovered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you could look at possibly-- because I know CD -- the pages are -- it's just a matter of making a print of those and then attaching a few more pages to our packet. But for some of us it might be insightful as to see how the staff has been looking at things and how they evolved at the staff level so we know what -- what happens it may have already been addressed that we haven't got to re-bring this up at this hearing. MR. BELLOWS: No. That's certainly not a problem, and I will ask the planners to also be aware of the -- if there is a disagreement between staff and the petitioner, that it's clearly stated in the staff report also. That's the purpose of the staff report to outline those inconsistencies and review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well 1'11-- I'll kind of keep it on here then until I get feedback from you maybe on the 15th as to __ MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It shouldn't be a problem getting you copies of that either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I hope not. I mean, it would be easy to do. Okay. With that we'll move into our first advertised public hearing. Petition BD-2005-AR-8280, Martha Valle represented by Joseph Cunningham of Turrell & Associates. And will all those wishing to speak on this matter please rise and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 7 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Thank you, Ms. Ford. This is going to make it easier for me today. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Okay. You may proceed. MR. CUNNINGHAM: For the record, Joe Cunningham from Turrell & Associates representing Martha Valle. Rocky Schofield's going to hand out a few aerials that will help aid this petition here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I knew you were here for something, Rocky. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The project site is located in Bonita Springs at 202 San Mateo Drive. It's in Southport over there on Little Hickory Bay. Ms. Valle is requesting a 25-foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet for a total protrusion of 45 feet. It's into the waterway that's extremely wide, around 900 feet. This dock will facilitate two vessels with lengths of 30 feet and 16 feet. I want to put on an aerial here that will show exactly how wide the -- this bay is just to make sure there's no navigational problems for other vessels. As you can see it's 900 -- a little bit -- a little bit over 900 feet over here to around Third Street and just over 700 feet over here to this point. Now, near Martha Valle's shoreline, the applicant's lot is very shallow and it's checkered with mangroves. As you'll see in this photo right here, these are all mangroves along the shoreline here and the water depths right here are very shallow. So we had to push this boat dock out in order to provide sufficient water depths for these two vessels. As I said earlier, she's requesting vessels of 30 feet and 16 feet. These vessels will draw approximately three feet of water and a boat lift will draw an additional foot or so thus requiring at least four feet of Page 8 "~-----_. -,~,--".,,,.- December 1, 2005 water to safely moor the vessels. As you can you see in this drawing, the morsels -- the vessels have been moored parallel with the shoreline and end line in order to minimize the total protrusion. This design seemed to be the most practical and allowed Martha Valle to have two vessels while protruding only a minimum distance into the waterway. Now the next aerial you'll see that the proposed boat dock is consistent with other surrounding docks. As you can see the dock to the north protrudes a distance of 47 feet into the waterway. And down to the south you'll see a another dock extending 77 feet into the water. And as mentioned earlier, this proposed dock does not impede navigation and it will have no impact on the waterfront views of either neighbor. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Cunningham, would you put up the last slide, please. I can see that it looks to be about 45 feet from the crossing over the mangroves. What -- what would you guess would be the distance from where the catamaran would be housed to the next dock south if you will? Would you say about 50,60 feet-- MR. CUNNINGHAM: To the -- well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the -- to the south. To the dock to the south. Just -- just an estimate. MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'd say -- I'd say probably -- probably around 60 feet, 65 feet approximately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does the catamaran -- do you know, does the catamaran have its own energy source -- energy source? Does it have a motor. MR. CUNNINGHAM: I don't believe the applicant's decided that. I imagine it might have some type of small motor on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. CUNNINGHAM: But nothing significant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just thinking about Page 9 December 1, 2005 maneuverability and the distance and so forth. Okay. That will-- that will suffice. Thank you. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The southern repairing line or how actually do you figure the repairing lines in this neighborhood? You show them as due east, but aren't they essentially an extension of the property line or -- and the concern is, is this thing too far south? Could it be moved up to better fit the setback if the repairing line does continue with the property line? MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, yeah. I believe these -- our pairing lines are put on by the -- MR. SCHOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Schofield. Repairing lines are -- they go from the shoreline and they run perpendicular to the thread of the channel. So on -- on your aerial there you -- the -- the channel runs north and south. So you would extend the property line out perpendicular to the thread of the channel. If you were to draw an imaginary line north and south through that channel there, Little Hickory Bay, and that's how -- that's how they run. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHOFIELD: And what was the other question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was it. MR. SCHOFIELD: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've seen other places where it comes to a point. Other places it's a pure extension of the property line, but I'll go with what you say. MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah. They -- I was -- I was instrumental in writing the repairing line laws rules -- excuse me -- for the county some years back, and it followed the state guidelines and they're different for dead-end canals. You know, those are -- those are where you do the pie-shaped repairing lines. They come off to, like, Page 10 ..._-"~-.... December 1, 2005 wagon-wheel centers. And -- but basically even when a channel meanders, that you run a line through the thread of the channel; and wherever that line is, you usually northerly would go perpendicular to the shoreline out to there. And it's just to give everybody a fair piece of access to their property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I have a question I think you can help me with. On your page 2 map, the numbers joining the footages of depths is not in the same order or the same size as all the other ones. So there's no way I could judge where that actually came. Or if you're going to send one like this, at least show us on it where your dock is actually starting. Going through your -- your map areas, you see these are smaller -- the regular ones and, therefore, we -- I can't judge where the distance comes out on the one that shows you the footage -- footage depth. I'm assuming you're correct, but I __ it would make it a lot easier for us, at least for me. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Are -- are you talking about the water depths on the survey -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. CUNNINGHAM: -- as according to the ones that are on the drawings? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Because there is none on the drawing itself. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Those -- those are all points from the surveyor and we take those and we just make contour lines to make it easier for the drawings. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But, again, I understand this, but couldn't it also show me where the dock is going to be? That doesn't give me the answers either if you -- if you look at the scale on the survey. MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah. A lot of times, yeah, I understand what you're saying. You want to see -- you'd like to see the dock Page 11 ---- December 1, 2005 layout on the actual survey. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCHOFIELD: And a lot of times the water depths -- a lot of times we -- we do include that. Sometimes it gets so jumbled up and it's too much information on one sheet. But if we were to blow up on this, I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But it's a different size -- MR. SCHOFIELD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- and I can't judge it. I assume it's correct. MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I would rather be able to know it's correct. MR. SCHOFIELD: The way -- the way -- the way these -- the way this is generated it's on AutoCad that's taken. The survey is on the computer. That's transferred to an 8 1/2 by 11 drawing with the dock on it, but I understand what you're saying. It would make it a little more clear, but the drawing is correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Staff report, please. MS. ERNST: For the record I'm Joyce Ernst from Zoning and Land Development Review. And similar boat dock extensions like this have been granted to other properties in Southport. As you can see and as pointed out by the applicant, the property to the north is actually on the other side of San Mateo Drive and that extends out 47 feet into the waterway. The property to the south is under -- under construction right now. About a year ago he got -- you approved a boat dock extension for that dock to extend 77 feet into the waterway. And most of the properties up in Southport all seem to have this Page 12 December 1, 2005 mangrove that skirt the shoreline. This proposed boat dock is centrally located along the property line and, therefore, we don't see where it's going to obstruct the view of neighboring properties or obstruct the use of their docks. I have not received any comments whatsoever for or against this petition. It complies with all the criteria of the Land Development Code; therefore, staff recommends approval. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: How much of the mangrove area are they allowed to impact? MS. ERNST: Well, they have to get a state permit and that will dictate how much they can -- you know, any mangroves that can be removed. I -- I -- maybe the applicant might tell us if he's __ MR. CUNNINGHAM: State allows for a four-foot access walkway to come through the area and so that's what we have leading up to the boat dock. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's the only mangrove impact we're proposIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Thank you, Joyce. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have had three pages handed out to each of us. We need a motion to have those amended to the record. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Tuff. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 13 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those documents will be admitted. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve DB-AR-8280 subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Page 14 -_..",-. ..~.....'-_. December 1, 2005 Next petition for today is Petition CU-2003-AR-4647, Mitchell D. House, James -- represented by Donald J. Murray. This is a Jan's Tram issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing -- you want to make -- let me get to disclosures, right? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing to testify in this particular case, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn in. Ms. Ford, I'll let you, you're so good at this, go right ahead. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know you've set a terrible precedent for those others that come in. Okay. Now, is there disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No disclosures. Mr. Adelstein, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I did. It is my understanding from our discussion last meeting that the public hearing must be held at least one year -- within one year of the petition being heard by the County Planning Commission. It is my understanding that this petition had a -- this public hearing on this petition was November 25th of 2002. Has there been a later one? MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Has there been a later commission meeting? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Meeting from the owners -- of the owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neighborhood information? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Neighborhood information. MR. MURRAY: No, sir. There has not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess that's a legal question then for the county attorney. Page 15 December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, we went through that. Last time I did it on the wrong pew, but at least it came to the situation that it had to be done within one year. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I am -- I was not aware that this issue was going to be brought up. If I might have just a little time to locate that section in the land code, I will do so. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It is my understanding this petition was submitted prior to that LDC amendment requiring a neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They've already done it in 2003. And in 2003 it was essential to be one year. I checked it out myself to -- to -- I hoped when we talked about it at the last meeting, somebody would have brought it -- brought it to the attention of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's -- the question needs to be addressed. If Ms. Student needs a few minutes to do it, I don't have any problem moving this to the agenda item after C. We'll actually do C next and then we'll do B after that. That might resolve the time frame and we're not losing any time in our process. Is that okay with you, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Because I have another item here. Let me see how they fall. Okay. Yeah. Mine is D, so if you went ahead with C, that would give me time to -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objections from the commission to change that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go forward with Petition CU-2005-AR-7749 which is the Living Word Family Church represented by Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering. Okay. Are all those wishing to testify on this particular matter, please rise. Raise your right hand to be sworn in by Ms. Ford. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Other disclosures. Page 16 ~---< ---, December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I have one. I received an e-mail from Aaron Blair in which he noted that he'd be bringing elevations of the building today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I also received an e-mail from Aaron Blair clarifying a question I had about percentage ownership of the property that it wasn't listed in our application. And basically what that boils down to, there are several different owners of a nonprofit corporation, but there are no percentages. They're just officers. So other than that, we can move on then. Okay. MS. SPURGEON: Good morning. I'll put up a site location map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to state your name for the record. MS. SPURGEON: Yes. My name is Laura Spurgeon. I'm a senior planner with Johnson Engineering. I'm representing Living Word Family Church today. Also with me is Aaron Blair of the church, the project engineer and ecologist to answer any questions. This is a request for conditional use approval for a church in the A rural agricultural zoning district. The site is approximately 18 acres on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's approximately two miles east of the intersection of Immokalee Road and County Road 951. The site is designated as rural fringe mixed use receiving lands in the future land use map. Receiving lands are considered the appropriate locations for development of community facilities including places of worship are permitted. The site sits close to two other church locations just to the west along Rivers Road. The conceptual site plan -- which I'll put on the screen. That's the best we can see it -- the site plan was designed based on environmental conditions with an effort to concentrate the developed area where it already exists on adjoining sites so that connections could be made for potential off-site preserves in the future. Buffers are provided to screen the property from adjacent uses. There's a Page 1 7 December 1, 2005 15- foot Type B buffer running along the east and west property lines. And then the large preserve area to the north and the south of the property provides screening. The church facility includes a 25,000 square foot worship center with a capacity up to 500 seats, a two-story ministry building containing 10,000 square feet for offices and meeting rooms. And also the building heights will adhere to the 35-foot standard in the LDC. Access to the site is from a right-in right-out driveway along Immokalee Road. Parking is provided in excess of the LDC requirements of three spaces per seven -- seven seats. The church's goal was to address any parking problems they might have and aimed at more one space per two seats. Over half of the spaces are grass in accordance with the LDC. The site contains 1.5 acres of lake for water management and approximately 6.9 acres are in preserves exceeding the native preservation requirement of 4.59 acres. The preserves were located according to staff recommendations and in compliance with the growth management plan. The site will initially be served by well and septic. And then county water and sewer lines are expected to go down Immokalee Road in approximately 2008 and 2009. So we are laying the pipes to connect and tie into that system when it is live. The applicant also agreed to provide a well easement in accordance with request from utility staff. The proposed easement is at the southeast corner of the property to be dedicated during the SDP stage. The project complies with the growth management plan and the LDC ingress and egress are adequate. And the facility is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. We have a favorable recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Committee, the staff. We agreed with all staff conditions in the staff report and we request your favorable recommendation as well. Page 18 December 1, 2005 If you have any questions, we're here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one. The -- I noted on staff recommendations -- there are three in number -- and on Exhibit C -- and I can't tell whose exhibit that is -- there are only two. But you agreed -- you just indicated that you agreed with the staff recommendation, so the three would prevail; is that correct? MS. SPURGEON: Correct. I have three in the staff report that we received and the -- over the course of the week, we added a new stipulation about the well easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's no question on that? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. The preserve requirement is met by the preserve to the north. Would they be able to ever remove the preserve to the south? MS. SPURGEON: No. We're showing those as preserves so they would carry conservation easements across them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And they'll be locked in. Okay. The other question is the lighting of the parking lot. Is there any limit to the height of those polls or-- MS. SPURGEON: I don't know. Lighting? Yeah. We would follow the LDC. I don't know the exact lighting that we expect to have there. It would just follow the LDC. We submit that during the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we need to find out if there's a limitation in the LDC then. Because that's a good point. If your lights are too high and they don't protect the glare from the neighborhood that could potentially be around this facility, it would be something to consider now. So I guess when staff gets up, we can get that question answered. Page 19 ,-,- December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question concerning a comment you made about off-site preserves in the future. MS. SPURGEON: I'll try to get an aerial up there. If you look at this aerial, what we did was try to center the built area in the center of the project so that leaving potential for connecting preserves if and when other sites do develop. We thought it was a more reasonable approach to allow for the future connections if they ever come about. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. I see what you mean. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I have a couple. When do you expect to open this facility up, what year? What part of what year, early or late, say, of what year? MS. SPURGEON: He's trying for as soon as possible and January '07 is a target date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's going to factor into a question I'm going to have of transportation. I just wanted to know. Also your stipulations, you had mentioned that there's no day-care facility planned now or in the future. Do you have any problem with that being added as a stipulation? MS. SPURGEON: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Hearing no other questions, we'll ask for county staffs presentation, please. Thank you, ma'am. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Heidi Williams, zoning and land development review. That's a pretty thorough outline. I can just add that the site is in the rural fringe mixed use district on the future land use map and contained within the future land use element of the growth management plan. The EAC hearing heard the petition. Their concerns centered Page 20 ---~.. December 1,2005 very much around the water on the site, the flow -- water flow in the area. They seemed to be satisfied by the answers the applicant provided. They were also concerned about pesticide use on the site. They were encouraged that -- by the fact that most of the site will be preserve in nature. They did vote unanimously to approve the petition. The Land Development Code requires the conditional use to be analyzed for compatibility with the area. Staffs review finds that this could be considered a compatible use for this area. The utilities department has requested a well-site easement. That is a stipulation that they've come to an agreement that it should be provided at the site development plan stage, and we will add that as an additional stipulation to the resolution. The answer to the height question about the lighting, I believe that's contained within the Land Development Code in the landscape requirements. There is a maximum height. They are required to be shielding away from neighbors so that the light shines down on the site and not on neighboring properties. So that factor -- lights should not be an impact to neighbors. With all that in mind and given the location, staff does recommend approval with the three conditions that were in the staff report; the addition of the well easement at the time of site development plan and Commissioner Strain's stipulation that day care not be a permitted use on the site. Did I answer any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was pretty thorough yourself. Thank you, Heidi. Is there any questions from staff? COMMISSIONER CARON: Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm going to get to transportation. Don's waiting to come up and answer a question I'm sure. Thank you. You beat us to our question so... Mr. Scott. Page 21 --..-.~_._._. December 1, 2005 MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Don. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that we're under construction on Immokalee Road. MR. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know it's going to be done soon. I just want to make sure it's done within the time frame that they plan to get their CO and that's January of '07. MR. SCOTT: It's -- we're not done until the beginning probably, like, January, February of '08. Now, section-wise the east around Wilson will be done first, but this section, it might be '08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what my concern is we've already got a bad situation out there because it's under construction. MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if it's a wise thing to add more to an already difficult situation until -- especially when we know it's going to be resolved fairly soon. So that's -- we're ongoing. I don't know how much support we have. I'm certainly going to ask the applicant what their opinions are about delaying their opening for another year so... Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to that, perhaps this is more appropriate to Ms. Sugden (sic), but these meetings -- these church meetings, are they going to be during the weekday or the weekend, Saturday, Sunday? MS. SPURGEON: The church's primary services are Sunday. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. SPURGEON: They have Wednesday services that they also like to schedule as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the morning? In the evening? Page 22 --- ^_.~---~ December 1,2005 MS. SPURGEON: Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Don, this church is planned for 500 seats. Why would the trip generation be figured on 206? It's page 2 of the traffic generation study and it's Sunday a.m., entering and exiting 206. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Those are actually trips. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Sunday, yeah. MR. SCOTT: Those are the trips. COMMISSIONER CARON: Trips in and out? MR. SCOTT: Right. But it's based on the-- COMMISSIONER CARON: But if you figure-- MR. SCOTT: -- it's based on the square foot. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood but do you think it's 50 -- less than 50 percent? MR. SCOTT: Well, one of the things, even if you look from the parking aspect is -- what is it, a three to seven. So they're assuming a little more than two per car. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They might not get a full house every week too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they might. Okay. Are there any other questions of Mr. Scott? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. Ms. Spurgeon, is that how you say your last name? MS. SPURGEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray's question was a good one. If you are going to -- if you're intending to operate on Sunday during the day and Wednesday at night, would you have any problem stipulating that that's the only service times you'll utilize until Immokalee Road is completed between 951 and Wilson Boulevard? Page 23 '^-, '.'-"-'- December 1, 2005 MS. SPURGEON: I'll let Aaron address what they want to do with -- at the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just going by what you already said so... MR. BLAIR: For the record, Aaron Blair. The stipulation -- if I put that in place, that would limit us to, say, like this upcoming season we have a Christmas service which just happens to fall on Saturday or we have Thanksgiving service which happens to fall-- this happened to fall on Tuesday this week because of not having service on a Wednesday to allow for people time to travel to see their family members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I wouldn't expect that that would be also okay because the traffic on the roadway would be lessened during those holidays. So the stipulation would be then to accept holidays, Sundays and Wednesday evening. Do you have a problem with that? MR. BLAIR: I still have a little bit of an issue with it only because occasionally probably two times a year we may have, say, a guest speaker that will come that -- and we'll have church on Sunday, sometimes Sunday night and Monday night. We -- we normally never have church services during the day or early mornings during the week, so as far as traffic congestion the time that we have the most traffic is the time when most people are already at home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to limit your operations to so we don't further impact. Right now people getting in from Orange Tree are spending hours on a road system __ MR. BLAIR: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that is not finished. So until it's finished, I want to see that you're not going to impact any more than what you've said and it's going to be the off hours. Now, I'm not sure what that means as far as staffs meaning of what's acceptable. I was trying to narrow it down to what you guys had said you were going to Page 24 ^._'___._m_ December 1,2005 do. You're expanding that as we speak. So now you're into Sundays, Wednesdays, holidays and Mondays. And-- MR. BLAIR: Well, that's not exactly what I said. I didn't say we had church on Mondays. I said there would be an occasional time. And I'm not saying it's Monday. I was just giving you an example. And -- and for me to agree to say that with our property you're going to lock us in and say, well, you can only operate on this time frame. That's -- that seems a bit unfair considering for the majority of the time as a church we do just meet on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights. Our services don't start until seven o'clock on Wednesday. So as far as a problem with traffic, I just -- I -- I can't agree that we are causing that big of a problem. We're not a 10,000 seat facility. I would say a shopping center would bring more problems with irregular hours than -- than our facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. It's just that if you take ten of your facilities, you're a shopping center. Basically it adds up. MR. BLAIR: Right. I understand that. (Multiple speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do you understand that they're only talking about this until Immokalee Road is finished? MR. BLAIR: Right. I -- I do understand that, but I also __ COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about one year. MR. BLAIR: I understand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're trying to give you the opportunity to do what you need; but you're going to have to understand that we can't go any further than what we're doing, because we've got to make sure the traffic works. MR. BLAIR: I fully understand. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just -- to say that we can only do Sunday and Wednesday would __ would hurt us in fact that we did have a special event which is very Page 25 <.-,,--,.. .'- December 1, 2005 rare as far as a guest speaker so... COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about one __ one extra year. So I would assume it would be a good idea __ MR. BLAIR: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- to try to work it out. MR. BLAIR: I -- I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I have language that we can basically -- you want to limit -- we can limit your operations to evenings, weekends and holidays until 846 is completed between 951 and Wilson. MR. BLAIR: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And those operations you're referring to are the church service. Obviously there's office and counseling and stuff that would happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, realize what you just agreed to because you used the word Tuesday preceding a Thursday Thanksgiving and I think that would obviate that. That would take that away from you if I'm not mistaken. MR. BLAIR: Well, if it's evenings, we're fine with it. Evenings are fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I just wanted you to be sure you understood that. MR. BLAIR: Yeah. I understand. That -- I mean, that's when we meet. We usually don't have during the day. If we have anything during the day, like you said, it's our offices and that's it. So we don't have day-care services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) Page 26 ....._._-~-"."_." December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. MS. HERERRA: I have a comment. I'm -- I'm Laura Hererra. I'm an ecologist with Johnson Engineering and the project ecologist for the site. And I just wanted to make a comment for clarification for the record. I think it was a question that Commissioner Schiffer had asked about the preserves. Yes, they are going to be under conservation easement. But one thing that has come up that was not addressed during the EAC, there is a small portion of the preserve. Is it here? This is the back area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need that hand mike, Miss, or we can't pick you up on the recording. MS. HERERRA: There's a small area called recreated preserve in the back portion of the property. And since the EAC met, although the well easement is going to be decided exactly at the time of SDP, potentially that is where it will be going. We will still be in excess of the county's preservation requirements. We've met all county requirements in the one large preserve against Immokalee Road. But right now with about a 2.S-acre preserve in the back portion of the property and that may be reduced to more like 2.3, I just wanted to clarify that. Because it wasn't brought up during the EAC. So there may be a slight change to that preserve in the back to accommodate the county's request for a well easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and my concern was since it is essentially extra preserve, that it be reduced to zero. So you're going to create plus or minus exactly what you show here; right? MS. HERERRA: That is correct. I just wanted -- I wanted it clarified for the record so, you know, that it did come in at SDP and Page 27 December 1, 2005 we showed a small change back there for the well easement, that it didn't look like we were trying to significantly change the preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, there's no other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I -- I move that AR-7749 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation for approval subject to the following -- subject to staff recommendations and the recommendation of the County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded -- well, yeah, Commissioner Schiffer had the second before. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. Second by Commissioner Schiffer. Now discussion, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the conditions let me just add. There was a condition that there was no day care and there was a condition of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to read them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the two staff recommendations and the third one that some of us may not have seen, and that one is the project must obtain an environmental resource permit from the South Florida Water Management District prior to issuance of any site plan approvals. I mean, that's code anyway. Number four would be Page 28 "--~ December 1, 2005 there will be no day care allowed on the site. Number five, mand a well easement will be added pursuant to the Collier County's request. And, number six, the services and social activities will be limited to evenings, weekends and holidays until 846 is completed between 951 and Wilson. I think that -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment. I mean, you worded that no day care will be allowed on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we word that this -- this is a conditional use, does not allow for day care. In the future there may be a need for day care. We wouldn't want somebody to read the record and make it appear as though it was prohibited on the site. It's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No day care will be allowed per this conditional use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. Is that okay with everybody else? Are those stipulations still okay to the motion maker? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Acceptable to the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 29 "---. December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We've got a conditional use sheet within our packet. It needs to be filled out and signed and then handed to the secretary. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Inaudible) anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can you get through? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I haven't got through yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And everybody's gone for the next one. We had moved Item B to after C pending Ms. Student's comments. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I -- what I find in the land code and what we found also digitally in the land code says that (as read): Applicants requesting an __ rezone, code amendment or conditional use approval must conduct at least one neighborhood informational meeting after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the public hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission. I didn't find any limitation in here about one year. I called Mr. White who has handled the land code amendments over time, and he pulled it up also and found no such limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only thing that bothered me is that we discussed this thing at our last meeting and the answer came up completely reversed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got a legal opinion now that-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Again-- Page 30 --- December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll have to go forward. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm glad to get it straightened out because I'd like to get -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I -- as I said, I discussed it with Mr. White, and we pulled it up. He pulled it up digitally. Mr. Bellows pulled it up digitally. And then I have the hard copy here as well in the code, and we didn't find any limitation in that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, did you have something you wanted to add in? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This issue came up on another petition that has been under review for a number of years, a particular petition that had a lot of environmental and transportation issues that dragged it out through the review process. The Board of County Commissioners had indicated that it was over a year since the neighborhood information meeting and they were asking if there was a requirement to do so. And at that time it was mentioned, that we were exploring that option of looking at that, but right now there was no requirement for a neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's fine. I just want to get it clarified once and for all. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And that may have been discussed at the last meeting. That's maybe what you're recalling that we were exploring that option and not actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, it's much better to be safe than sorry . COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's move into this hearing. It'll be on Petition CU-2003-AR-4647, Mitchell D. House represented by Donald I. Murray and the name of the project is lan's Tram. And I __ Ms. Ford, did we swear these -- did everybody get sworn in before we started? Page 3 1 ~..--.~~"'~ . . .._~--~.,_.-... December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Then if you'll all rise. Raise your right hand to be sworn in by Ms. Ford. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures. Any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No disclosures. Okay. Applicant proceed. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Don Murray, and I'm representing my client Mr. Mitch House, and with us today is Robert Andrea with Coastal Engineering, a planner and also Mr. Ray Bass, attorney. And I'll give you a brief presentation and recap what happened at the EAC; and then if you have questions at that time, we'll take questions. This project is located just west of State Road 29 and -- on US 41. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. MURRAY: The project entrance is not very far. It's -- it's really abutting the rail right-of-way that runs parallel with 29. The property is part of a lease area that Mr. House leased from the Collier Corporation. And that lease area is larger than this area here, but a lot of the property's not being used for anything. You can't see it. There's not any impact as a result of this proj ect. When we went to the county -- and this has been over a couple years ago. It's been about three years ago -- there didn't seem to be any major problem with what we wanted to do. The impact area was going to be limited to disturbed areas. There was going to be a tour bus operation or tram that would run down this existing logging road. There would be a pontoon boat or boats that would go up and down the finger canals. And they discussed the navigability of it. And, yes, they are wide enough for the pontoon boats without disturbing any mangroves or any vegetation. The same thing with the bus along the logging trail would Page 32 ___,.w ~.---_..- December 1, 2005 come out, stop. People could look around. People could get back on the bus. They go back to where they started here at the base which would be by US 41. Okay. The petitioner wants to put about an 800-square foot office there. The operation would have tour guides, that would be their -- their base and they would operate. I don't remember the exact schedule, but it's not like every hour, but as demand, you know, when people come in. The buses are designed, I believe, for about 20 to 30 passengers and the pontoon boats for 30 passengers. Whether or not they have that many people at one time, nobody knows at this time; but still the impact is very minimal. The proposed project would also have educational aspects of it. They would obtain some information from the Colliers about the history of the property and the logging and agricultural uses and, I believe, the railroad as well. People would have a prepared educational forum that they would give on buses on -- on the pontoon boats as well. So in all it's a very almost passive recreational use or tourism use. The impact, like I said, is going to be limited. Let's see if I can get this up here. Can you see that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. MURRAY: All right. The impact will be limited basically to the area that you see right here with parking, with the office; and they'll have a dock which is going to be in an area that's already disturbed with cattails. And if there is any minor trimming of any mangroves, we -- we mentioned that will be done through state permits and state-approved mangrove trimmers. We presented this to the EAC. We had two meetings there. The first meeting there was some concerns about threatened flora. We agreed to have our subconsultants -- environmental subconsultants with Earth Balance go back out, do a survey of the species. One or two of the members of the EAC went out and met with them. They walked the property. They identified a couple of air plants on the trees Page 33 -_.~'"~ O·"_~~è....> December 1, 2005 that they were concerned about. They were the threatened species, I guess or rare. And we agreed to have those moved just to be on the safe side to make sure that there's no impact to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said members of the EAC? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members pleural? Was this a notified public meeting? MR. MURRAY: There were two meetings, separate occasions and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on their own? MR. MURRA Y: Yes, on their own they went out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Sorry. I wasn't on site. The consultants were. Okay. So anyway, where we were? So we also had a video filmed. Our subconsultants did a video showing the trail. I believe you probably had access to that. It was made available. You didn't? Okay. Well, there is one if you would like a copy. County staff I believe had a copy of that as well. The -- so the EAC reviewed it. They agreed to recommend approval with some conditions, some stipulations. We agreed to all of those stipulations. Then with the petition that's before you today, there's also some additional conditions with staff. We agreed to everything. We-- we've agreed to everything. We -- except for the permanent conservation easement requirement. Nobody has a problem with the conservation easement. What they would prefer that it run with the leased property because the owners would -- the way I understand it, would not like to be bound to a permanent easement running with the title of the property. The property in itself is considered conservation-type property. It's severely limited under the area of critical state concern. So this Page 34 ---,. _...."_...,..,-_.""~,.,.,' December 1, 2005 type of use that would seem to be a very minor thing. If you really consider the actual impact of the property, you're talking about, what, maybe a fifth or two-thirds -- excuse me, a third of an acre. Yet because of the requirements of having to include the road, the canal area, the mangroves and all this as project impact area, we've had to enlarge the area. And that was one of the reasons for the delays in the beginning of getting here: going back and forth on what was appropriate, the entire lease area or the area around the road, the area around the mangrove or the area around just the project site. So that's where we've come up with this 142 acres. On the previous aerial here as you can see that's the 142 acres. So based on that, they're asking for 19 acres of conservation area and a permanent easement. And we -- we can't do it. It's taken us three years to get here. We asked staff several occasions to forward this to you to get it on schedule and get it to the board. Another story for another day. But we would really appreciate considering this petition and making a recommendation on it today and get us to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I like the project except one big problem, the parking. There's six parking spaces plus one handicapped space, yet the application's asking for essentially up to 120 seats of use. You have tour guides. How will people park at this site? MR. MURRAY: Okay. The -- just a second. The project site probably won't have -- and -- and Mr. House could probably speak a little bit more to the attendance of these types of facilities. But because of the -- you buy the buses and you buy the boats with a certain attendance. And there might be special occasions where people are brought in on a bus or other vehicles to take part on the tour. Based on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you don't have -- you don't Page 35 _.-- -----.,.--'. December 1, 2005 have parking for those kind of vehicles. MR. MURRAY: Well, the impact's probably going to be low, the actual parking area. Yes. And the -- if there is -- for overflow parking, and this was discussed before, there's an area along the road along in here (indicating). And I forgot to mention, this is the county's solid waste transfer station here at Carnestown. But there's adequate parking along the area that's already disturbed on this road. COMMISSIONER CARON: The logging trail itself? MR. MURRAY: Yes. Yes. From -- from the project site up toward and around the Carnestown station area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, has that been accepted by staff as an adequate parking area? MR. MURRAY: When we had conversations back -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in your-- MR. MURRAY: -- earlier in the year that -- that was adequate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The data you provide shows that as a 12- foot wide -- wide logging road. So you put parallel cars parked on it. First of all, we have to have turnarounds at the end and other things. How would even the tour bus get by it? MR. MURRAY: I -- I believe there was going to be a turnaround provided, but there's -- it -- the average width of that road, the pavement is 12 feet. And I'm not -- I don't have all the details on the exact part. We were going to cover that in the site plan stage when that's submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I think if you do want to provide parking further into the site, you should be showing it to us. MR. HOUSE: Could I have a moment, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. HOUSE: My name's Mitch House, lan's Tram. The first part of the road that we're speaking about with the parking -- the impervious parking, the others -- there's just a few Page 36 December 1, 2005 spaces there. Instead of paving over the whole road going up to the transfer station, which is approximately 65 feet wide, 60, 65 feet wide, what part Don was talking about, quarter mile, a little more than a quarter mile, there's plenty of parking space there. We left that as an impervious parking area to pull up on the side of the road there and you can park instead of paving everything. A big concern with the county in the past has been impervious parking. If you cover everything up with asphalt, you have no drainage. You have no grease and oils to transfer and filter back down through the roads. So the main road going into the transfer station first quarter of a mile is approximately 60 feet wide. There's also up at the top end is a big turnaround area just before you get to the transfer station. This is a road which has been given an easement to the county by the Colliers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but one thing is you could have shown us that. The prior application with the church had quite a bit of impervious parking. They weren't shy about it. MR. HOUSE: I'm sorry. I -- things were just gotten changed around so many times in the last, I guess three years with everything going back and forth that it got missed -- left out. My mistake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Following up on, though, these questions, I hear him. The -- how many buses do you intend to have, two buses and they'll accommodate more than 30 people is what I understand. You're not going to actually use any tram, just buses; correct? MR. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- and how many pontoon boats? MR. HOUSE: Two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two. And they would accommodate how many per boat; twelve? MR. MURRAY: Twenty-five to thirty each. Page 37 December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really, that many? MR. HOUSE: I mean, it's not all spaces used. On a boat, you don't want to pack it full. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you don't. MR. HOUSE: You -- you got to leave space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I had very similar questions and -- and I'm not resolved in my mind especially when you're talking about using a transfer station. That's not an active transfer station? MR. HOUSE: That is. But the road leading into that transfer station is owned by the Colliers not by the Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. But there's an easement on it, is there not? MR. HOUSE: There's an easement there for ingress and egress when it's open. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which I would think takes priority over the ownership rights. You lose some of those rights if you've given an easement over. So I'm -- I'm not clear. Unless you have some document which suggests or states that the trespass, if you will, is acceptable to the county and I don't see that in the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just is there any other questions before I get into mine? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- one time, one at a time. You guys got more to present or you want to hear questions? MR. BASS: Well, my name's Ray Bass. I represent Mr. House. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been sworn in, Mr. Bass? MR. BASS: No. I'm just going to respond to the legal question that has been posed, but I -- I can take an oath about my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ford, would you swear Mr. -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BASS: There is no possibility of any trespass there. Now, Page 38 December 1, 2005 you cannot trespass on an easement. There is something in the law known as an overburden in use. But if someone has an easement over my property, I own the property. It's called the servient tenement. The ease -- the person who holds the easement is the dominant tenement. And they only dominate over the -- over the -- we'll call it the landowner, if you will. They'll dominate over that for the purposes of the use of the easement only and no other purpose. So there's no possibility of any trespass. It's a co-extensive use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that clarification. My -- my understanding, and maybe you can correct me on this, understood that now that's -- that's owned by the Colliers that particular parcel of land? MR. BASS: That is correct. And they granted the county the easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They granted the county the easement. And did they -- are they intending to grant -- by virtue of this leasehold are they intending to grant Jan's Trams an easement on that same parcel? MR. BASS: The Collier -- the county does not have to grant Jan's Tram. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. No. No. The Colliers. MR. BASS: The -- the -- the easement runs with the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With the -- so, in other words, there's no easement effectively. The leasehold is the leasehold. MR. BASS: Yeah. And they take it subject to any prior -- prior -- prior leaseholds or other legal interests. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I'm glad you clarified that for me, but whether I used the right legal term or not, my question: If it's an active operation and you have vehicles parked there plus buses, I'm just trying to figure out arithmetically where it all fits. Page 39 December 1, 2005 MR. BASS: Sure. And I can tell you this that Mr. House's operation could not impede the use of the county's right to get to and from the trams. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I was going, and I was trying to understand where -- where if the assertion is we're going to put a number of vehicles plus buses, how does that work? MR. BASS: Then the -- then the county -- I'm sure if I were the county, I would say to the -- to Mr. House, Hey, you got to get your stuff out of the way here so we can come to and from and that's the way it works. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which -- which brings us to the question that's the fallback which is almost immediate in my mind. Okay. Thank you. MR. BASS: Well, that's just a dispute among -- among people who have access to a property. It's a potential dispute, but you have that everywhere. I mean, that's like -- that's like saying who has the right to park on the swale area of a road when, you know, the county has a road right-of-way. But, you know, does the county control that or just have use of it? We get into these things all the time and they rarely blow up into being big problems, very rarely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly hope not, but I hope they don't put the name Murray associated with it, we agree to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I remember that during the rural fringe hearings, I believe the area -- part of the area around the intersection of State Road 29 and US 41 was originally proposed to be sending lands but that the landowner withdrew that. And is it the same landowner who did that who is involved in this proceeding now? MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I don't have an answer for that. Maybe staff would remember that. Page 40 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ray, do you remember anything like that? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. Well, a second question that I have since the land use regulation limits this use of the property so much, why is the landowner unwilling to grant a permanent conservation easement on part of the land. MR. BASS: Let me address that. Again, Ray Bass for the record. Frankly, they'd be fools to. And that's exactly the words I used to the -- to the EAC. Collier County would be -- I mean, Collier Corporation would be fools to do that. I mean, why would they do that? They've leased this property. It's a -- it's an existing lease. It's been in -- in effect for some time. They leased this property to Mr. House for the purposes of -- well, for whatever purpose he had in mind, but what it's been used for in the past is, like, hunting and things like that. And so what does -- what does the Collier Corporation get out of it? Nothing. They would get nothing for granting -- for giving away property, property rights, very serious property rights. They get nothing for that. So why would they do that? You know, we have agreed to grant a permanent conservation easement within our leasehold interest and that's all Mr. House has is a leasehold interest. He has a lease on the property. When the lease expires, the permanent conservation easement would expire as well. It would -- they would all expire at the same time. Then you just revert back to the owners' right which are already impacted by very, very serious restrictions in the first place. So why would the Collier Corporation do that or whichever, Barron Collier, whichever one it is, why would they do that? There would be no reason for them to do that and that's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except what reason would they need? Page 41 December 1, 2005 MR. BASS: I'm sorry, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of a reason would they need to do that? MR. BASS: Well, I asked the county how much they were willing to pay the -- the landowner for that and they said nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But ifMr. House wanted to buy the land so he could dedicate the easement, would they be willing to sell it to him? MR. BASS: I don't think he has that much money frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is a number that it could be done? It's just a matter of that it's being structured? MR. BASS: Well, yeah. I understand. You're probably right, Mr. Strain, but it would not make economic sense for him to do that. He's not going to make that kind of money with his operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR. BAS S: There would be no -- no sense in doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You -- you mentioned, I don't know how familiar you are, sir, with the -- with the other particulars, but you mentioned that he already leases this property. MR. BASS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And he has, as I heard you say, hunting rights or such. MR. BASS: Well, yeah, he's been -- has been using it for hunting purposes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does he intend to continue those uses? MR. BASS: Well, that would be -- not be a consistent use with what he's planning on doing now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASS: Yeah. I mean, this is a much less intensive use, frankly. Page 42 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. Yeah. MR. BASS: And a lot of people don't realize that. But, I mean, you know, I could be taking swamp buggies out there. You're not going to be taking air boats out there and running around. This is -- this is a less intensive use -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BASS: -- from an environmental impact standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few questions. Is there any other questions of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're Don Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That Murray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. In your environmental impact statement, there is a paragraph on page 6 that says, No impervious surfaces will be created -- no new impervious surfaces will be created. Is that true? MR. MURRAY: Other than what was proposed for the -- the office and the existing impacted area that we -- we discussed earlier. The road will -- that was supposed to relate to the road, no additional impervious surface. The road is going to be left the way it is basically. So that's in more of a natural state and population and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had mentioned repeatedly and, I think, Mr. Bass did too that it took you three hours -- three years to get through the system. My records show your first submittal was on August 27th of '03 so it's about two and a half years or actually just over two years? MR. MURRAY: It actually started -- yeah. It started a little bit before that, but the -- I believe the first actual submittal was then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y eah. Your term of your lease, it's a five-year lease. And my records show it was a -- started on July 1st of Page 43 December 1, 2005 '02; is that correct. MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Would you repeat that question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your lease, you have a five-year lease that indicates that it started on 7/1/02? MR. BASS: Yeah. Mr. Strain, it's a five-year lease with rights of renewal for five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your intention is to renew it if you get approved here today? MR. BASS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you be renewing the full ten -- a little over 1,000 acres or just the 142 or -- MR. BASS: The whole amount. It's just for the whole lease amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The rest is for staff. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Staffreport. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Heidi Williams, zoning and land development review. This petition does have a lengthy history. There have been a lot of back and forth and a lot of really important issues that have been discussed between the staff and the applicant. We originally were scheduled to come before the Planning Commission in September. That original hearing date was postponed based on the Environmental Advisory Council requesting a continuation of their meeting. So we continued based on that request to October 20th. That meeting, of course, was cancelled due to the impending Hurricane Wilma. We readvertised for November 17th. And then the applicant requested a continuance to today's hearing so that his legal counsel could be present. Regarding the EAC, they did have a lot of concern and, rightly so, for this particular site. It is over 1,000 acres that is the leased area. We have been able to bring it down to a narrowed scope for Page 44 December 1,2005 review basically to aid the applicant with their -- the fees that are required for the review. Those are based on acreage. The overall impact area was determined to be over 14 acres. Because the site is in the area of critical state concern, only 10 percent of a site may be impacted. And so the 14 acres is considered the 10 percent. We calculated that it is just over 142 acres as the total site area. We were then provided with a metes and bounds legal description that -- that describes that 142 acres. One of the staff reports you received indicated that we did not have a legal description to put into the resolution. That has been provided so that that staff concern has been resolved. To clarify the video that the applicant's environmental consultant provided to staff, we were not aware -- I personally was not aware of that. Apparently that was provided to Bill Lorens who is the director of environmental services division. I apologize that that was not made __ brought to your attention. I'm sure that we could still provide it if you so choose. There are many stipulations associated with this petition. The Land Development Code has a number that are required. Those are based -- they are specific to the use requested of the ecotour in the conservation district. If I can refer you to the conditions that are listed as Exhibit D. You'll note there's quite a list. Numbers 1 through 8 are directly from the Land Development Code. The one that that regards the vehicles, those reflect the vehicles that the applicant owns. And tying into the question about the parking requirement, the conceptual site plan was reviewed prior to knowledge of what vehicles were requested by the applicant. It was an open-ended thing that the board is supposed to decide what type of vehicles, the number that would be appropriate for the site. So staff left that as an open-ended question to be resolved by the board. It was then narrowed down in front of -- I believe it was the Environmental Advisory Council what specific vehicles would be used. Those were Page 45 --- .."---~-,.- December 1, 2005 then inserted as the stipulation so that they could be used as a starting point for the board to determine if those were appropriate. So the conceptual site plan was -- was reviewed. The parking was deemed adequate, but it was without knowledge of the vehicles at the time. So 1 through 8 are -- are Land Development Code requirements. Nine through fifteen were added by the Environmental Advisory Council as stipulations of their approval. And then No. 16 regards the permanent conservation easement that is at staffs request. And I would just note that staffs request is to uphold the growth management plan. The area of critical state concern is -- is a very environmentally sensitive area. We don't disagree that this use is -- is an appropriate one to bring people to see a natural part of our county. But it is -- staff feels very clear in the growth management plan that a permanent conservation easement must be provided. And so we've included that as a stipulation. Regarding the time frames, the conditional use would not expire. You had asked about the lease and the renewal and the, you know, applicant's request is that the permanent conservation easement be permanent with the lease. A conditional use is a zoning action. The zoning on the land is not -- is not removed if ownership changes. The conditional use could expire if the use ceases, but that's a little harder to determine when you're talking about leases and ownership. So with all of these considerations, the staff recommendation does remain for denial. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. I just know that in another area of the community that a permit -- a use was granted, and it was to a specific owner for a use that was on Golden Gate Parkway where there's a car lot there. And that use went away when that owner ceased to exist on that. And you just said that that can't be done and I was curious on that. Page 46 December 1, 2005 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not familiar with that particular case, but the conditional use -- this particular conditional use is a zoning action. It would be close -- placed on the zoning Atlas map with a reference to the action that was taken as an approved item. It carries on with the land, not with the owner. And, I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that particular instance. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can -- I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Marjorie Student-Stirling, assistant county attorney for the record. I'm not familiar with that particular one either there. The county has many, many conditional uses. But there are times when the board as a condition has put time limits on a particular conditional use and that may be what happened where there was a time limit, and they didn't come back in and ask to extend it or anything like that. And then also if the -- staff is correct that if the use ceases for a time, then the conditional use by operation of the code ceases but only if the use ceases for a certain amount of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, Heidi, it's the parking issue. You said that staff looked at this and -- and what parking were you providing for with these essentially seven spaces, because remember we have boats and we have buses. There's two drivers. Let's assume they're the guides. There's two cars. MS. WILLIAMS: I believe -- and I was not the original planner on this -- but I believe it was reviewed based on the office space. And I certainly understand your concern that -- that there is an unknown number of people that would come to this site. My only response could be that that -- the site plan provided is a conceptual site plan. If it's determined at the site development plan stage should this be approved, we would re-evaluate the parking standards and it would have to meet current code. And I think those considerations would Page 47 December 1,2005 definitely need to be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's almost like saying this isn't going to work. Because they're saying in your stipulation there'd be 120 would potentially use them -- the four vehicles. And what Brad's trying to say is there's no way this site's going to accommodate that parking, so this is kind of a useless exercise we seem to be going through here today. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean to interrupt, Brad, and I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. And even -- let's take his solution that we park down alongside the road. First of all, that would be one-way parking and parallel parking at best. The road's not wide enough for perpendicular parking. I think with the information we've been given -- and I think if you do intend to say that it's going to be solved, you give us more information. The information we've been given, it would clog the road up to begin with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If, in fact, they park parallel, that means they'd be backing out. There's no turnaround at the bottom. So here we have cars backing out onto 41 or worse case people could pull in. There's no parking and they're parking along 41. So I think that the parking to me is a fatal problem unless they can show us that -- you know, there's no -- like Mark said, there's no reason to get into the technicalities if they can't provide the parking for the use. MS. WILLIAMS: And, again, those vehicles happen to be the ones owned by the applicant at this time. If you think this is an appropriate use and would want to recommend approval, you could certainly revise the vehicles that are being approved to come more in line with what you think this site could handle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what do you think -- as a Page 48 ._"",_..,._ _.,,"__'0. December 1, 2005 planner, what would be the parking requirement for this kind of use? MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to refer to the Land Development Code. I know that we would have to account for not only the office space, but the people using the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's do it the simple -- MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the code-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do it. There's a guy in the office, two people, one driving a boat, one driving a car, three spaces. Don't you agree? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's four boats so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we were eliminating the boats. That means there's four spaces left over. Let's -- let's fill the cars up. Four, that means we're 16 people, 16 seats and spread them out how you want to do it, it may not work. MS. WILLIAMS: Did you want to explain? MR. MURRAY: Yeah. I'm sorry. Don Murray here. No more than one bus or pontoon boat is supposed to be used at anyone time. You have one in case you have -- for a number of things. In case one breaks down, you have another one. Also there's enough space for diagonal parking up and down that road to accommodate many cars. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's one-way parking. So the person -- where's he going to go to turn around and come back? You haven't shown us any turnaround. MR. MURRAY: If they park in -- even at a diagonal, they should be able to -- to do aU-turn. And there's the Carnestown Station area there which is not very far away. They can also turn around in front of that and come back. But we don't expect that many vehicles anyway. As well, the owner operates an air boat tour operation just down the road not very far away, and there's a possibility of overflow parking there as well as with a walking shuttle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean down 41 ? MR. MURRAY: No. As well people being shuttled. That can be Page 49 December 1, 2005 done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since you're brainstorming this, obviously, it's an issue I think you probably should have had resolved before you got here. I know you've been -- you've had a lot of time working -- MR. MURRAY: Well, it's gone back and forth as to what exactly it's going to be with staff and that started a long time ago. But typically, and I'm sure the owner can speak to this a little bit better, it doesn't get too crowded. I mean, this is not a -- like, within an urban area. People drive down the road. They decide they want to go on a tour. So you may have a bus going down the road and it may have four people on it, five people. So it's not that we're planning on filling up 60 people on the buses and 60 people on the -- on the boats at one time. Plus they -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't imagine -- MR. BASS: And just one other point, it's 60 feet wide at the minimum for a quarter of a mile. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have no documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got going with the staff report, and now we're back to the applicant's report. I'd like to get finished with the staffs report and then we can go back and ask questions resulting from that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let me ask Heidi that question. Heidi, they're presenting testimony that there's 60-foot wide of -- of area in which they could park. Is that true? Do we know that? MS. WILLIAMS: I think that it is that wide, but our environmental reviewer has indicated she's -- she's visited the site and feels that that may be a very restricted area. She doesn't seem that that will work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at the overhead photo on the thing. The widest part, the white I'm assuming is the crushed stone road probably, the white is part -- is the part that's down here where he Page 50 December 1, 2005 can barely fit the parking and the drive-through lane. So essentially we'd have to assume that would be given to us, which is a 12-foot road is about what that aerial reflects. MS. WILLIAMS: I believe it's wider than -- I -- I think it's about 12 feet. If you proceed to the northeast and then the part that turns to the west, that trail, that will be the actual tour trail is about that wide. It is wider toward the entrance. It is used for that -- for the Carnestown Transfer Station. So I -- it is a traveled road, but I don't know the specific widths. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question on the road is that while the attorney testified that it is an easement, don't you think those that are using the easement should sign off on whether we should fill that road up with parking? MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to maybe refer to our legal counsel. I'm -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would seem to me so... MS. WILLIAMS: -- not an expert on the easement. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I guess the only question I would have about that, it's essentially is a private matter between the two parties, but whether or not that would be an overburdening of the easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you read the easement, Marjorie? It's Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's talking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi. Have you read the easement? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I haven't read the easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't know the legal ramifications to the easement then because the language could be specific to certain requirements per exit. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the easement available for anybody to read? Page 51 ..-.....-.. "<-"----,-~. December 1,2005 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's in the public records of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess no one thought it was necessary to read it before today's meeting. Okay. At the same time that easement has to be transversed. There was a comment in one of the conditions provided in the backup paperwork we have. (As read): In as much as the applicant will require permission from Collier County to transverse county property to operate its business, Mr. House is in negotiations with the county solid waste department and staff and the county attorney staff regarding various options. If it wasn't you and if you haven't read the easement -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would be our real estate department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Does the county attorneys' office have a different person that would have been representing this applicant or dealing with this applicant? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The County Attorneys' Office has a real estate department and an -- attorneys that handle the real estate aspects would be the ones involved in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And are they here today to tell us if they worked this out with the applicant? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I can -- I can check with our -- the appropriate person. One of our legal -- or, excuse me, one of our real property people is out on maternity leave, but I can check with the remaining person to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, Heidi, this is -- and this will be the last -- when this went before the EAC, were they aware of the fact that -- that in this case I think a lot of motor vehicles will be parking on impervious areas or were they only aware of the seven parking places shown? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think that they discussed anything with parking. They discussed the fact that no new pavement would be Page 52 December 1, 2005 provided. It would simply be the addition of the office. They were concerned that there would be no improvements to the logging road that's beyond the area where the office is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- so there's nothing in -- MS. WILLIAMS: We really didn't discuss that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's nothing in this packet that would give anything that impression that they'd be parking along that road? MS. WILLIAMS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: But I don't recall discussing that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The conditional use is subj ect to the conditional site plan or conceptual site plan attached and the parking requirement associated with that. The board -- the Planning Commission and the board are going to be reviewing the conceptual site plan that's attached to their application. If they're only showing the parking provided here and not showing any additional parking, then they're not entitled to that as part of the conditional use approval and they would, therefore, if they needed that additional parking, have to come back again and amend their conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Ray it's interesting. They're already said they're going to need it. They already said they're going to have -- MR. BELLOWS: They should have then addressed it prior to this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy. So should have the easement. So should have the negotiations with the county. And so should the report from the county attorneys' office been here for this meeting. Heidi, do you have anymore you want to add? MS. WILLIAMS: I was actually asked to put into the record the stipulations. They were presented to the EAC and accepted by the Page 53 December 1,2005 EAC, but not transferred into the list of stipulations provided to you. There are six of them at the request of staff and accepted by the EAC. This conditional use an ST permit shall be consistent with the environmental sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan conservation and coastal management elements and the Collier County Land Development Code at the time of final SDP approval. An exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan for the site shall be submitted to environmental services staff for review and approval prior to -- to SDP approval. Upon submittal of the SDP petition, copies will be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their review and comment. They will be allowed 30 days to submit their letters of technical assistance to staff. Staff will use applicable stipulations from these agencies in their review and approval of the site development plan for this project. Wetland permitting as required by state and federal agencies shall be required prior to SDP approval. Any pruning of mangroves on site shall comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's requirements. I believe that's further enhanced by the EAC's requested stipulation that a licensed mangrove trimmer be used. And the final one is the SD permit will -- I'm sorry -- is subject to a 45-day appeal period by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And I apologize for that oversight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Heidi, those would be 17 on, is that what you're saying, you've added to the list of 16 we already have? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Those would be added to those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't the first one you read consistent with No. 16 of yours? MS. WILLIAMS: My -- you know, the stipulation I have as No. 16 is regarding one specific aspect of the Growth Management Plan. It would be difficult to be consistent with the first one I read that Page 54 December 1, 2005 requires consistency with the Growth Management Plan without also meeting the requirements of 16. Apparent -- you know, we're here today because the applicant feels that that is something that the Board of County Commissioners could interpret. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you've got the EAC then by the inclusion of an -- of an issue that the applicant has already said they cannot do basically is -- MS. WILLIAMS : Well, I believe the applicant says that they can be consistent by providing the type of easement they've proposed. Staff happens to disagree that that type of easement would qualify to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. So that's their interpretation. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may, as to the other issue, I've been unable to locate our real property person. And the issue -- I'm involved in the land use issues. And I've been quite aware of this issue as this petition has been making its way through the process. And the principle -- the statutory construction and the main principle is what is the intent of permanent conservation easement. And you have staff here to put on the record their interpretation and what they believe the intent was because they were intimately involved in the preparation of this language -- preparation and review of this language in the comprehensive plan. So we have environmental staff here to put on the record what their -- their understanding of the intent is. And that is -- the cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intent controls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Susan Mason with Environmental Services Department. And the intent and definition of permanent conservation easement is simply the plain language for permanent as in forever in perpetuity, not to end, not based on use or anything like that. It was intended to be permanent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other Page 55 December 1,2005 questions? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. On that permanent and in perpetuity and all that, is that perhaps the intent being that usually when something is developed, they're putting permanent buildings, like, houses or, you know, something that would not go away. Whereas, this would be something that might go away since, you know, as the lawyer for the applicant was saying, they don't want to give a permanent easement because this use might go away after a certain amount of time and then they would be stuck having given away this permanent easement. MS. MASON: No. There wasn't any decision, sir. The change is based on use. Anything that happens on land could -- is temporary in a geological sense. So subdivisions come and go especially in a county like this. So the permanent was meant to be permanent in all cases. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How would you respond to the assertion by the landowner's lawyer that the landowner would be a fool to grant a permanent conservation easement? MS. MASON: Well, I -- I would disagree with that. They are able to get tax breaks when a property is put under a permanent conservation easement. They also are not forced into leasing their land and allowing this conditional use to take place. It's been by their choice. And they've leased this, I would assume, for a profit. And it's been their -- their voluntary entrance into this contract. And part of the responsibility is that they provide a permanent conservation easement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Given the restrictions that are already on this land, what rights would the landowner actually be relinquishing by doing the permanent conservation easement? MS. MASON: I don't really believe it would change much in terms of use. It is a -- relatively out of the thousand-plus-acre parcel, it would only be just over 19 acres, the area of critical state concern. Page 56 .._.-.... December 1, 2005 And the vast majority of cases strictly limits what you can impact. It would -- if -- if at some point they wanted to put the property into agricultural use, it could -- would limit that 20 acres from that. Whether or not this area would ever be used for agriculture I think is up to debate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there anything else that would be taken away besides the right to farm it? MS. MASON: Not to my knowledge, no. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick one. Heidi, and I'm trying to -- this would fall under the architectural standards. Is there any requirement -- and I'm trying to remember, I don't think there's any that would prohibit a vending machine to be visible from the street? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe that's addressed by the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd be comfortable adding that condition that no vending machine could be visible from 41 ? MS WILLIAMS: That would be acceptable to staff. I'd have to also make sure that's acceptable to the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other-- MS. WILLIAMS: It appears that's acceptable to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No visible vending machine, huh? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's no fun driving on 41 in the middle of nowhere and see a Pepsi and Coke yelling out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It might give some people a sense of security. Any other questions of staff? If not, Mr. Adelstein, I think you Page 57 December 1, 2005 had a question of the applicant. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. For Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: From the beginning I've had the problem of making the decision without knowing what type of parking there actually is and will be. And I can't go forward with the situation where I don't know what -- whether the parking's going to be adequate, what the parking is going to actually be. I think some of the other members here are feeling basically the same way. Is there any way you can determine that now or would you like to have this continued to another date when we can actually find out exactly how many parking spaces would be available to the applicant? MR. MURRAY: Well, the width and the area there would show you that it's about a quarter mile of area that they could park along. There would be adequate area to turn around and get back out with a vehicle. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The answer isn't it could be adequate. It could be this or that. I'm asking for a specific number. How many parking spaces would be available in this -- on this proj ect? MR. MURRAY: It's -- there would be enough to accommodate the maximum amount to fill the vehicles and the boats. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm still asking for a number. How many parking spaces would be available on this tract? MR. MURRAY: Hundreds. I'm sorry. If you want a specific number, I can give you a hundred along the road. MR. BASS: I think I can answer the question if I could. Again, Ray Bass, for the record. Look, we're talking about an area that is -- we gave it an average of 60 feet. It's 75 to 50 feet wide drivable area for a quarter of a mile. If you go ahead and park -- park diagonally along that, you may even have a thousand parking places, parking Page 58 December 1, 2005 spaces, parking area. And, you know, 60 to 70 feet wide is wider than this room by a long shot. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that -- MR. BASS: I'm sorry. If you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. BASS: But how does he know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Mr. Adelstein finish his questions rather than you finish yours. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A big -- maybe you have done a lot of these. I don't know. I do know that almost every single PUD, or any areas we get from the public, stipulates parking availability on that project, not by how many feet or yards it is, how much parking there is. It's in every single PUD we put down. I'm trying to make this come out exactly the same way. We're told -- we're respecting your idea. What we need is how many parking spaces are available in there in order to you -- to say you have adequate parking. MR. BASS: Well, here's -- here's the problem. You know -- you know, we don't want to and the staff doesn't want us to, you know, pave it and mark off parking spaces. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not asking you to pave it. I'm asking you to give us a number of actual parking spaces, not a guess. MR. BASS: Well, okay, I can just tell you from -- from my own personal knowledge, you can get at least 500 cars in there minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you a land planner, sir? MR. BASS: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you a land planner-- MR. BASS: No, sir. But I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an engineer? MR. BASS: But I can measure. In my mind, you've got a quarter of a mile 60 feet wide, 50 feet wide for a quarter of a mile. I'll Page 59 December 1,2005 bet anybody any amount of money you can get 500 cars in there on a diagonal. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Let me clarify the issue a little bit for us. The petitioner has submitted a conceptual site plan as you see on the visualizer. That is the parking he is asking for with this conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: He has not demonstrated any other overflow parking. He has not labeled anything on the master -- on the conceptual site plan as overflow -- overflow parking. This is the only parking he's entitled to. If he wants more, then he'll have to come back and amend the conditional use. Or if he knows right now he wants more, then I suggest he continue, revise the plan and show the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not trying to stop him. I really want to see it go forward, but it's got to go forward as far as I'm concerned knowing the adequacy of parking on this proj ect. MR. MURRAY: Does it need to be shown on a site plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course. MR. MURRAY: See it on a conceptual plan or can it be in a condition because I remember having a discussion back -- it's been over a year ago -- about overflow parking. The idea here was, like you -- Mr. Bass said, not to pave over but for illustrative purposes to show where there would be handicap parking, an the immediate need. The overflow was to be down the road. There's a possibility of -- at Mr. House's other facility of a shuttle bringing people over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Murray, the business plan that the gentlemen has created cannot be predicated on -- will -- will do less and predicated on overflow or predicated on all of these ifs. Either the business plan says, We're only anticipating six people every Page 60 December 1, 2005 hour and we're willing to do that and we can put those people in those parking spots or not. And I -- I -- we're really -- we're really giving you every opportunity I think to rethink the situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. I'm not arguing with you about that. I have seen it done elsewhere where the conditions are for the overflow parking along the road. I'm not -- I'm not trying to argue with you about that. I was just concerned. We want to -- it's taken so long to get here, we wanted to go forward, but we do want to provide adequate parking and satisfy what -- what you believe needs to be done. We believe there is room for adequate parking and if we need to show it, we can show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer and then Marjorie Student. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my reaction -- there is -- the documents you present us from your engineer do not support 75 feet even 50 feet of area. You can't even get that between water and water on the documents we have here. I think what Ray's saying is true, though. If we're going to go forward, then we're going to limit -- you're going to end up with an approval or something that may have only, you know, a parking place for every two fixed seats like the rest of the code which is going to give you certainly nothing near what you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to state two things. First of all, the site plan is conceptual. But, secondly, one of the criteria in the Land Development Code deals with ingress and egress to the property, but with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience and traffic flow and control. And I think there's an issue here based on what I'm hearing about the automotive and pedestrian safety on site and the traffic flow on site. And that's what the Planning Commission is looking for some Page 61 December 1, 2005 assurances for. So I just wanted to give you the assurance that there's a criterion for conditional uses that addresses this type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. I think that ends the staff report. Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered. MR. BASS: Well, could we offer a little bit of rebuttal with what the staff people said that was not originally presented? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that's what you were doing, but go ahead if you have a separate plan. MR. BASS: Well, there was a -- you know, there was a statement by the environmental planner that, Well, there won't be any rights taken away if you grant the permanent conservation easement. My understanding -- other people can probably correct me if I'm wrong -- but my understanding is you don't hunt when there's a permanent conservation easement. There's no hunting allowed in that area. Is that right or wrong? MR. MURRAY: That's right. MR. BASS: It's not in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what's risen above the issue of a conservation easement right now, although that one is equally important, is the fact that you've got a plan that shows six parking spaces. You have stipulations that indicate you could have up to 120 people using the site. You don't have any knowledgeable way that you can show us that's approved by staff and signed off by the county, because it's their easement, that you can accommodate the parking. And we can't sit here today and create a new plan. So that I think is the bigger issue for you to resolve. And if you want to go forward today as it stands now and we take a vote, that's fine. Or you can have the option of continuing this and trying to straighten out your Page 62 December 1, 2005 problems and come back at some time in the future and not lose the time you've gotten through to get to here today so... MR. BASS: Well, I don't know how we get -- I don't know how we get the county to sign off on something they don't like to begin with. So, I mean, why would they do that? And -- and there's no legal requirement that they do that. They -- the county has an easement as long as we don't overburden that and that would be a dispute between two -- two private entities or separate entities over the -- over the use of property. That's really not something for the P AB to consider. I mean, you can't -- you can't consider every possible dispute that can arise. And that -- that has -- that has a whole separate issue. I say that with all due respect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We were -- we were advised by CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Lindy had asked to speak and then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then Mr. Schiffer and then you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically, you've heard my argument and you're giving me an argument back, but I'm going to be doing -- I'm doing the voting. MR. BASS: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm asking -- I'm saying to you, it would seem to me logical that you can give us a number of spaces when -- which you actually can develop -- to show you could have or you can provide. I'm saying to you -- I would recommend to you that we have this thing postponed to another date until you can give us that information and then get a vote that might be better than what you might get today. MR. BASS: Well, I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. Page 63 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My question is: You made the presentation to the EAC and they were never made aware of the fact that you could place hundreds of cars on impervious parking as part of this project? MR. MURRAY : Well, it never became an issue. It's not an issue with staff before. And I understand that originally there was a plan or a sketch submitted. I'm sorry. I -- that was before I was involved with this, that showed where the parking would be along the road. So that may be why staff has not had an issue with it all along. But that didn't come up at the EAC at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you never made them aware, Oh, by the way, if we have any overflow issues, we'll be parking all up and down this road which is an impervious surface? MR. MURRAY: I don't remember if that came up; but if it did, we would have responded in the same way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. I think it was answered by those who asked the questions. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would the landowner be -- would the landowner object to a conservation easement that expired with the lease? MR. BASS: The landowner really doesn't have any control over that. The -- the leaseholder, which is Mr. House, is the one that has control over that. And he has said he will grant -- he will give the permanent conservation easement within the lease. The -- the Collier Corporation or whoever the landowner is, I'm not sure if it's Collier Corporation or Barron Collier Companies, they don't have any control over that. There's nothing in the lease that says we cannot do that. And since it doesn't say we can't do it, we can do it. That is the law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. You had asked for Page 64 ----",.~ -..---. December 1, 2005 rebuttal. I assume you've now had enough time to provide us with the rebuttal you wanted to provide? MR. BASS: I think so unless he has more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make it short if you have-- MR. MURRAY: No. I believe that we've responded to almost everything. We -- we still believe it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan and that this is a good project. And we -- if you -- if it will help this -- this board to make a decision, we would like to bring it back, say, in a couple of weeks at the next meeting and respond to you, maybe provide additional information to show how we can answer that. Because we -- I wouldn't want you to try to make a decision if you feel that you don't have all the facts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you got to be -- you're either going to request a continuance or you're not. MR. MURRAY : Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is not up to us to ask you. It's up to you. Are you requesting a continuance? MR. MURRAY: We would like to request a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To the next available date that can be properly advertised? Okay. Is there -- there's a request by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion on this issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd just like to say one thing. I think that this is a really good project. Ecotourist really is a good deed. The problem is you got to work out the planning problems of parking. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it's also a very good proj ect, but -- Page 65 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three issues you need to look at if you're coming back. One is whatever arrangements need to be made with Collier County for that easement, No.1, the Planning Commission needs to be provided with the language of the easement and an opinion from the County Attorneys' Office as to what that easement can be used for by you people in order to secure whatever additional parking may be needed by this. We need a -- we need a computation from staff indicating what they believe the additional parking requirements were under the maximum worst-case scenario used on this project. And then we need to know that the spacing is there to use it, whether it's on that easement or somewhere else, if it's going to be impervious or pervious. Whatever those conditions are, we need to know all of those. And I still believe that something needs to be further worked out in regards to a permanent conservation easement. There may be some way to get that worked out through an expiration of a conditional use. I don't know, but there ought to be that -- it should be further explored with the County Attorneys' Office. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And one other thought, the conceptual site plan according to Mr. Bellow's, you need to have that demonstrated on your conceptual site plan. So you need to pay attention to that aspect of it and I would bring in your measurements it would seem to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I'd just like to say, we haven't spent a whole lot of time here on the GMP issue; however, I think you need to spend a lot more time with the County Attorneys' Office and try to work out some sort of permanent easement. If that runs with the conditional use, come back and let them say that that Page 66 ....__._ .'~<'~,"~_"M.__· December 1,2005 will then follow our GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the continuance signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The project is continued. We'll take a 15-minute break or at least till 10:30 by that clock. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The clock says 10:30, ladies and gentlemen. I don't want to be accused for delaying permitting in Collier County. So we will start exactly at 10:30. Okay. The next item for review today is Petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-5431, Naples Gateway Land Trust represented by Robert Duane, also known as the Cambridge Square PUD. That's not Robert Duane also known as that, but the project is. All those wishing to testify on behalf please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in by Ms. Ford. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I'm the only one. I talked to the applicant, Mr. Gates. I talked to Mr. Hayes. I talked to Mr. Readie. I talked to the gentleman who did their TIS and to Mr. Anderson. So I think I've have had quite a few conversations. That's all. And all Page 67 December 1, 2005 about mostly traffic, a couple use issues within the PUD that we'll discuss today. That's all. Bob, it's all yours. MR. DUANE: Yes. Good morning -- morning. For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes & Associates. I do have Bruce Anderson with me, Todd Gates and Rob Price from the Metro Group this morning. My presentation will be relatively brief. It's a two-part presentation this morning. I'm going to make a few introductory remarks, and then Todd Gates is going to follow me and describe the project a little further. And if we could keep the continuity of our presentation and answer questions at the end of it, I would appreciate it. I'm passing out to you an 8-by-ll aerial photo, a 8-by-ll master plan and some proposed renderings of the project that T odd will go over in some detail after I finish my presentation. The subject property depicted on the master concept plan is approximately 16 point -- it's approximately 16 acres. The subject of the rezone petition here this morning principally affects -- affects 3.3 acres at the corner which we're adding into this PUD and we're also making -- making changes to Tract B. And I'll highlight that for you. Tract A is the existing office complex. And Tract B comprises approximately 10 acres including the 3.3 acres that we're adding to the PUD at the intersection. The access to the subject property does not include any access onto Livingston Wood Lanes. That was an earlier part of our petition that we withdrew as a result of opposition at our neighborhood meetings. And I might add that initially staff had encouraged us to pursue that access, but we withdrew it from our petition. The other access points are on Pine Ridge Road which is a right in, right out. And there's also a right in, right out onto -- onto Livingston Road. The 10 acres that are contained in Tract B were the subject of a comprehensive plan amendment that was before you last year. It allowed up to 80,000 square feet of retail or office use to be developed Page 68 December 1, 2005 on Tract B. There were other components of that amendment that are also reflected on the master plan. One being the loop road that connects access from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road. That was designed to try to bleed off some of the traffic from the intersection. The GMP amendment also limited the maximum height of structures to 35 feet. It provided for a 75-foot setback from the north property line and it also provided for an 8- foot wall along the north property line for screening and buffering from the Livingston Wood Lane and that surrounding neighborhood. The uses in the PUD ordinance are principally C-3 uses with some modifications. I'm going to just switch to affordable housing. Also right now you were provided some language that we're proposing to incorporate into the PUD that we will make our contribution of $0.50 a square foot at the time of site plan approval for up to the 80,000 square feet that is proposed in this PUD amendment today. And that language, again, is before you. In summary, the proj ect is consistent with the Pine Ridge Road mixed-use district which is a component of the Golden Gate master plan. The proposed CPUD master plan we think very reasonably reflects how we believe this property is ultimately going to be built out. It's not a bubble plan. Those plans disappeared some time ago. And we've tried to be as very specific with the size and orientation of our buildings and out parcels, of which there are four, as we could at the present time. Now, I'd like -- and one final comment is that this proj ect does not contemplate a big-box retail user. That's not what we're here to ask you for today. It was an issue at our neighborhood meeting, and that is not the intended purpose of this planned unit development. And with that I'd like to give you Todd Gates who will amplify some of the architectural and design considerations that he anticipates incorporating into the project. And then whether it be Bruce Anderson or Rob Price or myself or Todd, we'll be happy to answer Page 69 .--..".-....... -" "_._-_.---"--,'~"" December 1, 2005 your questions after Todd's presentation. Thank you. MR. GATES: For the record, Todd Gates with Gates McVey. Just very briefly, I guess I'm the Vanna White of the presentation, but this is the property that -- that I've referred to since as long as I've lived here is the big White House property. Actually, I used to hunt out there many, many years ago. But anyway this is the big White House property. You've got six lanes running east and west. Six lanes running north and south. Obviously, not conducive for big White House anymore. It is very conducive for we hope what we've proposed. I personally met with numerous neighbors in the neighborhood to find out what the use is that they would like to see there, to be perfectly frank. What I heard was banks. What I heard was medical facilities. What I heard were bagel shops. What I heard was chiropractors. What I heard was neighborhood uses that they don't have to travel very far to use just like if I lived there or you would live there, ice cream shops, yogurt shops, things like that. Banks kept comIng up. What I also heard was that (A) they did not want access to Livingston Road which, again, we withdrew that after we heard some issues. I was concerned that they were seeing -- they were not seeing the entire picture, because that gave the access to the neighborhood that I thought was important to the neighborhood. But, again, I don't live there and they did and they wanted it out, so we agreed to take it out. As far as the -- the uses that -- that they were concerned with and we were also concerned with is that it's not meant for a big box. It's not meant for a Wal-Mart or Sam's or Home Depot or Lowe's. It's meant as a neighborhood shopping center that supports the infrastructure that's needed in the neighborhood, and that's really the intent. Architecturally we take a lot of pride in our projects. We've Page 70 December 1,2005 been here for many, many years and each project we think gets better. We hope. We wanted this to feel more like a -- a Livingston Woods neighborhood shopping village, if you will. We did not want it to feel like a strip center. We did not want it to feel like a big box. Architecturally you can see -- and I know Brad's looking at the elevations now. That scares me. But anyway, we -- we've got some stone facades on it. We want it to feel very woods-y, hence, Livingston Woods name. We went with a motif that we thought would be very fitting for the neighborhood and be an asset for the neighborhood. So with that I'll stop talking and entertain any questions, I guess, or wait for staff report, I guess. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have questions of the applicant. Before we do, I'd first like to get these items moved into record. For the record, we have two pages of architectural renderings that were handed to us today. One page, that's an aerial showing existing conditions on site as of the date of the aerial. Another page is a colored site plan basically in gray, green and orange. And a last page is a commitment for affordable housing contribution $0.50 a square foot. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's a motion made to move that into evidence. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second but add there was also an aerial photograph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I did. I said that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. So seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? Page 71 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We normally ask questions of the applicant at this point unless the Planning Commission wishes differently. I have questions. Brad, do you have questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what did you have in mind with differently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifno one's got any questions, we go on to staff; but I assume you-all had questions of the applicant before we go too far so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is a nice looking development and everything; but just in case you sold it or something like that, there is a clause in here and it's page 21 of the PUD, it says there is no size limitation on the uses. Could we put something in there that states that it has to be at least four buildings twenty feet apart? Because conceptually the way that's worded and it references you back to the table, you could put an 80,000 -- MR. GATES: Well, a good example -- it's a very good question. Again, our intent is not to have a big box user. Out intent's not to flip it. We're -- like, we're moving full steam ahead with the site development plan hopefully very soon. So the issue -- a good example is hardware store. We do not plan on putting a Home Depot or Lowe's there. But I got to tell you, if there's a Mr. and Ms. Smith that wants to own a flower shop or a home improvement store in a little 1,500 square foot space, I think it would be a disservice to the neighborhood to exclude that purpose. Page 72 --" '---'-^~_.""'-" December 1, 2005 My thought also would be, like, a boutique grocery store. Whether it be a one or two of the fancier names that have been kicked around the county right now. And -- and obviously they're not going to be 50- or 60,000-square foot grocery stores. But the numbers that I'll just through out to you to -- that I've been thinking about is that if you keep the -- and, again, I don't know what's under the home furnishings code. That's not my expertise. But I don't foresee anything above 15,000 square feet on home furnishings or home improvement or whatever you want to call it. I certainly don't see anything larger than 25,000 square feet on a grocery store. We don't plan on putting a 50,60,000 square foot Publix there or a Winn Dixie. There maybe a -- a -- a very boutique-type grocery store that, again, is an asset to the community that they need a decent square footage to make the numbers work. So, yes, I'm very open to limiting the sizes with any uses that you may have issues with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the site plan you have how many square feet of commercial do you show on that? MR. GATES: We show a combined -- and, again, if I mistake-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tract B only. MR. GATES: Tract B I don't know. The total is -- I'll let the engineer answer that. MR. DUANE: The -- the principle structure's somewhat less than 35,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the site plan that is on Tract B? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is 35,000 square foot of development -- MR. DUANE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And yet 80 is the potential on this site? Page 73 ___-..-0 ,~,_..~___.... December 1, 2005 MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all buildings in Tract B is 35, because you've got three -- MR. DUANE: Well, I've got four out parcels which -- which have smaller footprints on them. Those are 5,000 square feet or less I'm anticipating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract B I think has -- is Tract B the -- is only -- is -- you have Tract A, B and, I think -- oh, C is over on the other side. Okay. So your total gross -- I think what Brad's looking for, what is the total square footage you show on the site plan? MR. GATES: The total gross that is our intent is 80,000 square feet of mixed use of retail and office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Tract B which -- the out parcels are a subset of Tract B, aren't they not? MR. GATES: I'm a little confused on Tract B in the end, but I'll let the engineer do that. MR. DUANE: The out -- the outparcels are part of Tract B also which is approximately 10 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on Tract B there is 35,000 square feet. MR. DUANE: No. I said the retail-- the retail anchor is approximately 35,000 square feet based on that footprint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the square footage as shown on these documents on Tract B? MR. GATES: I can -- I can answer that. The conceptual layout that you're looking at, and that's exactly what you're looking at, the little retail neighborhood center is approximately 36,000 square feet, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's Building D. MR. GATES: That would be the long building that's parallel to Pine Ridge. The four outparcels are meant to be for conceptual purposes only, medical buildings, banks, office buildings, maybe a Page 74 "--~"'-. ~""-"-~-'~-~-' December 1, 2005 restaurant, that type of use is the intent. Now, we don't know at this time how big each one of those building will be. In fact, we've been contacted by a medical group that wants to buy two outparcels and have one larger building as opposed to two smaller buildings. So that -- that's the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is then on the exhibits there is a disclaimer such that you can change the roadway. You can change all the layouts on it. So this is, again, a conceptual plan is how do we protect somebody buying this from you. I mean, there is offers that you can't refuse and that's putting a big box on that, an 80,000 square foot box. MR. DUANE: Well, the comprehensive plan amendment allowed us 80,000 square feet of office or retail. If we were to change this plan where the outparcels appeared and we came back with 100,000 foot box, then that would require another public hearing. It would be at the very least an insubstantial if not -- if not a substantial change to the PUD master plan. It would come back before the Planning Commission. It would go back before the board. And we've made representations today to you that that is not what we have put on the table. We've tried to be as specific as we can with our plans. In fact, more specific with our renderings and the commitments that we're making today than I think some other applicants that appear before you. And I -- I've tried to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I think we can -- we can probably short this by what Todd just said. If we stipulate, should this go forward, that the maximum square footage of any single use would not exceed 15,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet if it's a food -- a food store. It doesn't say building. That's a single use. So if you have a building that's 35,000 square feet, you can break it up into 15,000 segments or less, but if you -- if it's a food store, it could be 25,000. That seems to meet the intent of what Todd indicated was going to be happening. Page 75 -.._.._~... ~,- -----.'..- December 1, 2005 MR. GATES: Yes, sir, that's correct. Yeah. Let me ask you this just for my own clarification. And excuse my ignorance. If I have a medical person that would like to combine two outparcels, that it may be one building, is 20,000 square feet, am I excluding that doing this now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in that language it probably would unless -- and, Ray, if that's the case -- MR. GATES: Because I don't want to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's shown here today on this site plan, if they were to be combined into one instead of four or three, is that going to be another PUD amendment? MR. BELLOWS: Not necessarily. There's language in the PUD document and in the LDC that allows for minor changes in the master plan as long as it doesn't substantially increase the intensity of the use. Your combining an outparcel wouldn't be a problem as long as the overall square footage remained the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we limit -- if we reference the square footage to retail commercial use, that would eliminate the restriction on office use? MR. GATES: I'm sorry. Mark was talking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum square footage of any single, retail or commercial use is limited to 15,000 square feet. MR. GATES: That would hurt us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that-- MR. GATES: That would hurt us definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be-- MR. GATES: We could limit it to the hardware and we could limit it to grocery, but I can't limit the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to avoid doing, but I guess retail is office? MR. BELLOWS: Not -- no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 76 December 1, 2005 MR. GATES: I think the -- let's look at -- let's turn it around the other way and, again, I'm not an expert in this, but what we're willing to do from a development standpoint because it's our intent is that we don't plan on having a grocery store larger than 25,000 square feet. We don't plan on having a hardware store more than 15,000 square feet. Everything else we don't know what it'll be, but I can't limit office and retail beyond that because of not knowing what's going to take place. This is what we hope takes place. This is what our intent is, but right now we have a group of doctors that want to buy two outparcels and have one maybe 20,000 square foot building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't -- I understand that. I don't have a -- I personally don't have a problem with that for a medical building. It's the intensity of the retail uses that come into play. Do you have a concern restricting retail uses to 15,000 square feet unless they're a food store which could go to 25,000 square feet? MR. DUANE: Yes. We -- we -- we would. The intent and purpose of the -- of the Pine Ridge Road mixed-use district was to provide convenience, goods and services. And it contemplated some kind of a neighborhood center whether it was a food store or not. But the intent from when we started this process was to, you know, apply for up to 80,000 square feet and we've made a commitment today that we're going to construct something very similar of what we're showing today on that PUD master plan. It does not have in my mind an overly intensive retail component on it. And I would rest my case on that. As Todd said, if we want to put a limitation on the size of a hardware store, he does not have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You told the neighborhood you wouldn't have a big box on this site. You also told us today that you were looking at uses at 15,000 square feet with the exception of a food store to 25. All I'm saying is let's put that in writing and limit it to that. I don't know what your concern is over having a -- MR. DUANE: Well, if I wanted to have a retail center with Page 77 December 1, 2005 50,000 square feet in it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got it as long as no single use in there is over 15,000. You can have one building that's broken up into 15,000 square feet uses as long as it isn't a Lowe's or Home Depot dedicated to all one use which would then be your large big-box operation. I don't understand where the problem is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I kind of have a -- I think what the neighbors don't want is one big building, you know, whether you break it up or not. If it's still a big problem, I think it's a problem for the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they exceed the size that's on the site plan, I would think they would be subject to coming back anyway; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's one thing back awhile ago Bob Duane said. He said that he would have to come back before the committee if he made a change to the site plan. But he did use the example of a 100,000 square foot building. This actually a -- in other words, if he did a different layout with an 80,000 square foot building, he would have to come back before no boards based on the disclaimers and the exhibits; correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. GATES: Can I maybe make a recommendation maybe as a happy medium? We could put a cap on any use not to exceed 25,000 square feet across the board retail. And I think that would cover -- and if you want to add in the language hardware not to exceed 15, that's okay too. But -- but I think that would exclude any large big box single user that we're trying to -- that we're all trying to achieve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you -- when you say use, could you add the word "use" or "tenant"? MR. GATES: Sure, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That way because -- MR. GATES: Retail, that's correct. Page 78 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can trick around all that other stuff. MR. GATES: And the fact of the matter, I guess you're right, it could change. But right now we've only got a 36,000 square foot building. We're not going to lease the entire building to one tenant. There'll be at least seven or eight or nine tenants in there, so maybe that would work for everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing understand all the -- this is a beautiful project. All these conversations are based on a conversation with somebody who bought this land before you. MR. GATES: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's nothing to do with you. MR. GATES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along the lines of what Brad just said, though, concerning the size of the building, what would then be the largest building that you would limit yourself to on the property since you're not going -- MR. GATES: For retail and office? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just retail. Well, I guess it would be retail and office both. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. GATES: I couldn't answer that right now. I don't have the -- I don't know who the users will be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, to complicate it, I can build one mass, subdivide it and have it essentially be two buildings too. So I think what we'd say free-standing building. MR. GATES: Yeah. We've built -- we've designed and built a lot of buildings that maybe are 60,000 square feet but they look like 10 little 6,000 square foot buildings, but they're connected so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, is that issue concerning a large single building -- Page 79 ^,_,,___~_.u . December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, you know, I just wouldn't want -- the way the PUD's written right now, they could put in an 80,000 square foot retail building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we've touched it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did have more questions. Can I go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Go ahead right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no pedestrian access to the neighborhood. Is that because the neighborhood didn't want it or MR. GATES: I had wanted access to the neighborhood. The neighborhood did not want it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, in other words, if they're going to come visit the facility, they're going to drive? MR. GATES: As I described it, they get to go out on the road and make a U-turn and go a half mile the other way and make a U-turn. I don't understand it, but I certainly understand if I lived on Livingston Road behind it that the other streets -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because if they wanted to walk down for their ice cream, they're -- MR. GATES: Now, what we can do and -- and I brought this up at the neighborhood, I think there's one speaker from the neighborhood here, is that maybe there's a pedestrian walk opening the people could ride their bikes through and walk through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm thinking. MR. GATES: We very, very much want to do that. It's for the neighborhood. But, again, we took all those out because of the issues that we had at the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think of the debt chain connection. Page 80 ---.., December 1, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The previous rezoning along Pine Ridge Road and this commercial quadrant also had at times requested some kind of interconnection with Livingston Wood Lane; but due to tremendous opposition from the residents there, the Board of County Commissioners and the approval of those other PUDs prohibited any kind of pedestrian or vehicular access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just as soon, Brad, you might -- I don't know if we need to buck that trend because it has come up numerous times before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if that's what Ray said, Ray said. We'll go with that. If they don't want it, they don't want it. MR. GATES: We ran into that. So anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question and maybe, Bob, you could answer this. It's on the Exhibit A. In Note 3 it says, More or less of a shared wetland preserve. What does that mean, "shared"? What is -- MR. DUANE: The -- there's one district permit that covers the entire 26 acres in this basin and that wetland area is shared with Naples Gateway which is to the east of this property. In other words, there's a common wetland area that they share; and the water is put back into that system from a basin that comprises about 26 acres that extends to the east of this property. And that preserve area is also identified in the Naples Gateway PUD. So they're married together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is it also states that you're going to allow them to use the area of that to calculate your open space. MR. DUANE: Well, the portion of it that's on the 2.2 acres that's within this subject PUD is open space. We're not taking Naples Gateway's open space and applying them to this project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not double dipping on that area for open -- MR. DUANE: No. It's just contained within the 16 acres of the Page 81 ,----_.,,,.~ ,,~. December 1, 2005 subj ect property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The project summary, I'm having trouble with the math. What adds up to 16.1? And you -- you -- MR. DUANE: I think Tract A is plus or minus 3.5 acres. Tract B is plus or minus 10.2 acres. Tract C is 2.4, one acre of which 2.2 acres more or less is contained within the wetlands preserve area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 2.2 is not part of the math on that. It just -- in other words, you add four numbers. You're only adding three numbers to get the bottom even though there's four numbers at the top. MR. DUANE: That's correct. One's a subset of the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I've got some PUD questions, Bob, so let's go through them with you. Do you know that your TIS -- and I brought this up in my meetings with Todd -- the TIS asked for 78,400 square feet. Your PUD reference is 80,000 square feet. Which is it you're asking for today? MR. DUANE: Eighty thousand square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were going to say that, but I wanted to make sure I understood it. Your landscaping and buffering on page 8, Section 4.17, it talks about the development of the CPUD master plan shall be subject to Section 406 of the LDC. And then it goes to list a variety of landscape buffers. My question is to, I guess, more either to you or Ray, if you're consistent with the LDC for the buffering, why are you listing all these buffer requirements separately in your PUD? Because if you are listing them separately and they are deviations from the Page 82 ~^"-""--..---" -.--""--,.-- December 1,2005 Land Development Code, I think they have to be noted as such and separately addressed by staff. MR. DUANE: My understanding is that these exceed the requirements of Section 406. And I didn't contemplate these being deviations. I understand your point. You know, there are a number of procedural requirements and landscaping requirements contained in Section 406 that we've not, you know, regurgitated here. Perhaps there's a better way to word it, but we're generally going to meet the requirement of 406 with the exception of where we've incorporated in some, you know, more site-specific requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When staff gets up here, then I'll find out from them if there's an issue with that. In your Section 5, you talk about description ofproject and proposed land uses. MR. DUANE: What page, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11. MR. DUANE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DUANE: I find a couple of different references to your square footage. In the staff report it talks about 80,000 retail square feet or just square feet. It says actually in the statement of compliance, I'm sorry, on page 1 of your PUD it says, Up to 80,000 square feet of retail or office uses on Tract B. But on page 11 it says, on Tract B the maximum development intensity is 80,000 square feet of gross leasable retail or office area. Now, gross leasable to me is quite a bit different than square foot of retail or office area, because you remove all the common areas, the patios and all the footprint basically of the building that's not leasable. And I'm wondering from a perspective of the county attorney, what it is we're talking about here and which one is -- MR. DUANE: That's something I was going to answer. The comprehensive plan says 80,000 square feet of gross leasable area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says gross leasable? MR. DUANE: Yes, it does. Page 83 ---~,--,-- December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then the staff report or the rest of this document needs to be consistent to read gross leasable square feet. So, in essence, you can be greater than 80,000 square in your building because you've still got add in the common areas for all the leasable square feet. In the neighborhood impact -- neighborhood informational meeting, and I believe I spoke to Todd about this, the -- the people that attended it, the comment that's in the staff report says (as read): A concern was also raised concerning proposed allowable uses specifically auto and home supply stores and automotive services except to repair. Todd Gates, developer of the project, gave an overview of the gross uses saying that he anticipated a bank building with retail shops and office uses. Now, I went through your SIC code references and you still have in there auto and home supply stores, automotive services except repair and hardware stores. Well, I'm sorry, not the hardware stores, but the automotive stores. Are those automotive stores necessary for you to have in your project when based on the information supplied to the residents, it seems like you were indicating those -- those would not be there? Actually, they did say hardware store too. It's under the premise of a home supply store. MR. DUANE: The auto and home supply stores we are willing to delete, that which is SIC Code 5531. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 5531 would -- would remove the auto and home supply stores. What about 7542 and 7549 which are your services for repair? MR. DUANE: We're prepared to delete those also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that would be Items 3 and 4 under 8.2? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 20 at the end of where you start on page 19, it says (as read): Permitted accessory uses and Page 84 December 1, 2005 structures. Do you have an issue concerning -- I'm sorry. It's under development standards for Tract B. But on page 20, Item J, size limitations on uses. There are no limitations on the square footage of uses in the CPUD other than requirements set forth in Section 5.2 of this ordinance. Well that's -- MR. DUANE: That will be modified -- that will be modified afterwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be subject to what we've already worked out here today? MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under development commitments Item 10.IH. MR. DUANE: What page, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 24. Sometimes my pages don't match yours. So I've gotten into the habit of not using pages, but I'll try to give you both. Under H it says (as read): Except as to the deviation approved in this CPUD to reduce the minimum connection spacing from Livingston Road to 1,320 feet for 50 feet. I understand your requesting that, but I haven't seen it spelled out as a deviation in this PUD. Deviations are usually highlighted to us in the staff report. Staff then provides opinions on those deviations both pros and cons and your opinions on those. We haven't been approached on anything in this PUD for a deviation that I know of. So I'm wondering what H refers to? MR. DUANE: I can add a deviation section to the development commitment section. I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DUANE: If this ordinance is -- well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got to have Don Scott later acknowledge that that deviation's acceptable to his department. But if we can get that far at this meeting, by the next meeting it'd be nice to have for the BCC a list of the deviations so they know like we shouldd Page 85 December 1, 2005 have known what was being deviated from in this project. On your master plan that you have attached to the back of your PUD -- MR. DUANE: There's a note that I need to delete from that. We took the access point off of the master plan, but I think there's a little footnote there that I have a little housekeeping chore if that's what your point was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I was going to ask you to do. MR. DUANE: That -- that note will be deleted because we obviously made the commitment not to do that access going back to our neighborhood meeting and have revised the master plan to reflect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's interesting you knew I was going to ask. MR. DUANE: Well, Mark, we've worked so long together-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should have cleaned it up before you brought it in here today, Bob. Under your application for public hearings, the name and address and office, you talked about C & R Realty of Richmond, Inc., is the owner 100 percent of the stock? Then you broke it down, Ron Schlemmer as president, 88.3 percent, Deanna Dodge is something at 5.85 percent. Those two do not add up to 100 percent. Who are the remaining stockholders of that company? MR. DUANE: You are on -- and I'm going to ask my client to address that. MR. GATES: Mr. Schlemmer's our partner at Gates McVey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you got to -- we have to -- we have to know the officers and stockholders and their percentage of stock owned by each. So you've got 100 percent of the main company, but the stockholders so far don't add up to 100 percent so... MR. GATES: What's the -- I don't have that in front of me. Page 86 --,.-- December 1,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The balance is about 6 percent. You have two partners, 88.3 for Mr. Schlemmer, 5.85 for Deanna Dodge. You add those two together you're 94.5 or so percent and you're a little bit shy of your 100 percent. So someone else is in the mix or maybe -- MR. GATES: Yeah. The balance would be the four partners of Gates McVey which are 25,25,25, 25 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are they -- under a specific -- MR. GATES: -- under a specific partnership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to know who they are. MR. GATES: I can list -- do you want the legal names or the names of the people? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Names of the individuals I believe is all that's -- what is required, Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it would be the names of the individuals or if it's a legal entity, whoever the shareholder is. MR. GATES: I can give you both. I mean, I know them both if you would like. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you just state them for the record so that it's covered? MR. GATES: Yes, sir, certainly. It's Gates Holdings which is Todd Gates. It is Steve Robison Holdings which is Steve Robison. It is Crawford of Florida which is Richard Crawford. Again, I may not be technically LLC correct here. So I need Marjorie's help on this. And then they'll be REDICO which is owned by the Sosnick Company out of Detroit, Michigan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Between now and the BCC, could you supply that information -- MR. GATES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to staff so -- MR. GATES: No problem at all. I can even do a board chart if Page 87 December 1,2005 you like. If graphically it would make more sense for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever -- whatever legally is required. MR. GATES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm concerned about. And then that's the only questions I have until we get into staff and to transportation. Transportation's going to be a little intense so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Just a little. MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me. My name is Bruce Anderson, for the record. I just wanted to note, you may not have the most current disclosure information because all that information is part of this packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I don't -- okay. Thank you, Bruce. I don't -- I went through it and didn't find it, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have it either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see. It's -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the sheet that follows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a separate sheet. I didn't even know she put it on a separate sheet. Thank you. That takes care of it then. Thank you, Tom. Okay. Heidi, I guess you're up unless there's -- I think everybody else had finished already. MS. WILLIAMS: Once again for the record, Heidi Williams, Zoning and Land Development Review. This proj ect was evaluated by staff and was not sent to the Environmental Advisory Council due to the fact that there are no new listed species or wetland impacts anticipated. There was a correction to the preserve tract, and you've looked at it on the master plan and touched on it, but I'd like to put some clarification on the record. The Tract C in -- on the master plan is an area that is defined by the growth management plan. The actual area has been impacted. There is a sidewalk, and I believe a pump station in that preserve tract. Page 88 '"--~~., December 1,2005 Our environmental review preferred that those uses not be included in the preserve -- technical preserve area. The applicant provided us with a new survey of the area. That's how you get your 2.22 acres. The issue is then -- does arise that the growth management plan, this -- this PUD is not -- not technically consistent with the verbiage in the growth management plan. Whether or not this PUD is approved, staff intends to do a text amendment to the growth management plan -- the Pine Ridge Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to reflect the actual conditions on the site, citing that this is an unintended error but it's been approved and we want to make sure that the actual acreage is reflected in the growth management plan. So I wanted to put that on the record. Originally the transportation division requested the access to Livingston was laned. It's already been discussed that there was a lot of outcry. Comprehensive planning had agreed to allow the BCC to discuss whether an ingress-only access is -- was the intended -- was supposed to be prohibited by the growth management plan. Subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, that access was removed and the notation on the master plan will also be removed. Transportation has since indicated that they can accept that the neighborhood's wishes supersede, and the need for the board to determine whether or not that would be acceptable is no longer an Issue. I've had just a few conversations with residents since the neighborhood information meeting. I believe there's a speaker here today who I have also spoken with and has some concerns with one of the uses specifically whether gasoline fuel stations would be a permitted use. It is listed as a permitted use in the document. That may be a subject for discussion. It's acceptable to staff at this time. I had a notation to address one of your questions. Regarding the deviation, the landscape code is the underlying requirements and then Page 89 December 1, 2005 the PUD further modifies it with an exceeded requirement for landscaping. So to answer the question it's not necessarily a deviation. It's in excess of the code, and that's acceptable to our landscape review staff. Therefore, with all of those -- that information, I -- you know, staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations we've already discussed. And I believe that Marjorie Student has something to add. And after that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. On my page 23 under transportation requirements, it would be a new paragraph B talking about the loop road. There just needs to be some clean-up language. Loop road, last sentence, will be dedicated as a public easement at the time of platting or SDP approval. Roads are dedicated on plats but otherwise there's just SDP. It would be some other form of conveyance, so I think it should say "Shall be dedicated or conveyed" as the case may be. And that would be probably a staff stipulation that was generated and placed in there. So I'd like that clarification. And also let me turn to the other page where it's already in there, but it would be my page 19 and that would be permitted uses and development standards for Tract B under the accessory uses. It just has general language about central services and facilities. The broadness of that has raised issues in past PUDs, so we'd just like it spelled out what those essential services might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm assuming that's something staff can do between now and the BCC meeting. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. That appears -- also that appears, I think, in two places. So wherever that appears we would need to have that spelled out as an accessory use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, items like this are pretty pure housekeeping issues. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, they are, but I just wanted to Page 90 December 1,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the first time you've read this PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I read the PUD before the meeting, but I wanted to put it on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read it before staff did the report? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I read one iteration before staff did the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice if we could clean up the things that are absolutely known to your department and others before staff wrote the report so from here on out we wouldn't have to be doing this at a public meeting. Anything else that you have, Heidi? MS. WILLIAMS: Nope. If you have any questions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think mine are going to end up being with transportation then. Commissioner Midney, I think, he just indicated he's got questions here too, but anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Scott, welcome again. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've talked, I know, about traffic impact studies, and this one in particular will be two years old next month. MR. SCOTT: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it reference statistics that are-- been replaced by more recent statistics -- MR. SCOTT: Recent ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for that area. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It references a 203 AUIR and we have data from a 205 AUIR. I also was -- received some supplemental information at my request from the applicant's transportation expert. I Page 91 December 1,2005 pass that on to you. I will -- I have questions about that. And then I have questions about other specifics within the TIS just to get on record and get those answers. In response to what I gave you, you know, as the most recent documents from the applicant, what are your thoughts in regards to that update for TIS and how consistent is it with today's traffic issues on those road links? MR. SCOTT: Okay. The -- the -- back a little bit up. The newest A UIR, though not adopted by you or the BCC at this point, shows 59 remaining trips on that segment. I think the analysis previously was two -- 212, something like that, obviously change in traffic count and some other issues like that. I don't believe you guys got your copy yet, probably next week is my guess or previous to the meeting. Based on even bank trips or if it was, say, at a site plan right now -- if this was at a site plan level right now, it would not meet -- it would be -- it would have to wait essentially until -- the bigger improvement that's happening in the future is Golden Gate, I-75 interchange opens up. And a lot of the trips that go down Pine Ridge and then down Livingston getting in towards the city will now use Golden Gate Parkway. That's why transportation staff said that this was consistent. But, obviously, they'd have to wait until all that happens and that shows on the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is the Golden Gate Parkway Interchange scheduled to be opened; do you know? MR. SCOTT: It is scheduled for the long -- the scheduled time frame is about a year from now. They do have accelerator clauses in it. And if you look at it right now, I believe they'll probably need some of those maybe as early as early fall next year -- early fall or late summer next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if that opened, theoretically based on the people that would now use that, it would lessen the Page 92 December 1,2005 impacts on Pine Ridge and that portion of Livingston Road which would make this project more acceptable as far as concurrency goes? MR. SCOTT: Right. And the modal obviously shows that and that's what consistency's based on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Anderson knows me well enough. He'll know the question coming up then by the time we get to that point. Bruce, I've got some more to go with Don. I can get you all at once. But my question's simply going to be, when was your anticipated COs I would imagine are not going to be before January of '07? MR. ANDERSON: That -- that could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. Okay. Well, if you leave it up to us, we'll discuss it. MR. ANDERSON: Well, no, I know where you're going, and I would respectfully suggest to you that the same logic that you use for not repeating the Land Development Code in the PUD should equally apply to the concurrency rules. We have a system in place. Let it work. We'll take our place and wait patiently or impatiently in line, but don't put anything special in here other than we're going to comply with whatever the county's concurrency management system is. That's the fair thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you applied for your SDP? MR. GATES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The SDP is already in the system? MR. DUANE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you think you're going to get your SDP out and you're going to get this project built and CO'd in 12 months? MR. GATES: Would you like me to be polite? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything you want, Todd. I don't care. I'm just trying to get to the bottom line here so we can work it out. MR. GATES: That is our hope. The reality is we'll be lucky to Page 93 December 1, 2005 have any permits within 12 months. But the reality is no. We are not going to have permits, construction, CO'd within 12 months. I'm looking at my proj ect manager, is that consistent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only request is then do you mind if we restrict your CO's to no earlier than December of '06 since you can't get them anyway? MR. GATES: From a pure practical standpoint, Commissioner, I don't have a problem. How long is that? Is that 12 months from now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. GATES: Yeah. The reality is we're not going to be CO'd on anything 12 months from now. We'll be lucky to have an on-site develop permit to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just adds another level of protection to the public to assure that the road system is in better shape than it is today when you go in. You'll still be able to get all your permits, do all your construction, do all your building subj ect to the concurrency issues; but at least we know that you're not going to get a CO prior to that interchange opening on Golden Gate Parkway. That's all I was asking. MR. GATES: That will be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, Mr. Scott, we'll go back to your questions. Generically, TISs, when we have one that's two years old -- and I know this one's more or less been updated as we've talked here today -- is there anyway that your department can require TISs to be more timely in regards to when they hit this panel? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We have TIS guidelines that we can revise, and we've actually discussed this internally too in the sense that based on what happened at the last meeting and even discussion at this meeting. And as things evolve, that almost the concurrency side of it should be the last, you know, statement. Has it changed since you originally looked at it? I believe that's something that we probably Page 94 December 1,2005 should bring to you and the board as updated TIS guidelines. I don't know. Some of the thought is within six months. I don't know how reasonable that is. I've had discussion with some outside, you know, it's -- a lot of it's done by consultant from the other side that they're looking at maybe doing two: essentially one at the beginning of the proj ect and one right near the end. When they're coming to you, that you have something that's fairly new. So that's something I think we probably need to discuss as a -- as the guidelines itself. There's other changes that I'd like to make to the guidelines anyway too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're hitting this issue every week, so I would appreciate it if you could -- MR. SCOTT: If you would like, we will bring copies to the next meeting; and if you want to talk about it at that point or I can get maybe copies to you ahead of time and then you'd see it at the next meeting or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular TIS, they reference the worse case trip generation scenario. Now, I think the issue's been resolved by the concession that Mr. Gates just made in regards to CO's. But just for your department's review, when they say worse case trip generation scenario and use a shopping center equation 820 instead of the worse case scenario which is a stand-alone food store or a gas station or a convenience store -- well, they haven't got a convenience store right I don't believe, but they've got food store rights and gasoline store rights. Those equations are much, much higher. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Higher is the actual worse case scenario. In fact, a combination of a food store and a quality restaurant and a gas station on this site, all of which could be put in, would be a much worse case scenario than a shopping center designation. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. As pure trips, but on the opposite side of Page 95 December 1,2005 that, there is pass-by that it's assumed that certain things -- if it's a gas station, your pass-by is going to be higher. So there are -- obviously, when you're doing a site plan and this is one of the issues, we know exactly what's going in and those trips are then calculated for the concurrency system based on exactly what's going in, not what could go in. But, yes, you can have scenarios that could make things worse or it could be better depending on pass-by, other issues like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- I did look at a PowerPoint presentation presented by the DOT to the University of South Florida. And they talked about pass-by trip generation there. And they indicated, for example, that you shouldn't exceed 10 percent of the trip per generation rates on the roadway that you're fronting or 25 percent of the -- I think it was external rates generated by the proj ect. And they gave you an idea of where you would normally expect pass-by traffic. The highest got into facilities like this somewhere between 30 and 35. They're at 41.8. Did your department accept 41.8? MR. SCOTT: I believe by the review from my staff at that time, yes, they did accept it. I -- you are -- some of this stuff, the rule of thumbs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOTT: -- that was mentioned earlier in the site impact handbook, usually are in the 20 to 25 percent level. And -- and, obviously, we're less comfortable at not knowing what it is because when -- even when they're naming off it could be this. Well, that will be more. If it's that, it could be less pass-by, things like that. I agree the rule of thumbs are less. Even for the purposes of the vested traffic when we do the modeling of that, we assume a lower percentage. Even, like, for internal capture that they are lower, like, 20 percent, not the higher levels you hear. Obviously, that was an issue even with Ava Maria, the internal caption was a lot higher than usually accepted standards, but there are things that back some of that up. Obviously, they sent you the graph from the ITE manual. If you look at the Page 96 -----,-~,~ '-~-~,.~..._.. December 1, 2005 graph, though, you can make a very small development and have a very high pass-by which is -- it's harder to accept them at that small levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can your department start looking at these for that issue as well? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We keep seeing this stuff coming through. We keep asking about it at these meetings. I keep hearing someone's looked at it. MR. SCOTT: I think -- I think one of things that we might want to do as part of the guidelines that will be followed is set some of those rule of thumbs out there too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that would be helpful to all of us if you would do that, Don. Do you know in their TIS, since you're not personally __ personally did not read it and maybe this is for them to take notes. I notice their traffic engineer's here. On page 15 he reference the Collier County Ordinance 3.15.6.4.3. That is not a Collier County Ordinance. That is obviously some section of some code. If that gets corrected at some point so we have consistency, that may help. MR. SCOTT: That's the old citation of Land Development Code as part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I couldn't find it, yeah. And, Don, that is all the traffic issue I have. Mr. Adelstein, did you have any? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I did. And some of it's been brought out by your statement; but if I find it so difficult when you say -- how do you define, first, pass-by traffic? What's the definition? MR. SCOTT: Pass-by is essentially not -- not new trips that would be on the system, but it's trips that you're going somewhere else, but you happen to stop by and fill up your tank or whatever. Page 97 "~._--".. ~_.^·_...H...., December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're turning around and saying by that -- and that's with a gas station and basically that's the only one that has a situation that might be necessary to come in because -- MR. SCOTT: Well, no. Your restaurants, other things like that have pass-by in other -- other -- and the reason why the graph that showed, like, if it's a smaller area versus a larger development, the assumption is that you don't just go to that small commercial thing. You might be more pass-by. Now, that's not always working it. Because, obviously, if you're talking about a doctor's office, that's not pass-by. You're specifically going to there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. And the restaurant, usually you're going. The point I'm -- what I was trying to make, it seems to me almost impossible that pass-by traffic was -- meet to 41.8 percent of this -- of anything. Because, otherwise, we could say we don't even have to worry about outside traffic. These people are all going to come in. MR. SCOTT: But see the IT manual instituted transportation engineer is based on studying sites all over the country and the sites that match, you know, the -- the codes. Now, if you -- if you think of it even from an area of -- and we've had this discussion about Golden Gate Estates -- if you put a gas station out there, would someone come from Naples just to go out to there, no. So that pass-by could be huge in that respect. So it also means what is in the area that -- for services and how might that change that. So that's why doing it at this level where you don't know exactly what it is. It's hard to figure that out and that could be considered high. And that's why the site plan -- I mean, for concurrency purposes, they're still subject to what they're exactly building at that time and all of the things I've talked about have happened. Golden Gate Parkway opened. Now, if Golden Gate Parkway opens up and none of those trips come down to it, then, you Page 98 -_.,-, _._."~~--~.. December 1, 2005 know, you're tough out of luck. I mean, because -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Most people tend to shop at places they want to go to or used to go. You get gas, most people go to the same places to get them. Anything this high at 41 percent is as far as I'm concerned almost impractical. I mean, it doesn't make any sense that close to 50 percent of the people are coming in just by happenstance. MR. SCOTT: Well, understand too that there's a difference between if you're looking at it from a daily trip versus peak hours. Is someone going to go there versus -- in the peak. And we're concerned with peak hour, you might have higher -- you might have circumstances that people -- it's -- it's less during nonpeak, but higher during peak hour. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But the answer is still the same. You've got 5,800 and all of a sudden you're saying these peak hours come. And I find that to be almost unbelievable. MR. SCOTT: It's high. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it is. I think the figures are wrong. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Scott? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, I have one more. Table 2-A, which I know you don't have in front of you, but I just want to ask you about it. They have an annual rate of growth that they use to calculate the trip generations for projections as to when they're going to hit the road. They used 5.7 percent as the assumed rate of growth based on the Livingston Road -- on Livingston Road based on Collier County Traffic Count Report. I just want to make sure in the future if I ask if you verified that, that someone will tell me they have it. MR. SCOTT: That -- that's -- Livingston has them. There's not a long history there, but obviously we do year by year. You can look and see what the growth is providing. Page 99 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I have, Don. Thank you. Any other questions of staff, the applicant, Mr. Scott? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure? There was a gentleman that came up to me and asked me who to give the slip to. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said ifhe gives it to Ray, Ray will never -- never miss it. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry. We do have one, Robert Morgan. Sorry about that. MR. MORGAN: That's all right. My name's Robert Morgan for the record. I live in Livingston Woods at 6960 Bottlebrush Lane. Some other people -- some of my neighbors wanted to come, but they were unable to so they said, Hey, can you voice our opinions, but I'll just speak on behalf of myself since I don't care to state who they are. Also, let you know, I am involved in commercial development and am a commercial realtor here in Collier County, so I know a little bit more about the process than, say, my neighbors. So they would ask me questions. The one thing that I -- again, I met with Todd -- I want to say that -- with Todd and spoke to Heidi as well. If T odd was doing this development and I knew he was doing it, I'd have no question and say, Go ahead and do it, Todd. From the artist's rendering it's a gorgeous, you know, center. But the question comes to me is if Todd flips this. If it's sold to someone else, you have a lot of issues which Brad hit on -- I think on the head which has to do with size. The road -- I'm glad that they took the road out. And the road has to do with the security issue in our neighborhood. There's a lot of families with children, and we're trying to keep the traffic down in Page 100 ----^" December 1, 2005 there. We did have a problem with someone knocking down mailboxes and stuff and we had the sheriff out there. And right now there's only one way in and one way out of that neighborhood besides one exit road that's, like, 100 yards down from or 300 yards down from the stoplight. So we're trying to keep it that way. And if we want to go to that neighborhood center, we'll drive there or there is a sidewalk that is on the east side of Livingston Road that I'm assuming they're going to continue and bring it down in front of the center. So, therefore, you can still walk. You can still ride your bike and go there. So the road -- I'm glad it's not there for security standpoint. In reference to the uses, I'm concerned if he flips this. If he flips this, as Brad was stating, it can be a big box use. I just want you-all to work with Todd in reference to finding out what can be set, the limitations, so it doesn't hurt him as a developer, but it also doesn't create a problem for the neighborhood. And I being a developer and representing developers, I know that this is all money generated. So you really have to -- it has to make sense for him to go ahead and do the development. And it has to make sense for the neighborhood. And I think they're doing a good job working with that. So I would just wish you-all to continue to work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Were you here for the first part of the meeting? MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir, I was. And I heard you-all talking about you had the limitations. And I know Todd at one time, retail and professional office, how I look at it is two different things. And a professional office, I mean, he could put as much as he wants on there with the height restrictions and stuff like that. But what I'm concerning about is if you start losing outparcels, because this is only, what, a 35,000 square foot inline center before outparcels. I don't think there's another one in Collier County with that many outparcels. So if you start losing outparcels and making bigger retail sizes, Page 101 December 1, 2005 then if you have an unlimited size that you could have for a retail use, it'd be difficult. I spoke with Bob with Hole, Montes before this and said, We'll have to go for C3. He goes, well, he can only name or count on his hand maybe 10 of a 100 that he's done that is not a PUD. But then you don't go and say, Hey, give me the C3. Because C3 does limit your sizes. And I think C3 would hurt Todd as a developer as well though. So I think there is a happy medium to where they can do this development. It will be a good development. I think it will add to the community. I know Steve Hublin (phonetic) is doing a strip -- well, a neighborhood center across the way as well. So I'm just trying to keep it from having to where you have a big-box user. Because Brad had mentioned -- and I don't think the big-box user will go there because really they aren't going to pay high a rental rate as your smaller inline would. So I think it's detrimental; but like I said if it's not Todd, if it's someone else, if it's XYZ Development Company, the door's open. So if you-all can continue to work with Todd with that in reference to the uses and size to where it works for him and works for more, like, you know, the neighborhood, I'd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Brad, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question for the neighborhood. MR. MORGAN: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's your thoughts on a pedestrian/bicycle path in the back of this thing? MR. MORGAN: I -- I wouldn't see it being a problem. From the people I talk to in the neighborhood, it's the vehicular traffic that they're worried about. And you know they were going to put in, I Page 102 ----" December 1, 2005 think it was an egress lane, well, no one's going to be there to police the egress -- ingress, egress. People would go back and forth and we'd have delivery trucks, so that was what we were concerned about, delivery trucks and people either doing vandalism or crime in the neighborhood and then using this as an escape route. So if it's a bicycle or a walk path, Todd and them want to put it in, fine. But I'm assuming that -- I mean, that center it's only 35,000 square feet. You're thinking about only, what, maybe -- what's the whole width of the lot, maybe 300, 400, 500 yards? No, 500 feet? People could walk that to the sidewalk that's over there that will be going along Livingston Road is what I assumed. And then you could just come right in I would assume. Maybe they could have a sidewalk that goes out to the main county sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MORGAN: Cause -- because people do bicycle a lot in the neighborhood so that's why I would assume those people would go. Because if you walked from any of the homes besides the ones right behind there, you'd have on average probably more than a mile to walk. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. MORGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: I only have the one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that then we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-5431 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval subj ect to staff recommendations and the recommendation of the County Planning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. Page 103 "-_. December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein. Sectioned by -- seconded by Commissioner Murray. Other discussion? I have a list of stipulations. If you want, I'll read them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to hear them. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are -- first of all, I didn't see any staff recommendations so I don't know of any we're endorsing. The first stipulation would be a maximum square footage of any single retail use or tenant not to exceed 25,000 square feet. And, additionally, a hardware store would be limited to 15,000 square feet. Number two, we'll accept the affordable housing contribution at $0.50 a square foot and approval of the SDP as noted in their submittal to us. That's -- that's been accepted as an exhibit. Number three, within the language of their PUD, we'll be deleting Items 3 and 4 under Section 8 .2. We will add a deviation section to explain Item 10.1H. We will add language as requested by the county attorney for under Section 10.1 B in discussion of the dedication and conveyance of the loop road. And also pursuant to the county attorney's request, we'll add language to Section 8.2 regarding specifics for essential services. And a fourth item would be the applicant -- the applicant will be restricted from attending a CO on any building within this parcel until 12/06. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Mark, one question. It's noted in -- just above the staff recommendation that the developer has committed to an eight-foot wall. Do we want add that to the stipulation as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I saw that in the body of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's right above the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I thought it was in the PUD. I Page 104 December 1, 2005 checked that. I thought I saw it in the PUD. If I'm wrong, someone __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is? Okay. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Through that wall, what's the thought of putting a gate onto that back road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- to be honest with you and Ray's right, the BCC has been pretty consistent in not wanting access up there. I think that's an issue that they can decide on, not us. I mean, if we recommend it, then it's going to go up with a recommendation from us to them. I'd rather let them make that decision if they've been rather strong on it lately, but it's up to you guys if you're going to want to add it on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it is a smart growth item, but if there's that much -- they maybe penny wise and pound foolish for the future, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And to be consistent with all the approvals, there was no pedestrian access specifically prohibited as a matter of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don? MR. SCOTT: Not that it will be done, but it would be nice to make it possible. And I understand this one's closer to the corner, but we do have an issue when you get further down. If you go to the back, like -- and it's been stipulated up and down -- like, near where the racetrack is, if you go in the back, you can see people riding back and forth with their A TV s or walk to the back of that. And we've been precluding a lot out along there. And it would be nice to be able to do that up and down for at least possibility nothing more than pedestrian access and the -- and just trying to make that available for __ particularly when it gets a wall all the way down, it's going to be a long way around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a request to add as a Page 105 '..--~~~~' December 1, 2005 stipulation a pedestrian access to Livingston Woods; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CARON: And the neighborhood seemed to have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The neighborhood -- one person who lives in the neighborhood has not expressed a concern over that. Except Mr. Anderson who might live in the neighborhood might want to tell us that. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bruce Anderson. I've handled several of the PUDs along this stretch of Pine Ridge Road. And I can tell you based on my experience over the last ten or so years rezoning along that stretch, they don't want access period whether it be a walker, a biker, or a car. They are concerned about interstate travelers, about crime, about homeless people. And they have been very consistent about that over the years. And -- and I would ask you not to include that as a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad you spoke up because I would rather not include it, but I didn't want the vote to be lost because of that. So if the feeling of the board is not that strong on it, I'd just as soon leave it out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While it may be a smart growth principle, if the neighborhood doesn't want it that strongly, then I can't -- I see no reason to make -- MR. ANDERSON: I'm just afraid that putting it in will guarantee, you know, a half a room full of people at the -- at the board hearing to complain about the pedestrian access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means it gets possibly pulled off the consent agenda if it's headed that way to begin with. That would really be a problem. I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly don't want -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You accept the change not to have the-- well, it wasn't added in the first place. We were discussing. So we're Page 106 ^~--- December 1, 2005 not going to have any language in the stipulations regarding the pedestrian access at this point. Any other discussion with the board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve with those stipulations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody against? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done. Thank you. We've got a couple small issues to finish up on our agenda and then we can take a lunch break until one o'clock. I think, Commissioner Schiffer, you had a -- two items of old business. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two items. One is Ray was going to look into the commissioner training course we took. It's actually in the minutes that we just approved. Ray, did you do anything or do we know anything or -- MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. Could you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The commissioner, when we took that seminar, the two-day seminar, we were going to get some sort of certification from that. MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to check with Joe. I thought Joe was going to handle that. I'll -- I'll find out what happened with that. That was the seminar? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the other thing is Page 107 December 1,2005 that as a planning commissioner watching the news -- and it's the word "planning" that confuses me a lot here is I see all these people, the problems, the housing not being able to get help and stuff. Should we be doing something? How come I feel guilty when I watch the news segment on people who can't even get people to work at the Tasty Cream or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- if you read this booklet I had prepared, you might find something in there by next meeting that you read enough to ask the county attorney if we could do something pursuant to your reading of this document. Because there's a lot of latitude provided in this book and rules and regulations for the planning commission that we have not been exercising as pointed out by you, Brad, at one of our prior meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I read those and that's why I feel guilty. I think that -- that, you know, could this town be having trouble because we're not discussing these issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's another thing you-all need to be aware of on December 9th at nine in the morning, there's a workshop in this room with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss that very issue. So it is moving ahead. Maybe we -- many of you that can attend that meeting on next Friday at nine o'clock, it might be beneficial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, another thing we got a notice that there's a public transportation workshop showing, you know, the roads to the year 2030. We've never had any presentation. We've never had them discuss that with us. So, again, should I feel guilty that we don't do anything about transportation or __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think -- I think what you ought to do is come back with a recommendation based on the latitude that's provided in the rules that allow us to exist after you -- if you -- I mean, if you -- if there's a rule that if pursuant to one of those rules there's various studies we can initiate, requests, demographic and all Page 108 December 1, 2005 kinds of things, look at that and see an area that you think we can help, why don't we bring it to the board for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mark, an excellent job to pull all those laws together and put them in a book like you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'll be fun reading. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be fun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep you awake at night. The other -- I had -- I had one comment before we get into one news -- one new business item and that is if we have issues like Commissioner Adelstein had concerning procedural issues that need the county attorney's opinion on, if we can ever get -- if we get our packets early enough to a point we can read them early enough and possibly ask the county attorney either bye-mail or phone to research the issue before the meeting, it might help make the meeting run a little smoother. So maybe in the future we can try to get that accomplished. And that's all -- everything under old business. Commissioner Adelstein, you had an item? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. New business. As being new business, it has to start with a motion. I move that there must be an owners' meeting within one year of the petition being heard by the CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That maybe an LDC issue. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it -- that you can direct that be considered for an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. But -- and for an LDC amendment. I know it's got to go that way, but I want to put it down because basically the idea of not -- first of all, I need a second before I do anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's been made. Well, I think you might want to clean your motion up. You're making a motion to recommend that a neighborhood informational meeting be held within Page 109 "._-~." December 1, 2005 one year of the project's presentation to us? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: To us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that would -- pursuant to the changing the LDC to have that accomplished. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that then. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The idea being that when we have people who three years ago or four years ago had a meeting and all of a sudden they find out that now it's going forward, nothing's been told to them, could do some real hardships to them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the property could be flipped as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion on the request Commissioner Adelstein asked of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the thing, we might want to look at adding into that also that -- that after you go before the neighborhood committee meeting, sometimes there's substantial site plan revisions and things happen. So somewhere it would be nice to see some sort of a threshold where you may have to go back again if, in fact, you've made changes. Some of the changes may be requested by the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I -- I think the indication to staff is they need to take a look at the issue thoroughly and come back with a recommendation to us. And I imagine the BCC's got to recommend that they would want it changed to begin with, but at least we would initiate the discussion. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made and seconded. Is there a motion to -- is there a -- we'll call for the question. Page 110 -"""""_._~-''^ December 1, 2005 All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody object? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Okay. Motion passes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One question. It may be old business. We spoke about going to Immokalee, and I can't remember when we talked about when we were going to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they schedule the review in front of us for the Immokalee Master Plan review, that group wants to prepresent the project to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of courtesy to them and requests pursuant to the documents I passed out today, you'll see that we can have meetings in Immokalee and we probably should have meetings that involve that town so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My thing was I couldn't remember when it was supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They haven't set the date yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion of addenda? None. We're adjourned. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. We're not. Page 111 -'-..' -'·_..,,_,_.ø December 1, 2005 MR. WHITE: I'd ask if you'd take a recess for lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recessing for lunch. But lunch will be -- and time certain one o'clock back here for the Land Development Code hearing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone. This is our 1 :00 Land Department Code session. We are back in the meeting that we started this morning. Just for historical purposes, I guess I should put on record that this is a continuation of the land revised amendments for the land development code 2A cycle -- no, second cycle. Our first hearing was, I believe, August 17th and then we had another one on August 18th, and another one September 30th, and we tried to have one on October 28th, and I think that was continued to today. Am I close, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. I have been dying to say this for years, close enough for government work, Mr. Strain. Since tomorrow is my last day, I guess I can get away with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Suffice it to say that due to the intervening number of days between that last scheduled meeting and today, we went ahead and re-advertised. And I've reviewed the Affidavit of publication and find that it is legally sufficient and will be turning it over to recorder for record keeping purposes. This is, as you've indicated, the continuation of the first public hearing we've had on these items. And until this point in time, the commission has not decided to have a, quote, second public hearing on them, but rather, as you've indicated, a succession of meetings on that first public hearing. And so, assuming we work through the agenda items today, my understanding is there will be a further continuance to a later date to consider other matters that weren't Page 112 December 1,2005 scheduled for today. Those in particular being the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle matters. Other than that, I have no housekeeping matters and would turn it back over to Ms. Fabacher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, my memory is not what it used to be. But I think we left off in kind of the middle of the original packet. We have also received recently supplements to that original packet. And we have a new packet on Golden Gate business district overlay . We also got new packages for Bayshore and Gateway but those aren't going to be heard until December-- MS. FABACHER: The 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: at time certain 10:00 in the morning. MS. F ABACHER: So, what's your preference? Do you have an organized way to get us off and running here today that you'd recommend? MS. F ABACHER: Well, I thought we would start with the clam nursery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds fine. We'll go through the oldest stuff first and then go back to the newer stuff? MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. I think that would be the way to go. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll let you lead the way. We're on page 83A, clam nursery as sandwiched in between the Bayshore and the Gateway supplements to our book. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Does everybody have that? MR. MURRAY: No. MS. MURRAY: Page 83 in your original document. Susan Murray, for the record. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the original document, the Gateway Triangle was a bulk of pages. And then after that you had the Bayshore overlay, but in between those two bulky pages was a three page insert called clam nursery. Good place for it. Page 113 _. December 1, 2005 MS. F ABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't recognize it there. MS. F ABACHER: I apologize for that. I went numerically by the alphabet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It squeezed in there. MS. FABACHER: One of these days when we have time we'll just rearrange the code to be more reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did that once. All right. Patrick took care of that. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Sorry. Okay. Essentially all this is doing, and this is Board of County Commissioners' request, is to make clammed nurseries, which is just a small operation at somebody's residence, a permitted use in Goodland overlay as opposed to the conditional use that it was. And quite a bit of comment, they've been waiting for three years I thik to have this done. We went to the EAC. They thought it was a fabulous idea. The DESAC had no problem with it. Something that we have kind of promised the residents over there that we would be doing for sometime now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any questions on the matter. I did call some of the residents down there that I know and they, like you had said, were looking forward to this being done. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question. This is intended to be done on peoples' property on a small scale? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then it's number nine -- is that describing something larger in your backyard, or is this requiring a site development plan, or site improvement plan? MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure what the concern is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, If some guy has a private home and wants to put a clam nursery in the back, they have to go through an SIP process? Page 114 December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would that cost that person? MS. MURRAY: It's really dependant on what he needs to do. He's going to have to, you know, an insuranceand application fee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this is like thousands of dollars, right? MS. MURRAY: Possibly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the intent to let these people, you know, get going easily to start raising clams on there rather than -- it just seems -- MS. F ABACHER: Isn't there a difference between like a clam farming facility versus someone just putting something in the raceway in the back of their yard, the waterway there? I think that was put in in case someone was going to put in a big operation. MS. MURRAY: You're probably right. Let me look it up in the code. We don't have the whole thing. I think there's actually a definition between the two, but let me check on that for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this would be describing a large scale clam -- MS. FABACHER: Right, right. Obviously, nobody should be charged that kind of money to see tiny little clams in the ditch. I think that was to protect us against someone starting up a big operation, not the local small scale individual that we were thinking of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff is going to respond to Commission Schiffer at some future date? MS. MURRAY: No. Let me look while we're talking now. If I can get the answer, fine, if not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on and we'll come back and revisit it. Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Okay. The next thing would be Michelle's presentation on the latest revision to Goodland and we do have -- to Page 115 .-~.~",. December 1,2005 the Gateway. Golden Gate. I'm sorry. Downtown overlay. Downtown district overlay and we do have a speaker for that too. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Michelle Mosca, for the record, with the county's comprehensive planning staff. I would like to very briefly provide the genesis of the amendment as well as address the changes that I've passed out to the commission today and then answer any specific questions that you may have regarding the overlay. In June of 200 1 the Board of County Commissioners appointed individuals to the Golden Gate master plan restudy committee. Primarily for the purpose of studying the Golden Gate area, and to assist staff with revisions to the Golden Gate area master plan. As a result of this restudy process, the committee recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that a downtown center commercial district be created along the Parkway to serve as an entryway into the community and provide a downtown commercial area for citizens of Golden Gate and the Estates. In October of 2004, the board of County commissioners adopted amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan establishing this subdistrict. Staff was then directed by the Board of County Commissioner to work with ADHOC committee and the Golden Gate community to establish in implementing zoning overlay district which is before you today for your consideration. I've handed out revisions to the overlay which are result of additional conversation with the former ADHOC Committee as well as Chairman Strain. The changes are highlighted for your ease of use. And if you would refer to the version left-hand comer on page 130, 12/01/05 number two, and those pages should directly correspond to the original version, the 12/01/05 still in the left-hand corner. There are approximately five substantive changes, and the remaining changes either deal with the formatting or grammar. The first substantive change is on page 134. Is everyone on the commission with me? I'm looking at the highlighted package, which Page 116 --- ^ ""-~..,._,-_.. December 1, 2005 is number two. And the item is number seven -- the nonconforming use provision was removed because it's not applicable to the uses in the overlay. We had originally put the nonconforming provision in there to make the owner, nonowner occupied residential legally nonconforming, but they're going to cease to exist up to seven years, so we removed that provision and we didn't want to make the owner occupied nonconforming and then they would have limitations placed on them. Because the intent is to allow those residential uses to continue. And that would only be, again, for the owner occupied residential. The next change is on page 135. I'm sorry 135A, and it's in the table, the permitted use table. Automotive parking. The committee had requested that we exclude tow in parking lots from that SIC. The next change is on page 135K under footnote F. We've also included within that exception religious organizations and group 8661, which would include churches, which would not be allowed on this segment of the overlay. The next change is on page 137, former number six. We have removed the requirement from minimum floor area due to the removal of the requirement in former number seven to limit building occupancy. So both six and seven have been removed. This was thought that this would preclude certain types of businesses such as a small cafe from coming into the downtown area, because the single occupancy was required on the first floor, which would require 3,000 square feet. And then the last substantive change is on 138. And after my discussions with Chairman Strain, what we have tried to do, and hopefully I've met the goal here, is to make the measurement for minimum height and maximum height consistent with the LDC definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did a good job. MS. MOSCA: So, I'll just open it up if anyone has any Page 11 7 _..~..,. December 1, 2005 questions, if you'd like me to go provision by provision, I'll leave that up to the commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the Commissioners have any questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'll start if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, starting on page 131. I'm going to work from my top thing. Staff has concerns and have those concerns been addressed? MS. MOSCA: What we've decided to do -- originally the ADHOC Committee, what they were proposing was an advisory committee to review plans for set principles. And we have talked to our administrator, Joe Schmitt, and we've decided not to include that type of advisory committee in the overlay because it would be, in fact, advisory in nature, and maybe inconsistent with a provision in the Land Development Code, or a provision that exists in the overlay. So we have not included it, but wanted to bring it forward to you because the committee had wished for this type of committee to be established. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like the position you've taken. I think it's the right one. Land Development Department ought to be the one to be reviewing land development submittals. Not every department in the county separately with their own group of people. They have budgets for that. Then we have a serious problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 133, in the middle of number one. It says residential dwelling units constructed in this overlay district are intended for employees who work within Golden Gate City or Golden Gate Estates, retirees, and seasonal residents. I would think that you'd want to take out seasonal residents because I think the purpose of this whole overlay, and that Commissioner Henning and his group have worked towards is, I mean, I know Commissioner Henning is worried about the flipping of: Page 118 December 1, 2005 residentials. And if you intend to have seasonal folks -- I mean, if it says here we intend. MS. MOSCA: If I may, that actually has been stricken through. Perhaps you have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's on the new one. All right. I can only go by my -- MS. MOSCA: I apologize. I thought it was on the original that was sent. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While Donna is taking a breath here, how can you control the intended -- MS. MOSCA: We're not able to control what it is intended for. They have -- the committee has proposed, I believe it's 1500 square feet per unit. So that would probably preclude your small type of rental units for that type of development. Are you referring -- I'm sorry. Are you referring to the types of individuals that are renting, not renting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just -- I mean, you're intending this to be, but you really have no control over who lives there, at least, by the Fair Housing Act? MS. MURRAY: I can refer to Patrick. MR. WHITE: If I may, assistant county attorney, Patrick White. The revised provisions that were distributed today double strike through all of the text and one that essentially talks about any of those classes of users or occupants and simply go with a lawfully appropriate public purpose. The residential dwelling units constructed in the overlay public district are intended to promote residence dash business ownership. I think that's an accurate statement, and certainly, as I said, a lawful public purpose, without getting over the line into these more discrete classes of potential occupants, which I think was a concern that both of the commissioners raised. Hopefully that addresses it by striking that text. Page 119 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 136C. Can you exclude any essential service? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That page doesn't exist anymore. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can't go from two different copies. If you've taken that out, tell me you've taken it out. MS. MOSCA: It's actually 135C, and under essential services we have an exception. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 135B? MS. MOSCA: C. COMMISSIONER CARON: What I'm asking is, can you exempt certain essential services? MS. MOSCA: With an overlay, I believe we can, yes. We have excluded -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's not an issue. Whatever your 135F -- parks are allowed, or not allowed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 135G. MS. MOSCA: Not allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Are not allowed. Well, in number one, back at the beginning, pocket parks are encouraged. So we have conflicting -- MS. MOSCA: Yes, we do. We'll have to change that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent will be to allow pocket parks? MS. MOSCA: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER CARON: And, Michelle, you already told me that you corrected 18 as being the same as 20 on page 139? MS. MOSCA: Is that the duplication for the architectural? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I guess everything else has gotten answered. Thank you. Page 120 December 1, 2005 MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alright, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to be flipping back and forth. Let me make sure I understand the minimum height and maximum height. What you're saying is that any building built has to be a minimum height, and this we're going to use zoned height for that so -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The mid height to the roof cannot be less than 34 feet. But then you're also saying that the top of the roof can't be greater than 45 feet. So essentially you're fixing the geometry . MS. MOSCA: Yes. That was the intent of the committee as well as the community, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that can be a flat roof that could have a 45- foot high flat roof building. MS. MOSCA: Well, the architectural design is intended to be a sloped roof, the mediterranean tile barrel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you wouldn't accept the flat roof even though I could show you a picture from the mediterranean? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- the side setback are minimum now of four was -- they'll be fixed at five feet, now they're at a minimum of five feet. MS. MOSCA: No less than five feet. That was a correction made by legal staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So between all the buildings, there will be a gap between buildings on the properties then? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You do state that you wanted these to be built with low crime. I mean, wouldn't it be better to let Page 121 December 1,2005 the buildings be built close together? MS. MOSCA: This was a community initiative, and that's what the community decided they wanted that area to look like that with spacing in between the buildings. So it's reflective of their wishes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And their building to which is now -- it's now 11, architectural standards. MS. MOSCA: Would you mind, just let me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 139. MS. MOSCA: 139? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have the architectural standards guru with us, but what it states is that unless stated otherwise, these would prevail. E sets up something where you're going to have to break the roof lines at 5,000 feet. So is that to override the roof line requirements of the code? MS. MOSCA: Yes. The LDC requires roof line changes every 100 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Give me a second to go between them. Okay. That's fine. I'll pass. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Michelle, I appreciate it. I had a quite a few and pursuant to our discussion, the yellow highlights on this revision seem to take care of most all of them. I did have a couple left that I know we talked about. You may not have been able to do anything about it because its transportation problems. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you know what they are and I'll share them with the commission as soon as Don Scott wouldn't mind coming up and we can talk about Golden Gate Parkway's right of way. Hi, Don. MR. SCOTT: Hi. Don Scott, transportation planning. Page 122 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are two issues in here that, when I read this a couple nights ago, I was concerned about the relationship to other proj ects we've seen, or other overlays we've seen come through. One of them is on page 139A -- and I'll read it to you because you may not have it in front of you -- talks about outdoor display slash sale of merchandise and outdoor restaurant seating areas. Item B, outdoor restaurant seating shall be permitted to encroach up to a maximum of five feet into a public sidewalk. Now, my concern about that is, I know we had this issue come up either on Bayshore, Gateway, or both. Theres a, if I'm not mistaken, sidewalks are within the right of way. The right of way is owned by the taxpayers. How is the liability of that issue to be handled? MR. SCOTT: I think there was some discussion from a liability aspect. I'd rather have Patrick answer it. Obviously, we don't want to carry the liability. One of the things that we've said is that we'd like to have six feet of unobstructed, based on having six feet on collector's arterials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have a six foot sidewalk, and they're allowed to intrude upon that by five feet, the publics only got one foot left to walk. MR. SCOTT: Actually, they were talking about 10 feet, and going in five feet. And we were trying to get keep six feet of unobstructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 10-foot could also be a problem, which is my second question for you. But first maybe Patrick could answer the possibility of the restaurants using tables and patrons sitting on sidewalks that the rest of the public has a right to use for bicycles and skateboards and all those good things. MR. WHITE: There's actually two sets of issues. The first of them is, I guess what I'll characterize as I have in the past, more of a real property law type of an issue. That has to do with the fact that, as you've indicated, this is essentially land that's owned by the public, by Page 123 December 1,2005 the county. And as such, there's the potential that that publicly owned land would be used for a private benefit by the individual property owners. That's not something that the courts are unfamiliar with and they generally balance the line between the use as one where there's -- so long as there's essentially more of a public than private benefit, it doesn't seem to offend those types of constitutional principles. Here, if the use were going to be one that was of a temporary or, more concretely, a non-permanent nature, in other words the tables, chairs were not permanently affixed. There's no guardrail or fence that demarks the public versus private space. I think that we can stay on the right side of the constitutional issue. The other ,concern has to do with the liability. And the analogous circumstance in terms of a temporary structure in a public place might be a sandwich sign that's placed out on the sidewalk. What happens in an instance where pedestrian, bicyclist, whatever, collides with the sandwich sign? I think the way the county has tended to look at those things outside of the notion of sovereign immunity is to look for the property owner -- as part of whatever is the appropriate application for development approval, STP building permit, whatever, to provide a legally appropriate hold harmless agreement that essentially absolves the county from liability. Whether, in fact, it will or not under a particular set of facts, at least we're doing on the government side, what can be done to minimize the exposure, in terms of a legal context. And, factually, I think the notion of how we minimize that exposure is, as Don has indicated, to try to have at least a six foot clear zone. And by doing that, you are looking, at least from the vehicle and other uses of the sidewalk, trying to keep them separated, so that the conflicts and potential injuries and damage to the property are minimal. So, that's probably, other than to answer your questions, you know, the shortest answer I could give you. Hopefully that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very thorough. Thank you. What that says is that this may need to be amended to require a minimum of six Page 124 December 1,2005 foot clear sidewalk be left regardless of the intrusion, that any tables and chairs used on the sidewalk portion that is usable are portable, movable and not affixed. And that the tenant or the landowner that is using this signs a hold harmless agreement with the county and effuctuates some issues regarding liability from the public. Is that a summary? MR. WHITE: Yes. And I think the thing to kind of give you the distinction of where, I guess, a public private where there's permanent installation would be seen as acceptable. But again, with a hold harmless, would be the circumstance where you'd have someone who wants to put in landscaping rather than, let's say, tables and chairs. And that landscaping would be intended to provide an ansthetic benefit to the public generally. And being hold harmless would be intended to ensure that any maintenance or installation performed by the private property owners or their agents would protect the county. But that would be a circumstance where something that arguably is, quote, more permanent can be allowed to occupy that space. And we do that typically in a more common context with landscaping maintenance agreements in the rights of way, usually in medians. But here it could be an edge of right of way, for example, and it could be kind of a distinguishing set of facts that show you where the courts look at how you balance between a public and private versus public and public private use. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically the statute has been going on with the idea that if you remove it on a likely basis and put it indoors, you are guaranteeing that the owner is going to be responsible. But they can't be left out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Michelle, you got the gist of possibly some corrections that may be needed pursuant to legal reasoning? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, there's one other issue, and it's on Page 125 December 1, 2005 page 139C. It actually starts at 139B. The distance has talked about from the edge of the curb. They're asking for basically amountable curb efforts. And then eight feet of landscape area and 10 feet of sidewalk. I don't believe there's any -- that kind of curbing that currently exist in that area. And I'm wondering if this is written and structured in the way it's written here, would all those have to be within the right of way, and if they're not in the right of way, we need provisions in here to require easements for those particular buffers or uses or edges that are being required by this code. MR. SCOTT: First of all, they aren't out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are not or are? MR. SCOTT: There is no curbing out there. Obviously, adding curbing, the one issue with that is the drainage. There is inlets on the side of the road, but the other issue with the drainage from this inlet standpoint is there's no treatment right now. That goes right out to the canals. If you put curbing in and some of the other things that we talked about, and we've talked about this in the sense that they'll have to do some type of treatment, but hopefully it will be shared treatment, but obviously it depends on how these developments come forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For example, the thing in front of you, look at the three blocks on the north side of the Parkway. What if the guy in the center lot and that block, bulldozes down his duplex and decides he wants to put a commercial facility there to meet the minimum standards of this code. How does he put the curb in and all the other elements that are requested in this code or required in this code right now? MR. SCOTT: It's problematic to do one little piece of it. Now, one of the things we talked about is trying to do a mass -- kind of a master plan from that side of it, the drainage -- and I don't know how we're going to address that as we go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those things are good. And this is a good idea for Golden Gate. I don't have a problem with that. I'mjust Page 126 December 1, 2005 concerned that if we pass this code and someone walks up and says, okay, I own that piece of property, here's what I'm going to build here. It's going to meet the code, how do we tie all these elements in that nobody on either side of them or behind them or anywhere else has done? How is the approach going to be handled or required to be handled? MR. SCOTT: That's where the drainage side of it is such -- I mean, someone coming in developing a small parcel by itself is problematic without doing other parcels with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. And, again, I'm back at the position, if this gets passed and someone tries to functionally use it, can they? And what do we do to allow them to use it, based on the fact that it becomes a law of the land? Has anybody looked at any of these long term problems or issues? Russell Tuff has. COMMISSIONER TUFF: On the south side of the Parkway, they did a similar thing where you cannot develop your property unless you combined all these units. That way you don't have little tiny little spots. What you're describing, if this guy wants to buy this little spot in back and do all that, he can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say that in here though. I understand what -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I mean, he can if you will allow him, but it's intended so that he has to get an order to make it happen, because the requirements won't allow it. He can do it if he could pull it off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm getting at is, don't we need to have a paragraph in here about aggregation of properties in order to function? COMMISSIONER TUFF: That was done and then it was taken off because they said you can't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe I'm missing something. If I am, that's fine. I'm just wondering how a property Page 127 December 1, 2005 owner who wants to abide by this can do so at this point, a single property owner. MS. MOSCA: If I may, Mr. Chairman. We do have a provision in the overlay which states that the overlay district encourages the aggregation of properties. That's what the intent is, to have those aggregational properties in order to accommodate the type of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And fthe guy that was buying it wasn't encouraged enough monetarily to buy any other properties, could he still build his one single unit commercial in the center of that block? MS MOSCO: I would say that he would have a very difficult time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means this property can't move forward until a group of these people get together and agree to have it move forward. MS. MOSCA: And I believe, and maybe some of the members of the formal ADHOC Committee can speak to that, but my understanding is that that was the intent of this particular area, again, that they would encourage aggregation of properties. Whether, as you had stated, the individual in the middle is able to develop his property, that may not occur without the additional properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's been thought out, that was my concern. Don, I guess to go back to my original question, by the time you put a curb in and eight feet of landscape buffer, which is required, and ten feet of sidewalk, you have 18 feet, actually probably 20 feet because the curb is about two feet from the edge of payment. Now, is the roadway right of way in that area 20 feet deep to fit all this stuff in? Or if it isn't, what provisions are needed to be included in this code to allow us to require this on private property with the right legal documents to make sure it can be put there? MR. SCOTT: I went out there, and the bad side of the history is Page 128 December 1, 2005 I actually tried to go out and get as builts for the road and I couldn't find any. It used to be a state road at one point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No building permit? That means the road's got to come out. MR. SCOTT: Anyway, back then it probably did. As best I could, and I'm not talking about survey work, I went out and identified the right of way line, and it appeared to be about 16 to 18 feet back from the edge of the pavement right now. So some of the original things, and I thought it was eight -- I thought it was six feet in the front, but I could be mixing that up with Gateway, Bayshore too, plus the 10- foot sidewalk. You were talking about, 16 feet so it was possible. Let's put it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the utility easements in this normal right of way like this? MR. SCOTT: Right now the utilities are out there. Some of them are under the sidewalk, on the edge of the sidewalk. There was like PECO Gas is out there. Gas line. There's water line in there. Some of those will probably have to be either under the sidewalk, or possibility for some of it, there's telephone line on the -- on the -- what do you want to call it? The road in the back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alley. MR. SCOTT: The alleyway right. So that's possible too, just depending on how it develops. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not a concern about an easement for utilities? Basically you're allowing utilities withing the right of way in this particular location? Because elsewhere in Collier County your private utilities have to go in easements 10- foot outside the right of way. MR. SCOTT: Actually, we have the utilities within our right of way all over the county. But, of course, as we widen roads, that's a concern, but they have to move them at their cost, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just in case though, if it is 16 Page 129 December 1, 2005 feet, and we need 20, maybe some language can be added, Michelle, that indicates a property owner will have to provide the required amount of frontage to allow these elements to be added by an easement to Collier County for public use in regards to sidewalks, or whatever else has to be created to meet the stiffness of this code, or the code has to have some flexibility, so in those areas you can't fit 20 feet, the applicant is not coming in for a variance to reduce these by four feet, or whatever is needed. Is that something that you thought about? MS. MOSCA: Well, we could write something into the code. But it might be preferable to actually reduce the width of the sidewalk, because if we're going to start requiring, or if these cafes want to locate tables, chairs, et cetera, they might as well, at this point, locate it on their own property rather than in the public right of way. So, if we reduce it, we still get the same net affect. We'd have the six feet unobstructed because there would be no chairs, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And either way -- MS. MOSCA: And that's an option. So, what I can do is go back to the former ADHOC Committee and see how they feel about it, or if they perhaps want to speak to that issue today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have attended the meeting, as I have started to, but Mr. Tuff got appointed to this panel, and he and I couldn't be sitting in the same meeting together, so I didn't attend it. I would have expressed this earlier had I known it. If somebody were to modify so there's some flexibility so applicants aren't coming in and looking for variances for a foot or two all the time, that would probably be helpful. MS. MOSCA: My concern would be if we required the 10 feet wide sidewalk and then one property owner wasn't able to include ten feet, let's just say, and they had to reduce the sidewalk, or give up part of their property, that may also be problematic. I guess I have to think about it further. Page 130 -.....,.-..,.,....""""'.,>"--.--.- December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I mean, that's an option. Maybe Patrick might have another option. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Ma'am. MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, zoning. Staff looked at this extensively with Don's staff and our staff for Bayshore and Gateway Triangle and we kind of convinced them to have straight trees and have a larger sidewalk, but they eliminated that big planting strip out there, so that kind of pulled the sidewalk further out. But the sidewalk would still encroach on the property and the property owner would give an easement for liability purposes. You know, not maintenance. They didn't agree to -- they agreed to liability on the sidewalk but not maintenance. Is that what right of way he was talking about? MR. SCOTT: If you ask the question too many times here, we don't want liability, we don't want maintenance. It keeps going on and on. One of the things with the maintenance side, since you bring it up too is, we don't maintain -- we essentially maintain like pavement or asphalt or concrete. When you start doing brick pavers, things like that, we don't maintain that. Obviously that was a discussion we had at Bayshore and Gateway also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think, as far as direction, Michelle, I don't know if anybody here is objecting to any of this, but we've got to get these issues cleaned up on this particular document. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you maintain it, you have the obligation to pay for it that way. You have no choice. Both of those go together. MR. SCOTT: Not if it's above and beyond what we have out there right now. For instance, the asphalt sidewalk that's out there right now, if someone wanted to come in and put brick pavers up and Page 131 December 1, 2005 down it, we don't have to maintain that. A lot of places -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, you don't. The minute they do, they have to. In other words, it comes with -- when you do the work, then you maintain it. That's their responsibility. As long -- MR. SCOTT: Because of the landscaping and other things we have raised, there will be separate agreements with either a group of them or singly that they will maintain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you put it in, I can't think of any law obligation more perfect than, if you want to put it in, you will maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is, the landscaping, we're saying it has to be per our landscape code, which again, is a suburban code. Does that mean we have to do the buffers and everything that the code requires? MS. MOSCA: Unless it's spelled out otherwise in the overlay, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are there areas -- like, for example, this conversation you're having, there's nothing in there that precludes the front buffer that's required, is there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean precludes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the building wouldn't have to have a buffer on the front setback? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're saying Golden Gate, you've got eight feet of landscape, you have to have a ten-foot sidewalk, then you also have to have a commercial buffer, but I don't think that's what this thing is intending. What it's intending is to have is restaurant seating. I don't think, you can't have seating in the buffer. MS. MOSCA: Well, there's an exception for the properties along Page 132 December 1, 2005 the Parkway. They would have to provide planters or planter areas. So it wouldn't fall back on the landscaping and the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would go back to setbacks. In other words, somewhere -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 139C on the top there's some landscaping elements, brad, right above the area we were just talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, find me something that gets rid of that buffer. MS. MOSCA: That's actually on 139C, that's referring to that eight feet wide landscape strip in the right of way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought he was referring to. MS. MOSCA: I thought he was referring to the building around the actual -- on the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've got this urban thing in your mind up to the property line were doing fine. Once you hit the property line, you've got a landscape buffer such as you have up in front of Longhorn. And then you have -- and the building setback issue is on page 136, the setback. There's some changes to that now, as I'm trying to catch up on the fly zoning here. but the intent of this, I think is that -- first of all, all proj ects provided in front setback greater than zero feet. That's essentially all projects. That must be restaurant seatings, have decorative planters. See, I don't even think that exempts you from the landscape buffer. There is argument -- I think there was code even that if the setback is less than the buffer, the buffer can be reduced to that setback. But, again, you're trying to create an urban scene here. I think landscape codes, suburban landscape codes -- another issue is not just buffer since we have perimeter planting, we call it foundation planting. We have foundation planting requirements that would require landscaping around the building. Page 133 December 1,2005 And then the other question in this, I think is not caused any urban thing is, we're not allowed parking structures yet we have reduced parking requirements. So, how are we going to handle -- where is the parking going to go? And when you did this thing, is there any kind of street section? I mean, the typical planning showing what these words mean and, you know, graphics? Have any of those been prepared to show on the street parking stuff like that? MS. MOSCA: What I'd like to do is probably defer to a few of the committee members, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before, Michelle -- I think Mike Sawyer is here. Mike, could you comment for us in response to Brad's concerns about the landscape buffers and how the LDC would apply to this overlay, if you are aware of it. I don't even know if you've reviewed this or not. MR. SAWYER: I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, for the record, Mike Sawyer, State Planner, Zoning and Land Development Review. I did not work on this particular overlay. Nancy Goodlock in our office actually did. My understanding of that at my level, was that the landscape requirements were going to be placed in that eight foot landscape area. Now, whether that's actually happening in the document before you or not, I don't know. Normally on projects like this, as the commissioners have stated, you would normally have at least a ten, possibly even a 15-foot wide type D buffer adjacent to the property on the property line from the property line in adjacent to the right of way where the building is. Normally you would have also for a small building at least a five-foot wide building perimeter planting area, the foundation planting, that would be 10 percent of the buildings footprint. If the building is larger, taller, that can go up. I can't imagine these developments, these smaller lots like this that getting bigger than Page 134 December 1, 2005 normal five foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that confirms your-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is, we all have this vision of an urban area, yet we are putting suburban requirements still on it. I think it's a simple thing to fix. It's a matter of eliminating certain things from the landscape code. In other words, if you eliminated the buffer requirements, or at least eliminated it in certain parts of the site, that would do it. If you eliminated the foundation planting requirements, I think that would do it. You know, you have to do that, otherwise you're building a suburban proj ect no matter what you do. You can write all the words you want, you're going to end up with suburbia. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. I appreciate it. Michelle, is that enough food for thought? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Michelle before we get into public speakers? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me go back to -- the parking garages are not allowed in this district, correct? They call it a parking facility. I assume that's where a parking garage is hiding these days. MS. MOSCA: I would have to check the SIC code. I was thinking that parking lots were permitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have to have a parking lot, I hope. MS. MOSCA: Right. But just on a particular lot. For example, we would allow parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're going into an suburban kind of density, I think you really should provide the ability to build parking structures. MS. MOSCA: What I could do is check the SIC -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is no SIC code for -- MS. MURRAY: Michelle, my recommendation is, if you want Page 135 ^'-~-""'" .~....._,..._>"""...- December 1, 2005 them, just make it clear that they're permitted in there. MS. MOSCA: The parking structures? MS . MURRAY: Yeah, if you want a parking structure, which I recommend that to you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you we're going to hear from the committee on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe you don't. There is an answer to saying, yeah, we want density but not that much density, so we're going to control -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find out in a minute. Did you have anymore questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Catherine, who are our speakers? MS. FABACHER: Okay. Our first speaker was Ms. Newman, Cheryl Newman. MS. NEWMAN: I'll let the chief go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's the chief of the committee as well. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, Don Peterson. I just took them in the order in which they came. MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Don Peterson. I'm one of the original members of the ADHOC Committee. Couple of things to start out with, the whole committee and the area that was identified, we knew up front that there was going to be problems in changing the area. We were going to have problems with meeting existing county standards, but we also knew that the community would like to clean that area up, and we needed to do something. So the recommendation was made that we identify it as an overlay area, because within that geographic area, we determined whatever those standards are that should go in there. Number one, we Page 136 December 1,2005 knew up front buffering was going to be an extreme issue; number two, keeping existing people whole. We wanted to make sure that nobody that was homesteaded in there was evicted as a result of this. And as the buffering requirements and different things occurred, that anybody that wanted to stay there could still stay there and be whole, and potentially the development could not occur until that homesteaded person moved out, or somebody bought them out, whatever the case is. We want to parallel as much as we could with the Golden Gate master plan because it's, although it's a separate piece of that, there were a lot of standards we're trying to incorporate in there. Some of the areas we tried to take off was Santa Barbara Boulevard on the east side of the road had some cited areas where it was residential and commercial. Alleyways are in there. Similar type of situation here where the alleyway dissects the block in a couple of places. Utility, the alleyway down the middle of these blocks right now there's a high tension power line, garbage is collected. This alleyway -- this alleyway right here. So there are some things that would have to be relocated. There's alleyways here. However, the committee looked at it as that's part of the development. If a commercial person wanted to buy that much property up, then that's what he would have to do and potentially vacate it, relocate utilities and everything. But that was all part of the discussion. As well as on the south side of the Parkway, there's been some recent developments. You were talking about the road buffering areas. In that particular case, the property owner does maintain that all the way up to the road edge. He's landscaped it better than what the normal county standard is, and that was some of the discussions we had with, if somebody owns it, they would be maintaining it because of the small space would not be practical from a county maintenance standpoint. And we had several public meetings asking the public, and they were reluctant to come in the first place because they looked at it as government was just going to do what they wanted to do. And we Page 137 December 1,2005 kept telling them no, you, as a community need to share with us what you'd like to see in there. So that's what we have attempted to do with our documents to remove some things, and parking structures, I don't recollect was any part of that discussion. It was always flat behind buildings, shared parking type of things that just as the back side of the building was to look the same as the front side of the building. We didn't want ugly alleyways put back in. Fifth Avenue type of frontage where somebody could have a table out front if they wanted to. And we knew again there was going to be some buffering issues, landscaping issues that would have to be worked with there. So we've tried to -- I know the document has gone through several revisions on it, but kind of in a nutshell, I think that's basically what we were looking at, trying to change the area because the need is there for commercial. We've got some -- so many folks coming from the Estates area in and several staff members have indicated really that's going to be the heart of the county at some point. So it was an attempt to get started and get something moving in there. And the multi-family right on the Parkway, having been there 25 years, is getting to be a real problem with the traffic out there. And maintenance and community would look better forward. So, we tried to work through some of the signage issues. We know there's conflicts with the existing ordinance. I know there's some changes that were coming up today before you. I don't know if you've dealt with those yet, but signage would certainly be some issues. We'd tried to geographically take that area, make it as friendly as we can with the residents that would stay and still allow it for commercial that somebody could be affordable. Multi ethnic and diversity. That's a walking community in that particular area, so it needs to be -- sidewalks need to be there and be very walkable pathway type of a facility whatever is put in there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple questions. Page 138 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, stay up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The shaded area in the map, how is that determined? And a question I have is, if you look at the southern part there's a row of houses coming down on the right-hand side that are not included. Why wouldn't they be included, just out of curiosity? MR. PETERSON: This area right here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. They would be facing golf course views. So the intent is they'll probably stay single family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with that kind of view and amenity, how would you aggregate that block really to make it enough depth to be effective for parking, water management, everything without -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the intent that these projects will be bought through the alleyway will be vacated? Because the alley could work out to be an excellent way to do services and stuff. MR. PETERSON: Well, that's one thing we didn't get into because different developers would do different things, and the traffic pattern may require different things. We try to identify the physical area and then let the developers determine how they're going to have to relocate utilities, where it's going to have to go and those kind of things. That's why we're trying to stay with large areas that we knew multiple parcels would have to be put together to make some of the basic stores even work in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How difficult is it to cross Golden Gate? I mean, if this was a downtown development as shaded, would somebody be able to physically walk across Golden Gate to get to the other side? MR. PETERSON: Currently there is a school crossing traffic light that's right in here where they cross every day. There currently is no facilities to accommodate crossing at any other point at this point. The hotel Quality Inn is down here. This is all residential area here. Page 139 ".-....--..^'.""'...- December 1,2005 And as long as the golf course stays there, this would probably not change because the utility, water utility is right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. Next public speaker. MS. FABACHER: This to going to be Cheryl Newman. MS. NEWMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cheryl Newman, former AD HOC Committee also. Chief Peterson pretty much covered everything. I think that showed your concerns. The question you had regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a hand-held speaker there, Chery 1. MS. NEWMAN: This area here you were talking about, these are single family residences all along here. On this side is where we had some duplexes and triplexes, so that's why you don't see these in the shaded area. I don't think I have anything else to really cover, other than there was an issue about the water management. When we were looking at this, we were trying to figure out how people could really develop this and that's where we came up with the 3,000 square foot minimum and that would be, someone would have to assemble a minimum of about three lots -- three to six -- wait. Four to six lots to get that because those lot sizes are small across the parkway. And water management was a big issue there. Water management is a big issue in Golden Gate throughout the whole four square miles. And what we were looking at was shared -- I think Don kind of alluded to it, runoffs where the ponds that they're doing now where there's a water management area, enhance those in that area itself, where it would be attractively landscaped and things like that for some of the water issues in that area. I can't think of anything else. Don pretty much covered everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a question, but I don't have anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you like parking garages? Page 140 -"."..,,--_.~ December 1, 2005 MS. NEWMAN: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The discussion about the parking garage, do you believe it's the committee's intent to have a parking facility there of more than an open lot? MS. NEWMAN: I believe they intended for all-- most of the people to travel to that area would be walking, biking. We have a lot of walking traffic in that community, especially in that area. And so the parking would be more of a shared parking lot behind with the buffering from the residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little concerned about how to move forward here today. I know that we talked about having one meeting. Does that mean, and maybe it's Patrick that has to answer this, or whoever, do we need to take a position on every single one of these today in order for it to move forward, or are we going to request that staff keep coming back until it's perfect? What are the recommendations here? This could go on for months. And I know we'd like to get some of these forward and this LDC cycle to finally end, so I'd like to see it end. It's been going on for four months. MR. WHITE: Well, obviously, you have both of those options. And as far as making a recommendation, it would be to decide those things you are absolutely comfortable with, and if you can leave out the ones that you are uncomfortable or unsure about, then perhaps you carry those forward with the rest of this cycle through the Bayshore, Gateway pace, through whatever other, you know, time line may develop. And worst case, if you have to shift it to the first cycle of '06 to complete the task, those would seem to be the full range of choices that you have. But they're all at your discretion. If you're hinting at the idea that you wanted to have a second hearing about them, certainly that's an option as well. But I think you can achieve the Page 141 _.....,._.._._-,~,-~"-,. December 1, 2005 same objective simply through a succession of continued meetings under the first public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like the simplist solution. I think that would be the simplist. At this point then the committee has provided some definitive direction to Michelle. We want Michelle to come back with corrections. Or, Michelle, what's your recommendation? Do you feel you can make the corrections that are needed and move it on to the BCC for further discussion pending the outcome of this? MS. MOSCA: I feel I'm able to make the corrections. I will have to go back to the format ADHOC Group to actually go through some of the SIC codes, because within the overlay now and the tables __ for example, someone had mentioned parking structures. It is permitted under that SIC. So I want to make sure that the committee knows exactly what uses are being provided under those various SICs. So I'm able to go forward to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that would be the wisest. So now, Patrick, as far as the various elements we've got to discuss, we just got past the clam nursery, but we didn't take a position on it. Would it be best, just for clarification, simplification, after we get done talking about each one just to give it a recommendation for moving it forward, or coming back for further discussion? MR. WHITE: My answer to that will be dependant upon my question to Catherine, which is -- or the recollection of any of you commissioners, what did you do with all of the matters previously? I can't recall whether you voted on them -- MS. FABACHER: We voted. MR. WHITE: -- and found them consistent. If you have, then I would suggest doing likewise for each of the pieces you want to bite off today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. then let's just get done with them and move them forward. Thank you. Is there a motion on Page 142 December 1, 2005 the Golden Gate overlay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one thing. I mean, I think that landscape issue is something that really has to be seriously looked at. I don't think if we forward it from here, it's going to be tough if they don't look at it from here. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, may I suggest that we do kind of __ we could defer this until after the Bayshore and Gateway on the 15th, this aspect, and by that time we'll have a good chance to look at what modifications they made along those lines, and Bayshore and Gateway. Because basically -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Similar. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. Don and his staff and our staff worked on those, and it had the same beginning. If you'll recall, we'll just kind of piggyback this one onto that one, which has been significantly changed. So maybe it will all be clear, you know, when we get to that. If we don't defer too much to the 15th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was comfortable with the direction given. I was comfortable with the fact that staff knows the problem that Commissioner Schiffer is speaking of, and I was comfortable with the fact that Michelle is very competent. And I'm sure with her discussions with the committee, they can move it forward. But if this commission wants to hear it again, I have no problem with that either. My personal feeling is this can go forward. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I make a motion we approve this to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend for approval to the BCC with corrections that we noted to Michelle today? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Discussion is -- I mean -- I Page 143 December 1, 2005 think first of all, I think what Catherine said is correct. This is -- this third project is the same as the other two, they're both urban creatures. They both have similar problems with landscape. I would like to see how they work it out. I don't know how they're going to work it out. So, we're just trusting the fact that these work out. But the problem is in the field when you design -- like Bayshore had this problem -- is that you couldn't obtain what the overlay wanted because of the landscape code, and this one has that problem. I think we should __ somebody should look at it, we should look at it before it goes to the commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's a pretty easy thing to take a look at it right after we do Bayshore and Gateway. This is not an attempt to hang it up. It's an attempt to just make sure that all the issues have been addressed so you don't go through to the BCC and then have them ask you a bunch of questions that, you know, that need to go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't doubt your statement at all and I __ but I don't see the need to keep bringing it back either. As far as I'm concerned, if the motions made to move it forward, I'm willing to move it forward. I'm sure the issue is going to be adequately addressed by staffs review. They know it's there now. If there were to go to the BCC and this wasn't addressed, I think they would have a very difficult time in the future with that issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, aren't these all going to go to the BCC at the same time anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what the BCC's agenda is for receiving it. I don't know how that's handled. Do they get the whole packet at once, the BCC? MS. MURRAY: Yes. We're waiting for you to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if we approve this today, it's not going to make any difference because you are not going to move it Page 144 December 1, 2005 forward until after the Bayshore Gateway? Well, then let's bring it back. I mean, you want to recall your motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: What I don't want to have it do is not go through because -- what's there now is not acceptable. People are going to do whatever they want. Having a faulty one is better than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was trying to expedite each one of these that we can, but if this is going to have to sit and wait like everything else -- MS . MURRAY: If something should happen -- I'll just throw this out for consideration, but I don't think it really should impact. If something should happen where something is really significantly delaying the cycle, and it's one or two items, we will likely just move forward with the cycle. I don't anticipate that happening. I just wanted to let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to schedule this before we finish on the 15th with Bayshore Gateway? MS. MURRAY: What the plan is now is to take everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might as well just use that date for everyone. Do you want to recall your motion, Russell, and recall the second, Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Michelle, you have your direction. We'll just wait to hear from you on the 15th. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You'll give us another package I bet too. MR. WHITE: Highlighted in orange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're running out of colors. As far as the clam nurseries, why don't we finish up and take a position on that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I just talked to Susan, and she said not to have any problem, let's just strike out that last provision, the Page 145 > ""..~,--_.._^...."> December 1, 2005 number nine that talked about the permitting and all of that. MS. MURRAY: There's no difference between farming and nurseries. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have that requirement in here if they're willing to have the use as a permitted use on residential property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is there a recommendation to approve section 2.03.071 with the striking of item number 9 and finding it consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made by Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Discussion? All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? None. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have saved thousands of dollars and many many months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're back on page -- give me a guess. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We're going to go to page nine of the summary sheet. And we're at the top of the page for section 2.04.03, land uses can be allowed as conditional uses. It's page 140 of your packet. And what essentially we've done, this is your original packet and this has been there from the very beginning. The definition and the use of a sporting and recreational camp was omitted from the recodification. And there's some projects that have come up now, and Page 146 December 1, 2005 staff has asked that it be put back in, the definition, and that it be returned as a conditional use in the -- let's see. MS . MURRAY: Rural agriculture zoning district. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, boss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the planning commission? Are there any representatives of the public that wish to speak? MS. FABACHER: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do I have a motion for Section 2.04.03? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded for approval. For approval. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody is opposed. I counted the ayes. MS. FABACHER: We're still on page nine of the summary sheet, and we're into the next item which is scribner's error, which is section 2.04.03. It is on page 142 of your original packet. And essentially we were going to remove single family detached as a permitted use on the golf course district, which was accidentally put in there, and we're going to add it as a permitted use, single family detached residential in the RMF 12 district, which is on page 143 of the use table. You see it's got a footnote to it. Does everybody see it there? P25, and the footnote says, single family dwellings are Page 147 December 1, 2005 permitted only on existing nonconforming lots, subj ect to the lot design requirement set forth for the residential single family six in section 4.02.01. So that just says that when you're putting in a single family on a nonconforming lot in some place that's zoned RMF16, it's telling you that you need to go to the dimensional requirements for the single family lot in RMF6 in that table when you're putting it in in RMF 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the planning commission? Do we have any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for section 2.04.03? So -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So motion to approve by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? All those in favor. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, you're scowling. Are we doing something wrong on this item? MR. WHITE: No, I'm not. I'm hoping that the motion in the second and the vote included a finding of consistency with the comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did it the first time, but I forgot that at Page 148 '.'--- - ------,"-_.,--" December 1, 2005 the second. They are all consistent. I forgot to do it at the first one. I thought it was none a given. We're on page ten. MS. FABACHER: Page ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 145. MS. FABACHER: 145 in the old packet. What we've done is there's a setback of so many feet if your seawall is a certain height, and so many more feet if the seawall is a certain height. The problem has been is the people have been capping the seawall and adding extensions to it so that they can move closer to the water. You know, so kind of what we -- staff looked at this and we thought about at first setting it on some mark on the water to say how high the seawall could be. And then secondly we realized that most of the properties were developed and these are just little infill pieces. So if we set it down here and everybody else was here and here and here, it might look pretty gap tooth and, you know, it might be pretty unattractive. So Mike Bosi wrote at it and said why don't we make it an average between your two adjoining seawalls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a difference in height between the seawalls. MS. F ABACHER: Exactly, instead of starting from scratch because it's mostly infill. That's what we do. Mostly done in the standards for accessory buildings and you can see the setbacks. It's on number four on page 146, swimming pool and screen enclosures. And it says 10 feet for the rear setback and then it's footnote three. If you turn the page, footnote three says, we've added the bench mark elevation of the top of the seawall, or top of the bank for determining the setback for the rear yard accessory setback on a partial shall be no greater than the average elevation of the top of seawall or top of bank on the two immediate adjoining parcels. So we did that. And then there's one more place we did, and that is on top of 147, and that was the attached screen porches. We had the same issue with Page 149 ..._<..,o~.._ December 1, 2005 that. So, we put a footnote four, which is the same thing. And so-- Susan, help me out. If the seawall is so high you can go seven feet from it? MS. MURRAY: You're explaining it right. I think, just so you understand, depending on, it's really kind of depending on the height of your accessory structure, which is typically a swimming pool and it says swimming pool deck exclusively here. So, what happened was, and I don't remember the date that this was originally amended. Probably close to seven, eight years ago. But, people were elevating their swimming pools so they didn't have to step down, for example, might be one reason they do it. And they were creating large walls kind of behind their seawalls and it was becoming very, I think, was perceived as being very -- I think it was perceived to be very obtrusive to a waterfront view. So, if their swimming pools were elevated above a certain height, they had to retain a greater setback. So that setback moved to 20 feet versus 10 feet if you elevated it. The problem is that the code doesn't have -- there's no design provision for seawalls. And there is, as perceived by staff, a loophole in the code where you can actually manipulate your seawall in such a way that you could achieve that 10- foot setback rather than the 20 feet requirement, even if you were -- your swimming pool was elevated above the minimum requirement. So this is an attempt, and we could really use your help on this if you have any other insight or comments on what we could do, but it's an attempt to try to regulate seawalls to an extent that that doesn't happen, and eliminate the loophole. There are no design criteria for seawalls adopted. I mean, pretty much people put in the standard seawall, but somebody discovered a loophole and now has claimed to be able to have that reduced setback because they elevated their seawall and backfill. MR. WHITE: What I think is happening in the marketplace is that people have found that it is less expensive to elevate the top of the seawall to extend it in kind of a vertical direction so that they avoid Page 150 "-... --"--.'"-......- December 1, 2005 the cost that's otherwise required either to obtain a variance or to move to achieve the greater setback. And so what the code is looking to do is to find a way to, as best as possible, maintain the most aesthetically pleasing and consistent height of those seawalls so that there isn't, you know, an unintended consequence of essentially subverting the greater setback. COMMISSIONER CARON: How does this prevent what we have happening up in Vanderbilt right now where not only did they put a wall on top of a seawall, but they also extended it out? MR. WHITE: Well, I believe that some of the provisions we're looking at for measurement under 4.01.03 in this cycle will address those concerns. What it can do with respect to that specific project is probably nothing, because similarly this provision itself was in part prompted by that particular fact pattern as well as other similar ones in that area of the county and other places in the county. The economics have driven this. And at this point, we're adapting to those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, one thing you said, we do have a seawall ordinance. It goes back to the early '80s. It described all the components of the seawall where the setbacks of seawalls are measured, how they're constructed. What's the seawall. What's the seawall caps. I think it's not fair. And what's happened is, no one has been honoring those ordinances. They're in our land development code reference. What's happening is, people are building walls on top of seawalls and saying, look at my new seawall when they're not seawalls. They're walls on top of seawalls. I think this ordinance is good because it may chase away tricksters like that, but I mean, we do have a problem with it. The one that Donna referenced is a fake out. It's not a seawall extension. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Everybody has a different opinion about whether it is or isn't a seawall. And I don't really want to go there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You should go there. Page 151 December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Well, I can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go there and read that ordinance then you'll know what a seawall is. MS. MURRAY: Well, Patrick may advise me on this. MR. WHITE: Remember, we're in the midst of what it is that the Federal Government is telling us are minimum elevations. I don't know that that older ordinance is one that adapts and looks at those higher elevations or not, but certainly we all could benefit from going back and looking over the existing regulations no matter how old they are. If for no other reason than to see whether they should be __ COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why don't we ever have to raise the seawall? Why don't we make a standard that you cannot raise the seawall. You may repair it back to that same height, but you cannot raise it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you read the ordinance, you'll see that there's been reasons that -- the raising of these seawalls, this little game everybody plays, I don't think it's allowed. First of all, it will cause scouring if there's ever flooding. If water ever comes over these seawalls, these little walls on top of walls, they're going to mess up the whole wall and the neighbors. Patrick, I don't think you can build seawalls like these anymore. MR. WHITE: I believe that the one that's in question is fully integrated and is not -- from an engineering perspective, I think this is one solid piece. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This isn't a place to discuss the specific issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I made a statement and it went right back. Is something wrong with it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The idea is you cannot, an individual cannot raise his seawall. It is what it is when he purchased it. That's all there is to it. Now why would we not go with something Page 152 .,,--..,., December 1, 2005 like that so they cannot raise it? MR. WHITE: I think the public policy reason that is you want to allow people to protect their property from sea level changes, from hurricane damage. Whatever the case may be, I think __ COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At which point they can go before this committee to ask to have it raised and give a reason for it. MR. WHITE: Certainly that's a process option. But you asked the question from the perspective of why, and I think some people may desire to actually pay more money to protect their property, and others have certainly used the rules as they are presently written and we're trying to change them to avoid the greater cost of the greater setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, are you finished with your questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, the point was, we've been through this area. I've seen it happening. I can see we've had it come before us. The idea is that a seawall is there when they buy it and it should stay that height unless they can come before the Collier planning commission for a variance and they can come in and bring it up, but at least they would have to do it in that manner. MS. MURRAY: I'm not going to defend what we have here as being the only option. And as I preface my statement, we'd love to hear your comments and suggestions. We really -- and this again, I think, and Catherine mentioned to me, that perhaps we ought to ask if you also would be interested if we look even a little bit further than this. This was kind of out initial approach at it what we thought might at least prevent what's happening with the elevated seawalls, but maybe we need to take a more comprehensive look at it. I don't know. We're just here to kind of get your guidance on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you had a comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I think Lidey's statement is extreme wisdom on this issue is that you should -- the Page 153 December 1, 2005 only reason you're raising seawalls out there is to monkey around with setback ordinances. When a subdivision like Vanderbilt Beach went in, the developer established the seawall height. N ow we've had new FEMA regulations. The developer would not put 14-foot high seawalls out there. So the point is, as architecturally designed with that, we raised the building above the ground plain. The ground plain is established by the seawall. So I think Lidey's thing is right, you're not allowed to raise seawalls, certainly not for the sport of, you know, tricking the setback ordinances. MS. MURRAY: So, that's an easy way to state it in the regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the objective, then what we have in front of us works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think so because there's been -- there is an interpretation that walls on seawalls are seawall height, and we can't get rid of that. So that means with this, people are allowed to go out and say, well my guy says, six, seven, eight foot high seawall walls on top of seawalls. And the guy between that can say, I got zero on one side, eight on the other, I'm going to raise mine four feet. I think Lidey is right, there is no reason in the world to be raising a seawall. And the ordinances are fighting coastal, you don't fight the water off with your seawall anymore. Those days of allowing seawalls to scour property are gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there someplace in the county where you have seawall heights, zero to six or eight foot difference? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, we do. There are walls built out in that area. I have been toured around the neighborhood that people have built, I mean, are they six or seven or eight, I don't know, but they're huge walls that they've built masonry walls on top of the seawalls. The county has accepted that as the height of the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the guy next door, if he's coming in to repair his seawall, or to put in a seawall where he's got riff-raff, Page 154 December 1, 2005 you're saying he should be limited to what height? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the fellow wants to repair his seawall, he goes to the seawall ordinance to discuss how to repair a seawall, and he would repair it to the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. Let's back up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The existing height. The height of the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm asking. What ifhe's got rip-raff, which places do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then he would put it to the height of the rip-raff, whatever they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about seawalls, I'm not talking about rip-raff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, but people will go in where there is no seawall and need to put a seawall in. If they have to put a seawall in, what height will they be allowed to go to if they have __ just curious. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like, in this case when this subdivision was made, the seawall was built with the subdivision, the land fill. At that time that's a discussion they can establish the height. It isn't an issue at that point. If you're doing a brand new development, somehow you can find to get a seawall in, then you can establish your seawall height at that time. Our problem is in existing developments people on vacant lots that are building walls on top of seawalls and playing trickster with the setback ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Want to hear from the public before -- MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Bruce Burkhart. MR. BURKHART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhart. I live at 283 Oak Avenue. And I'm a director of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. And maybe Susan, can you help me out with this? Page 155 December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Sure. MR. BURKHART: I'll just show you an example so that you know what we're talking about here. This is the original house that's under discussion. And this picture goes back to about 2/8/02, I believe. And what you're looking at is the original home, and you can see the seawall and the adjacent seawalls and they're both even with each other. And I think staff is to be commended for recognizing, obviously, that we have a problem here. And they're trying to maintain this same look. I agree with Commissioner Schiffer, that if you put a seawall on top of a seawall, that's going to create additional problems for the neighbors on either side of the house. And then I'll show you what's happened in the meantime. This is the additional seawall that the owner has put in. And this is what's created the need for the ordinance change. You can see what they've done is put up this ridiculous cap. It almost looks like a table rather than a seawall. And what they've done is cantilevered out that seawall out over the waterway. And then they're trying to take advantage of the situation by saying okay, we're going to measure from the outside point of that seawall to the problem wall, the pool deck wall, and thereby gain -- put ourselves into a position where we can apply for an administrative variance. Even after doing all that they've done here, they still don't qualify for the 10- foot setback. They've wiggled their way into trying to get an administrative variance, and unbelievably the staff went along and approved it. So what we're trying to do is, I think with this ordinance change, is try to correct that problem, and that's commendable. As you can see, we have another problem that's the cantilevering. And I think your ordinance needs to address that as well, that the seawall not only should be the same height, but should be the same width as the neighboring seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Bruce, you really don't have to address that. The seawall ordinance defines the face of the seawall as the thing that has to encroach setback. So in other words if Page 156 '"^"-...-",.. December 1, 2005 -- this is -- and you call it a seawall, and you were kind. I think semantically, that's a wall on top of a seawall. MR. BURKHART: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A seawall expert and I could argue whether that's an extended seawall cap. But, even when you measure -- in other words, you're building a seawall, and you're establishing the property line, the face of the seawall, not even the seawall cap, is what determines the property line. That is in the ordinance that exists. You can find it by going to the front of the LDC, look under seawall where it says referenced ordinances, and there it is. So, I mean, you were kind. This is not a seawall. This is a wall on top of a seawall. MR. WHITE: Well, I beg to differ with Commissioner and with the speaker, but I believe the provisions we're talking about are found in the code of laws. They are ordinance 85-2 and it's codified in Article nine chapter two section 22-321, which all of you have on your desktops, on your mini code folders, for the code of laws. And I'm here to tell you, that I don't see what you say about the face of seawalls. So if you want to have a discussion about that, I'd be happy to look for it and find it. But what I'm not interested in having today, ladies and gentlemen, is a discussion about a matter that's likely to come before my clients in the form of an appeal. So I would ask that we all try to keep appropriate to the forum, the scope of the discussion today. I'm not trying to preclude people from talking about LDC amendments, but when we start talking about specific examples of a matter that's going to come before my clients in a quasi judicial hearing, in this public hearing, I'm uncomfortable with it getting too close to a line that I think we should stay on and err on the side of being cautious. So please, try to accommodate me in your discussions by sticking to today's topic, which is a proposed solution. MR. BURKHART: I don't see how you can discuss a solution if you don't discuss the problem. And what I'm trying to do is illustrate Page 157 "".._-~..,.> ^....--...-....- December 1,2005 the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Burkhart, I think it's -- I think you made your point. Do you have any other issues regarding this LDC amendment? MR. BURKHART: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, in front of the LDC there's reference logs -- what is it, refernece logs or ordinances where this is referneced. Would this not make this part of the LDC as our building codes? MR. WHITE: If you look under 6.05 I think you'll find in the LDC, in 6.05.02, a specific reference under 6.05.02a to ordinance 85.2 from the code of laws and ordinances, which is codified as Chapter 22, Article Nine of the code of laws and ordinances, which likewise is a statement, as I said, of 85.2. And there are none of the things that you refer to, Commissioner Schiffer, about definitions that the face is the place you measure from. Now that mayor may not be the case somewhere else, but in the documents you're discussing, it does not appear to be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about 1.18? MR. WHITE: 1.08.02? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever it used to be, I think 1.18, where it lists all our codes and all -- like it list the building code, it list there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, is this a side bar you and Pat can have at break? Can we get on with this issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're having too much fun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think so. So as far as Section 4.02.03 is there a consensus with the panel or do we want to table this to the 15th? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion that we go forward with it. Page 158 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on section 4.02.03? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That the height of the wall cannot be raised. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Waita minute. Is there an LDC amendment before us that had that language in it? MS. MURRAY: I think what you're asking us to do is __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are we going to here? Let's just go to section 4.02.03 that's written. Does anybody feel comfortable enough to move this forward as it's written today? Ifnot, let's ask the staff to bring back language that you'd like to see on the 15th. That's where I'm trying to go. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I got you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's what we're going to do. Does staff understand what's being asked? MS. FABACHER: Right. MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on the 15th we'll rehear this one again. We will take a 15 minute break so I can get some coffee and stay awake the rest of the afternoon. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's bring the meeting back to order. Catherine, I believe we're on page 11 of the summary sheet and page 147 A of our booklet. Is that right? MS. F ABACHER: Right. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. This is about as simple as it gets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will take two hours, I can tell. MS. F ABACHER: All we're doing is retitling the section because it's on 147 A. It says design standards for development in the ST and AC, special treatment and the area critical state concern special treatment district. So, many times people call up and say they Page 159 December 1, 2005 can't find the ST rag, so all we're doing is just putting them up at the top of the section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to move to recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First are there any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now there's motion to approve section 4.02.14 by Commissioner Murray and finding it consistent with the growth management. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a second by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. The motion passes. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, we're on page 11 of the summary sheet. We're on page 148 of the old packet section 4.03.02. And this is clarifying property requiring subdivision. I'm going to let my boss take this. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I'm going to speak here for the engineering department. It really is an irregulatory change. It's just an addition of the sentence to clarify platting requirement. Page 160 ~'- December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of 4.03.02 and find it consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONERMURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. Chair, we're on page 12 now of the summary sheet. And this is along the same lines, a clarification of subdivision platting procedures. Susan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 12 of the sheet, right? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. I'm sorry, page 12 of the sheet and it begins on page 149 in your old packet. It's going to be section 4.03.03, 10.02.01, 10.02.02, 10.02.03 and 10.02.04. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You remember this one? MS. MURRAY: There's two parts to this one. There's some clarification language. But there's also the elimination of the requirement for townhouses built on fee simple lots to come through a site development plan process. They're platted, and it was decided it was kind of a duplication of processes here. And so the platting __ some of the platting requirements are being amended to clarify some of the information that we would need that we might review under the Page 161 December 1,2005 site plan process. And then there's also -- there's already some requirements in there. For example, the landscape buffer requirement and whatnot. That can be reviewed already through platting that's already required. In a sense, or essentially, the meat of the change here is just to eliminate the site plan review process for townhouses on fee simple lots. MR. MURRAY: I move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple of questions. Are there any questions of the panel? Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So, Susan, you're saying that anything that would be required, any review that would be required at site development plan would be handled in the same manner as platting? MS. MURRAY: Right. Townhouses are developed, or defined as multi-family in our land development code, and then the land development code requires that if you're a multi family, you have to come through the site development plan process. This is -- so in a sense, you've got two requirements here. You've got the platting requirement, because they're fee simple lots, then you also have your site development plan process because the townhouse is defined as multi-family. So, rather than have them go through two processes, we felt that we could get enough information through the platting process to ensure the development regulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: All I'm asking is, there's nothing you do at site development plan that you don't also do in platting so that you're not missing anything? MS. MURRAY: The best way for me to answer that is it's covered under the platting process and what we need to review for site plan. MR. WHITE: The substantive reviews both include, for example, looking at the appropriate zoning regulations for that district, setbacks, et cetera, lot sizes. Page 162 ~'-'.,,--~.~ December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Lot sizes, yes. MR. WHITE: All of the applicable LDC provisions. MS. MURRAY: Landscape, water management. MR. WHITE: For those that are platted are looked at at building permit as far as what structure is placed upon that fee simple lot. A lot of times they come in at the same time so that you're going to see them on the building permit side, and at the same time as the plat. This is a bit of a new process bridging between those two, because it's more typical to have the SDP come in and in parallel in concert the building permits. MS. MURRAY: It's the same --look at it like the same process we used for single family. And you could probably call this a single family attached. Okay. So this is -- single families don't go through site plan. We review at different stages, like Patrick said, platting and building permit stage were the requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, on page 154, the last paragraph, it talks about typical lot configurations. It says for fee simple residential lots in the beginning. Towards the end it says for non residential lots, parenthesis, e.g. multi-family amenity lots or parcels, commercial industrial lots. The illustration portrays setbacks in building envelope. So this goes beyond the use of these four just townhouses. And when you reference multi family amenity lots, aren't those lots including on the STPs? Does multi family required STP because they're not fee simple? MS . MURRAY: Correct. I think what this is attempting to do is saying -- let me just re-read it so I'm sure I'm telling you the correct thing. The question in my mind was strictly applicable to the townhouse, but I'm not sure that it is. I think this is separated and just a general requirement for all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's what I was concerned. It isn't -- this actually applies to more than just townhouses in some Page 163 .,-.....----, December 1,2005 ways? MS. MURRAY: Yes. And I prefaced my statements by saying we're also amending some provisions of the platting requirements to ensure that we get some additional information so we can ensure that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a difference between an FSP and a final -- an FSP, a final subdivision plat, as the construction drawings a lot of times for the road work and infrastructure goes into a parcel. MS. F ABACHER: No, that's the final plat to be filed with the Clerk of Court. MS. MURRAY: And let me give you a little background. MS. F ABACHER: Construction. MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know what the plat is that gets filed with the court because Becky handles that and I deal with her all the time on those plats. And I'm wondering, are you saying on the final plat, you want the kind of detail that shows setbacks and bedrooms and all this other stuff? Because I'm not used to seeing that on final plats. Plats are usually the outline of the lots. MS. MURRAY: What we -- let me kind of go back to where we were and how we are getting here. We eliminated the requirement for preliminary subdivision plat. It's now optional. At the preliminary subdivision plat phase, we requested this type of information. Because that's now an optional process, we're trying to carry over pertinent information onto the final subdivision plat that we need as part of our records. And that's kind of what we're trying to do here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I understand what you're saying. It's going to be a lot more -- your plats are going to have a lot more detail on them then they do today. MS. MURRAY: Actually, it's really just a typical layout. It's not -- and it doesn't have to -- in other words, if you have 100 lots, you don't have to have 100 typical layouts. If you have three different Page 164 ·'_"-"'_'_._",n"._ December 1, 2005 product types, then you have three different layouts, and that is typically submitted on a separate sheet. So it's not recorded with the final plat, the sheet that's typically recorded, but it is part of our records so that we can go back when we're looking at doing building permits or site plans, and make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not asking for this stuff to be recorded? MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 156 under final plat requirements, this one I think does say, it says, for only those final plats incorporating townhouse development on fee simple lots, the following additional information. Then it says prepared by registered engineer or landscape architect as applicable must be provided. Now, engineers do one thing and LAs do others. There's quite a disparity in the difference in what they do. Engineers work in boxes and LAs are more creative. I'm just wondering, are you saying that an LA can do what an engineer does, or an engineer can do what an LA does? How does that separate? MS. MURRAY: No. I think we probably need to clarify. MS. F ABACHER: Well, it kind of -- it says in A, landscape plan signed and sealed in accordance with. And as applicable would mean a landscape architect has to stamp and seal. And then if it says further on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I know a lot of LAs like to be land planners and they will try to do things land planners do. And a lot of engineers would like to be landscape architects or street sign designers and they do things that they may not be best qualified. How do you tell whose applicable for what? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. The code in other areas specifically requires that an LA sign and seal the plans, but I understand what you're saying. You just want a clarification here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So who does what. That's all. Page 165 ...~~- ~,---...,.",.,-~~. December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Yeah, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just -- and that's all I have for questions. MR. WHITE: One process clarification may help. Although we're giving our best explanation of how this will be implemented, it's important I think for those who are practitioners already, applicants, if you will, that one of the things you see for plats are probably the more typical AR type application request type notice and FSP, Final subdivision plat. Where a lot of these things are going to be required to be brought forward under this rule, or under the PPL or the plat and plans. And that's where you'll see a lot of the construction types of typicals, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Does anybody else have any questions? Any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve finding them consistent with the growth management plan sections __ MR. MURRAY: With those questions asked? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the questions addressed. MR. MURRAY: Yeah, I would so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For sections 4.03.03, 10.02.01, 10.02.02, 10.02.03, 10.02.04. And Mr. Murray has moved that those be approved. MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Paul Midney. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 166 -'''-'''- -..-.---,--....""'.. December 1, 2005 COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. All those opposed? None. How's that? I got that in. I got the nays in just in case. Okay. Page 160? MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. Page 160 in your old packet. And this was written -- this amendment was written by Code Enforcement. They're having a lot of trouble with people parking cars on their lawns. So what they've attempted to do here on page 161 is to kind of define what designated parking area is. So under A, single family dwelling, they've added parking or storing of automobiles in connection with single family units shall be limited to stabilized subsurface base or plastic grid stabilization systems covered by -- I think if you can read what it says there. MS. MURRAY: I think they were having difficulty applying this provision without more specificity. And then, I don't want to say arguing in a negative sense, but explaining it to violators as to what was the -- MS. FABACHER: It's now designated parking area. Before they were saying well grass is a pervious covering of my parking area. So they wanted to get more specific about what a parking area really was, kind of thing they were looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: If you have any questions-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got some. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the list of items you can have, you've got concrete crushed stone, crush shell, asphalt pavers. Could we add the turf parking systems to our -- MS. F ABACHER: Let me just say that Sharon Dantini is here Page 167 ""_",,",e"'" "_~_"_.....""_.,, December 1, 2005 from code, the author, so, I'm sorry, I didn't defer to her. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In other words, there are systems that are acceptable for parking that do have grass on them? MS. DANTINI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Sharon Dantini, for the record, code enforcement. The reason that we're asking that this be put back in, the recodification left out a section that actually prohibited parking on the grass. And it, at that point it was very clear for citizens that they were not to park on the grass. That's all we're trying to do here is to clarify that they are not to park on the grass, but only on stabilized surfaces. Now your question about some of these stabilized surfaces with grass in the area, I understand there's a grid system that -- I have not seen it personally, but I understand there is a grid system that does allow the grass to be grown in that system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's different systems. Some are a turf block that allows a little bit of grass to come up. That wouldn't be difficult. Some are a rigid mesh that allows solely grass to come up. So could we add turf parking systems? I think where you're having trouble, the people aren't going to argue that they have a turf parking system underneath their cars. And it would be added in A, B, and C. Wherever they list concrete, crushed stone, asphalt pavers, or turf parking systems. MS. DANTINI: Okay. We'll add that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does that mean I can't park on the sand in front of my house anymore? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're under arrest. MS. DANTINI: If it's a stabilized area. You know, I guess what we're trying to do is define a stabilized area. But I think it's a little bit more specific to the parking issues. If we put it in definition, I'm not so sure that we would be able to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It used to be grass, but now it's sand because I park there. Page 168 December 1, 2005 far. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your confessional is going too CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all assuming you live in a single family home, or two family, or multi-family now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think run out and get some crushed stone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the narrowest lot size that we have allowed in the code for single family right now? Do you know? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sixty, 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is, if you have a -- with this code written this way, you may not be able to go below a 50- foot minimum lot width in order to fit in the 40 percent in the front that you're requiring for parking, or no greater than 40 percent because your driveway is required to be 20 feet wide. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, they're not requiring that. They just said you can't exceed it, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forparking? MS. FABACHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the designated parking area may not comprise an area greater than 40 percent. Would the driveway be considered part of the designated parking area? MS. DANTINI: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the driveway has to be no less than 20 feet wide? MS. DANTINI: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we require the driveway to be 23 feet back from the back of the sidewalk? Twenty times 23? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To a garage door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the designated parking area is the driveway. That's 20 feet wide, 23 feet back from the sidewalk in front of the driveway -- in front of the garage, right? Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if you don't have a paved Page 169 "-." ._..,--~" December 1, 2005 driveway? MS. DANTINI: Then it must be made of the crushed -- it must be of the stabilized surfaces listed here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's going to be a big problem for Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, did you happen to find what the width was? MS. MURRAY: No, I didn't. MR. WHITE: The memo lot widths that are shown in the table in 4.02.01 are at 60 feet for interior lots and RSF five and six. And the same for VR mobile home. Sixty is the minimum unless you're in a TTRVC which have 40 and 30, but I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. I just wanted to -- I just wanted to find out what the single family was. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Paul can sleep at night, I mean, these are for residential uses and mixed used urban residential land use. In other words, I don't think out in the agricultural areas you have this problem. MR. MIDNEY: Well, my house I think is zoned AG, but I'm in the great minority. Most houses in Immokalee are not. And I think this is going to create a lot of added expense for a lot of people who are already having a lot of extra expenses. So I'm going to vote against it because I think it's too expensive to implement. MR. MURRAY: I have a question for you, ma'am. You indicated that it was excluded by error from the fonner and that it was perfect. However, that perfection is now being replaced by a new perfection. What were the differences? What were the additives? Was it paver block or something else that made it a better perfection? What I'm driving at is, if we're having a problem with it, and I don't know that we are, if we went back to that excluded item and just put that in the code, would that suffice to do the job? MS. DANTINI: We had originally thought that, but we're Page 170 _w_-,., . "_'_._,_..~, December 1, 2005 advised that the exclusion should not be in the body of the code. And please help me, Patrick here if I am misquoting you on that, but that was our understanding as that we did not want to have exclusions in the body of the LDC. MR. MURRAY: Okay. I'm not trying to go anywhere other than find a good compromise that would work. I'm not looking to create more problems. MR. WHITE: If you look back over the legislative history of these few provisions, you'll find that we have gone hither and fro with them trying to find the right precision, accuracy, and balance. Obviously there are a number of design solutions, and we try to write the land development code in a way that allows as much flexibility in finding design solutions without specifically enumerating what they are or excluding others in terms of a prohibition or limitation. So, we're trying one more time to find that balance here. And although some of the earlier versions may be helpful, I don't believe that they were without adaptation by the actual code enforcement investigators applied consistently. MR. MURRAY: All right. I suspected as much but I just felt that if we were -- MR. WHITE: Everybody was comfortable with what we had, but I don't know that if it got down to having to fight about it in front of the CEB, we could have sustained. So we tried to be more precise and accurate without being exclusive. MS. MURRAY: And I'm not sure this is really changing anything, Commissioner Midney, I only say that because if you read kind of the old language versus the new, you still had to have a stabilized surface. So this has been in place -- I don't know when this was adopted, but I do remember going through the process probably four years, three years. MS. DANTINI: The wording that you have in front of you, what was codified in the new LDC, the older version was real specific about Page 171 ,>._----~ December 1, 2005 the surfaces that you could park on, and did exactly prohibit parking on the grass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, in this code versus the old code, you're saying -- it used to say, if I'm trying to read through the crossed out lineage that you have here, specifically designed for the parking of automobiles which may not compromise an area greater than 40 percent of the required front yard. But now you're taking out the area that could have been designed or required for the parking of automobiles and saying it has to be designated for the parking -- or designated parking area and you're limiting that to a driveway. So I'm wondering if it does go beyond -- MS. DANTINI: Actually, we're not limiting it to the driveway. It could be made of crushed stone too. CHAIRMAN STRAINCHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not on the driveway? MS. DANTINI: Yes. If you're driveway is less than 40 percent of your front yard, you can also have an area that -- we only want people to park in 40 percent of their front yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Now I do. Thank you. MR. WHITE: And to address Commissioner Midney's concern, the rule as written would be prospective in it's application, not retroactive. Now what would the prior version be that may have been applicable to point in time his house was permitted. I don't even know if we had a rule then. But the idea is that the enactment of this rule does not mean that people must then, the very next day, go out and comply with it. The next time they came in for a building permit for that single family or multi-family, whatever the case may be, then this rule would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if code enforcement is called up for a complaint that someone is parking their vehicle in their front yard outside their driveway and it's against this code, code enforcement will not then be able to enforce this code? Page 1 72 December 1, 2005 MR. WHITE: They can enforce the aspect as to where you can park, but not as mandating that you must at this point in time go and fix it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's going to create hardship because land is so hard to come by as it is, and most working families need two vehicles, sometimes three vehicles because, in order to pay the rent, one person working is not enough. And it just seems as though we're placing a real big stress on families in the poor sections of the county. MR. WHITE: Well, I understand that concern and it's kind of the opposite face of the same coin. Not to, you know, poke fun at the economics of this, but we understand it's the economics that are driving people parking in that manner. And as a result we have to find some way to assure that the surrounding property owners, the value of their property is protected, and that we aren't creating a health, safety, welfare problem by people parking in the right of way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't believe in parking in the right of way. MR. WHITE: I'm just saying, those cars have to go somewhere, and when they're parked willy-nilly on a front lot, and it's not a stabilized surface, that creates a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the ribbon design where you have just two lanes big enough really to take the tread? That's still allowed and everything. You have no problem with that, right? MS. DANTINI: As long as it's made of a stabilized surface. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of these -- so, Paul, it really isn't expensive to get into a couple of crushed stone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I'm sure they'd want a plan, a permit. That work is only 10 percent anymore of the effort. Getting through the system is 90 percent. So, I'm not sure that you're actually not helping -- it's limited to just the cost of the crushed rock. You'd Page 1 73 December 1, 2005 have to have permit to plan, approvals of designated parking areas, calculations and someone said survey. A lot of other stuff that might end up driving the cost to have that accomplished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think what they're really interested in is the situation that Pat's describing, where the people do have a nice neighborhood and there is one house that has ten cars all over it, there's got to be some hammer that they can use to coin out the problem with that. MR. MIDNEY: Yeah, I know that there are houses that have a lot of cars and some of them are trucks and vans too. Especially in my neighborhood a lot of people have vans because there's multiple people who all have gone to work in landscaping or to Marco Island or something like that. But it's a necessity for those people. I think that the Planning Board should give more weight to the necessity of working people than to the aesthetics of people who -- you know, they have nice yards and they think everybody else should have a nice yard too. I think necessity should go before aesthetic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a novel idea. Paul, I like that. MR. MURRAY: If I can put my four-and-a-half cents in on this. The issue is more in East Naples, for instance, where there are similar situations that Commissioner Midney describes. This ordinance change, will it help to clean that issue up for those folks? Because the people I find complain are the ones who live next door to the folks who have to park their cars. And I recognize they need a place for their trucks and their cars, and it's a no win all around, from what I can see. But, will this help to have code enforcement be effective in this, or is that already under control? MS. DANTINI: Well, actually as we have mentioned, this was in the old LDC, this type of information. The Estates is not included in that because it's not referenced in this code. Agriculture is not included in that because it's not referenced in this portion. We've had no problems in the past enforcing this type of language in it. Yes, Page 174 December 1, 2005 there have been people that have had to go in and resurface some areas to make it stabilized, but I'm not aware of any complaints to commissioners regarding those issues. MR. MURRAY: I know sometimes they tend to fill the swales too, and that's a little scary. MS. DANTINI: Yes, it is. The parking in the right of way is a very big issue. MR. MIDNEY: Some people are not always complaining about it to the authorities, but you hear people talk about it and it's one of the areas where people say that government is getting out of hand because they're putting rules, you know, on top of rules and it's interfering with, you know, peoples', you know, basic things. You need a place to put your vehicle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing we're doing here is discussing what the vehicle is on. The percentage of vehicle hasn't changed. It's just that when they go out and they say you can only park in 40 percent of your yard, they can't figure out how do you define where that 40 percent is. And plus, is it good that people are parking on grass, killing the grass? You've described how you've killed all yours. So, I mean, do we want a town where there's a bunch of dead grass around because people are parking willy-nilly on the lawn? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've had quite a bit of different discussion. Any public speakers? MS. FABACHER:MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need to have a motion on this, on section 4.05.03 for either approval or denial in finding it consistent or inconsistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I move we move forward with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As consistent with a GMP and recommendation for approval? Page 175 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Tuff made a motion to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissoner Schiffer seconded. MRCOMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that included the turf parking system too. MS. DANTINI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the caveat that the turfparking system language be added. Did you have a problem with that? Is that okay, Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? All those in favor to the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Two opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, I think we're on page 163. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, we are. Michael Sawyer is here today. Mike has a bunch in a row that we'll be able to take care of real quick, I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we jump over to something else in between, just so he can sit here all day. MS. FABACHER: So, anyway, he's going to talk about the buffers, alternate buffers, and then talking about the turf along systems, synthetic turf, and then some specifications, engineering specifications for slopes. Page 176 ,.~~-,,^ December 1, 2005 MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, once again, Mike Sawyer, zoning and land development review. When we were together last time on the three landscape amendments, the one that I think was most problematic was the buffer issue. And I prepared another power point presentation that hopefully will illustrate it better than the previous version. We're basically talking about when we've got buffers adjacent to lakes. And our discussion previously went even to the definition of lakes. What I did, just to recap, we really didn't feel like we did a real adequate job of giving you the background on the requirements on the buffers. We were really not totally sure on what your direction was, and we really want to actually open it up more as far as discussion, as far as what options might be available to us as far as addressing this Issue. What I did was I actually went back, which often happens and actually helps when we're actually doing amendments, was actually go back and look at purpose and intent in the code when it comes to the whole issue of landscaping and buffers in particular. To go back historically to look at, is this actually new landscaping, which is one of the items that we discussed. And the other -- another issue was the reasons and benefits for landscaping when we're talking about landscaping adjacent to lakes. And also, getting together some actual examples that we could actually take a look at. I went back through purpose and intent for the landscape section. Basically just underlined those area that made pertain to this particular section. And I really came down to just a few. The real key elements are that, you know, for landscaping is to reduce incompatibility between the similar land uses, densities and building masses, provide and maintain open space with new developments, improve asthetic appearance of the built environment with minimal landscape standards. Provide psychological benefits to people by reducing noise and glare. Screen and buffer harsher visual aspects of development. Improve environmental quality through the creation of Page 1 77 _._,,-~..- December 1,2005 shade and microplants. Why landscape barriers are actually required in residential areas. Lakes only provide a physical separation, a space element, and our landscape buffers are made up of two elements, we've got space and we've got screens. Screens can be opaque, they can also be very open. There is no vertical component. There is no screen element available with the lake. Additionally, you know, buffers and screens provide that space and they also provide the screening elements. So it's a combination of both. We've got various ranges of widths es. We have anywhere from a 10-foot buffer, even a five-foot buffer when you're in industrial zones on up to a 20 feet wide buffer. Screens themselves can take the form of trees only or trees and a hedge. We even have provisions for walls, fences, a number of ways that you can actually get that screening component handled. This requirement actually isn't new . We're not actually looking at adding additional landscape requirements to applicants coming into the county. What staff has been using for the last 10 years or more is actually the alternative design solutions that is part of the LDC. That's actually part of the buffer section. And basically what this says is, that staff can look at alternative design solutions. And when we've got buffers adjacent to lakes that are required, we allow certain alternative design solutions to allow views into that lake to take advantage of those lake views. And this is what staff has been doing, like I said, for the last 10 years. Again, we've been using the alternative design solution standards to meet the LDC intent. And again, the purpose is to -- of this amendment, is to actually vet this particular staff direction. Again, we're not requiring additional landscaping. It's basically just to codify a staff policy. Why? Reasons and benefits. Buffers are required along the perimeter of all zoning, all developments. Lakes don't eliminate the requirement for buffers, as we've said. You get a space element done, Page 178 '~-~,",< ~ .-'''..._---"~.--,,- December 1, 2005 you know, that lakes provide, but they don't provide the screening elements. There are inherent density, compatibility issues related to single family and multi-family. You've got very different densities. And because of those in the LDC, we've got requirements for buffers according to those uses and those densities. We've also got a significant size difference. We've got height differences. They're are basically differences between multi-family and single family, and we recognize that throughout the LDC in the landscape section. The landscape buffers are basically to soften the built environment. Provide natural edges along created lakes. Buffer plantings are an integral part to the minimum amount of landscaping that all developments provide, or are required to provide. These requirements, if well designed, actually enhance those lake views, they don't eliminate them. That's what we're really trying to do is to allow this flexibility to happen and actually enhance the developments. The examples that I've got, first we've got some that actually show, obviously, the value of those lake views. Some considerations of existing communities where you've got existing communities and you've got new developments coming in adjacent to them you know, there are, you know, there are needs for buffers because of that. And then we've got some images that actually have distances related to them. Property owners pay extra for the lake views. All the developers require you to pay extra when you're on a lake. And we need to recognize that. It's a natural and created -- lakes are actually benefits to the homeowners and we don't want to eliminate that. By the same token, when you've got an existing community, you don't want to have an additional development coming in adjacent to them on the other side of the lake that has a much different density than they do, a much different height, a much different massing. That's why we've got the buffer requirements. And this starts giving you some of the ideas. In Page 179 December 1,2005 the middle ground all the way in the back, that's about 2000 feet away from where we're standing right now. On the right we're 1,400 feet away. On the left, we're 900 feet away. Here again, way back we're 2000 feet away, off to the left we're about 750 feet away. And here we've got an example again, 750 feet away, and again 500 feet away. And here we're 700 -- or, I'm sorry, 650 feet away and this is 380 feet away. So you can see how those different images of those multi-family buildings change because of that distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, in those past photographs, were all those photographs consistent with the buffers that are in front of us today in regards to the -- MR. SAWYER: No, they were just strictly examples of distances, buildings, you know, where we've got single family and we're actually looking at multi-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with the landscape material that's being proposed here, even in those pictures, the outline of the buildings would be softened much more than they are in the pictures because they'd have more landscaping on the water side of them. MR. SAWYER: In some cases they certainly would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like that one, for example. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, this one, for instance, you would certainly have more of a hedge material through there. You probably also have a couple more trees, but not that many more. Again, we want to provide those views out into the lake. What we really want to have is that softening affect. Here the one that's 500 feet away, that's pretty close. The one that's 750 feet away, that really is actually above code if you actually look at it. The one here at 750, again, that's close. Going back to some of these. We've actually got, you know, both single family on the left-hand side and multi-family on the right. So again, that kind of gives you the idea of just strictly massing. And the one, you know, the single family is basically at 900 feet. The multi-family is at 1,400 Page 180 December 1, 2005 feet away. So that gives you an idea on visually what these distances actually look like. What we propose is to be able to have, in these cases where the buffers are required, to have the tree planting requirements to be clustered so that you've got opportunities for views out into the lake. We are proposing to have a 60 foot area between those clusters. Again, we're actually looking at having the hedge requirements be basically down at 30 inches and be a double row hedge as opposed to a 60- foot hedge. This allows those plantings to actually be part of the foundation plantings for the buildings themselves integrated into the landscaping, integrated into those buildings. We are proposing that when the adjacent lake exceeds 1500 feet, we don't have to have the hedge. We're not really accomplishing much probably at that distance, but the trees are still going to do a softening of it. That's basically what we're recommending at this point, and we're really at this point looking for some guidance and any suggestions that you might have. Hopefully we've done a better job of framing the issues, giving you a bit more of the history on these particular buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I like what I think is your idea. In the examples, I don't really see much in the way of buffers, but what I wouldn't like to see is mowed grass all the way down to the lakes because you have more siltation, you have utropication because of probably the fertilizer that's placed on the grass, and the runoff making just algae blooms in the lake, and you don't have any habitat, you know, for wading birds as you would if you had a little bit of latural plantings, but that's not where you're going with this, are you? MR. SAWYER: No. The latural plantings are actually handled with environmental requirements. We really are not addressing those at this point. MR. MIDNEY: Because in the examples I don't see any latural Page 181 December 1, 2005 plants at all. I just see grass going down to the water and then just water. MR. SAWYER: Correct. And on these particular ones, that's exactly the case. This was a bit, one of the older developments, a bit mature, so we had the look of what the mature buffers, or the actual trees and plantings actually look like. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So I didn't see any hedges in the pictures, I just saw trees. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, most of them do have -- on this one you are seeing some hedging, certainly not to the degree that we would certainly like to see, you know, a bit more of a ban through there with some openings, would soften it a bit more. Here, obviously, you're not seeing anything. You are just strictly seeing the trees, and in this case palms, which again are fine because you do get some softening effects with palms. But, again, I think we probably can agree that some additional landscaping on a facade like this when you're adjacent to single family, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. MR. MIDNEY: These are probably older lakes where there's probably a steep drop off too, right? If it was a shallow dropoff, you probably would see some plants like willow or cattails or such things in there. MR. SAWYER: Correct, Commissioner. There were some areas where there were some, but it was just strictly where the lake was shallower, so that is correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So, hopefully, with the new regulations where you have to have a more shallow dropoff, you will have more of a natural buffering too, wouldn't you? MS. SAWYER: I would agree, yes. MR. MURRAY: From the perspective of an individual sitting in their lanai, or looking out their window, an unobstructed view it was they're seeking. So they're not unhappy with seeing somebody having a hedge on their shoreline, but disinclined to have one on their's, I Page 182 ..' _~.._.'.__ .__..>o~,__.... December 1,2005 would suspect. But each of the examples that you have given us here are to show us what is essentially a stark situation; am I right? Not to show us what you're an advocate of. You're really just showing these are things that exist. MR. SAWYER: Yes, Commissioner. Trying to give you an idea of distances and how minimal or somewhat minimal landscaping looks like. Again, in this particular example, the one on the right-hand side, the 500- foot example, that one is actually quite close. I think that one would come quite close to meeting what the proposed change, or the proposed amendment would allow. Certainly, the one on the left - hand side, if you look at that, there are hedges, there is a considerable amount of plant material there. That one certainly would. MR. MURRAY: Well, it's very interesting. It really is to see-- you could be very creative, I suppose. I don't even know really where to go with this. You were asking for some direction and it's really difficult for me to think. I know that we have -- I live in a condominium and we have plantings outside. They're low level. They're flowers and things and they're very nice, but is that an alternative? Is that an acceptable buffer, something of that nature, or is that an enhancement, just an amenity or what? I'm trying to differentiate. I'm probably not using the right words. MR. SAWYER: To give you an idea, what the requirement for multi-family when you're adjacent to single family is to have a B buffer. A B buffer is trees 25 feet on center with a five-foot hedge. I think we can all agree that's not totally appropriate where you've gotten an amenity like a lake. What we're trying to do with this amendment is to allow some flexibility and still meeting those buffer requirements, but doing it in a manner that fits better with the lake views and also giving a bit more design flexibility, and actually codify what we've actually been doing for a number of years. Page 183 December 1, 2005 MS. MURRAY: I wanted to clarify that because part of the problem we've been having is with the language as it's stated is it's not clear to the designer what exactly they have to do. MR. MURRAY: He indicated that earlier by saying you have two choices and you tend to go to the second one. MS. MURRAY: Or they get the wrong information. So, rather than having it kind of a case by case basis, so to speak, we are trying to set a standard which still allows for the flexibility that we historically have been doing by that policy, but at least sets a standard so hat people can look and say, okay, I can cluster, but my clusters have to be certain distances and what have you. I think it's still-- and that's essentially what we're trying to do. There is really not a regulatory change here, per se, it's just clarification. MR. MURRAY: And clustering, I mean, height then becomes a factor in clustering as well as anything else. Whether you do linear or you do cluster, you have issues of where someone says my view is obstructed as opposed to I love that view. How do you perceive, when you use the term clustering, do you see a dense abrogate or what? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I think there what we would want to see is areas where you actually don't have plant material up against the buildings or out further. You want to have those clear views. You know, you've got trees here, you've got trees here, and you've got those hedge materials, those plantings. Instead of taking the form of a hedge, actually are in plantings that are integrated into those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're on the right track, in my opInIon. MS. MURRAY: A lot of what will happen is these people will actually plant material above and beyond minimum code requirement and they'll want to cluster that or place that in places. MR. MURRAY: And you also indicate that a buffer, the distance is a buffer as well; is it not? It's construed as a buffer. Page 184 December 1,2005 MR. SAWYER: It's part of the buffer. MR. MURRAY: So that has to be taken into consideration where one does any kind of creativity on that, wouldn't they? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's really a combination, is it not? MR. SAWYER: Definitely. MR. MURRAY: How do we codify that? MR. SAWYER: Well, what we're proposing is that once we get past that 1500-foot distance between, you know, of the lake, once we get to that point, the only requirement is to provide the hedge. Again MS. MURRAY: The trees? MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry, the trees. MR. MURRAY: The utilization. MR. SAWYER: The trees are what's required at that point and not the plantings -- the shrubs, if you will. MR. MURRAY: That makes it clearer for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, did you-- MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to remind the commission that we had discussed this at length, and their direction was to Mike to come back with some evidence that we could use to determine what a good length of, you know, not requiring the hedge. Remember some people said well, I think after 50 feet you don't need it. And so what Mike, the point of his presentation was to kind of -- that's why he's asking for direction. If you like his 1,500 foot now or so forth. MR. MURRAY: It seems plausible to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you had-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The only thing I would change is in the type A you have a tree every 30 feet, so obviously a cluster every 60 is good. You can take a tree and put them together. I Page 185 December 1, 2005 think in a B, I would bring that back to 50 feet, because you have a tree every 25 feet, with the same logic you can cluster those trees, tie them together at 50 feet. Otherwise, the math can get confusing. And then the other stuff I think was well done, so if we need -- if we want to discuss whether 50 feet is fine. And my point is, he has a tree requirement of every 25 feet. So what they're saying is, take every other tree and put them together. If you put 60 feet, who knows what that is. MR. SAWYER: I agree the math could get a little tricky. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there will be extra trees. If that's it, I move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do I get to ask any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You want to talk? Okay. He's trying to stay awake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Sometimes I'm trying to let everybody else get their say first. I got a tough one for you, Mike. This presentation you made, electronic format? MR. SAWYER: It's power point, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you either email it to me or provide me with a hard copy? MR. SAWYER: I have a hard copy right here for you. MR. MURRAY: I would like to have it. It's a very good presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, let him finish. Can I have it either hard copy or email? And if you could do that, I appreciate it. MR. SAWYER: I can do both. I've got them right here. In fact, I've got a disc if you'd like. MR. MURRAY: My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, would you like a copy? MR. MURRAY: I would. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, would like a copy as well. Page 186 December 1, 2005 Thank you. Is there a motion to recommend approval of section 4.06.02 and find it consistent with the land development code? MR. MURRAY: I would make that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissoner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the change of an alternate B to have a 50-foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the change recommended by Commissoner Schiffer. Does the motion maker accept that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second accept that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers before I go too far? MR. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as recommended signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one is opposed. MS. FABACHER: All right. While we've got Mike up here, the next amendment, LDC amendment, I'm on page 14 of your summary sheet, and we're going to page 166 of the old packet. And this is to limit the use of synthetic turf for lawns. Page 166. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, the only item that was Page 187 December 1, 2005 mentioned previously was that we needed to distinguish between vertical and horizontal in the references to slope steepness, and we've got that incorporated. MR. MURRAY: Didn't we skip one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, did we skip 4.06.05? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I thought we were on the -- Mike, on page 166, the synthetics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we are right now, but we need to go back I think because we didn't do page 163A, which is 4.06.05. Let's finish up 166. Does anybody have any discussion on the use of synthetic turf and! or landscaping? Brad, I'm sure you're going to love this. It's an architects dream; isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: He can still use it, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He can still use it? Any public speakers, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the panel? Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion to recommend approval for section 4.06.05 -- I'm sorry -- 4.06.05 general landscaping requirements. There's quite a few sections here. Why don't we just wait and go through the whole thing. I didn't know all those were the same number. Catherine, that number starts on 166, and it goes into another element on 168. MS F ABACHER: All right. And that begins your berm. The treatment of the slopes. I have 'on page 168 on summary sheet 14 it references page 168. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just saw different from your summary sheet, there is a clarification on 166 that allows us to do a separate motion. The reference on 166 for the issue about synthetic turf is specified as 4.06.05C7. So if we want to entertain a motion to Page 188 December 1,2005 find that consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes unanimously. So we're past page 166. Now, do you want to drop back to 163A and finish up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have a 163A, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a 163 which is 4.06.02, and I have a 163A, which is 4.06.051. This is from the original packet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's 168. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have 168. That is 4.06.05C11. MS. MURRAY: Correct. That's where we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 4.06.05I doesn't exist anymore. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, what happened was that between cycles, this particular section in the code was actually duplicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER? So the one has disappeared with the previous cycle of amendments. It was eliminated. So we're now currently in the correct area for the slope amendment. Page 189 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just helps us move along even faster. So, I have no problem with that at all. So, we're on page 168, and I guess it's still yours. MR. SAWYER: Correct. Thank you. Again, with our previous discussions, the item that was brought up was to define water management areas, and that is actually on page 1 71, I believe in item C. We're actually talking about vertical walls used for water management. And a discussion there I believe was, is it none, or is there some allowance for it. And what we're proposing is to have it so that any vertical wall exceeding 20 feet. So, in other words, you can do up to 20 feet with a vertical wall for a water management area. And, again, open votes prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, you had a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I think there was a question about what was meant by continuous. I think that was actually Mr. Strain's question. MR. SAWYER: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you just answered that. So I want to make sure that was your same question. Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I had a problem on the three foot height that 30 inches two foot six is the highest you can go without using a guardrail. And you were going to look to see if you could live with 30 inches or two foot six. MR. SAWYER: Oh, as far as the height of those walls? I think if that's your recommendation, we can certainly do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is that some of the guardrails we see along the roadways aren't the slickest, and, you know, they're all bent up anodized aluminum pipe. So if we could set a height of 30 inches, we would eliminate the need for a guardrail. Three foot would require a guardrail near a walkway. Page 190 December 1, 2005 MS. F ABACHER: That would be in section B, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's B, correct. MS. FABACHER: You changed three feet to 30 inches in height, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. FABACHER:MS. FABACHER: Just clarifying for all of us. For me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the guardrail we have along, for example, Airport Road north of Pine Ridge -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That' a classic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is. That's as ugly as they come, and I hate to see more of it, but it probably was there because the slope and the drop off from the sidewalk was so great. If we require that guardrail, or that handrail to be less, can then the slope be as steep as it is, and if it can't be, that means you have to push the right of way either out further, or the roadway in farther. I mean, will those kind of impacts have an influence on what you're asking for right now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, these water management walls, where would they be occurring? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The example you've provided-- MR. SAWYER: Yeah. I guess another classic is Walmart just down the road from us here where we've basically got a concrete vault that's sitting there. And 20 feet of that we can probably deal with if we've got some landscaping that at least in part covers it up. I think once we get much past that, we really start getting an eye sore. And that's what we're really trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, if you restrict the height of these retaining walls to 30 inches, that other Walmart that's in North Naples on Immokalee Road and US 41, you drive into their parking lot and you see these Pine trees coming up out of the middle of the parking lot. You walk up and they're down in these deep holes surrounded by six - foot concrete walls that if anybody fell in, they would never get Page 191 December 1, 2005 out. I asked one time why they put them there and they said they were required when they went through the plan review process because they had to preserve certain trees. Well, the only way they could preserve them was by doing that. Would this prevent that? Because if it does, then what would have been the alternative for them, is to leave the entire parking lot at a four to one slope away from those trees and not use the retaining wall and end up eating up more space because of that. I'm just wondering, if we minimize this height too much, are we going to create hardships in regards to utilizing the retaining walls for the maximum effect. That is in order to supply the parking lot needed for a structure. MR. SAWYER: Understood. MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chariman, may I also point out that conversation probably two years ago now with Mr. Feeder regarding these rails. And in so far as they apply to adjacent to rights of way, he said those are Federal standards he must comply with, so that mayor may not impact on this particular conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure they kick in based on how much the fall off is on the outside of the wall. What I'm saying is, if the fall off on the outside of the wall is limited to what we will set the wall height at, then to get the slope to be acceptable, you'd have to back everything up and spread everything out because you'd have to have more of a slope instead of a sharp slope. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we do that in this particular ordinance, is that going to have a negative impact on the right of way, our canal roads where we have to have railings and sidewalks in a tight nature like Airport Road parking lot, such as the one I gave you the example of the Walmart? I don't know. I just got done asking the questions. Has anybody thought all that out? MR. SAWYER: I think there's two issues. The water management walls that we were talking about. The problem that we've Page 192 December 1,2005 got with those is that you've constantly got water going up and down through them. Now the example that you had chairman, Mr. Chairman is, I'm not sure if that's a water management area. It sounds like it's more of a preserve area for the trees. I'm not sure. But that might be a case where it's actually not a water management wall, you know, at that point. And there we would actually go back to the requirement with the requirements for vertical retaining walls where you can go past that 30-inch or that three foot as long as you've got a surface on there that's, you know, at least it's not raw concrete and you've got plantings that also relate to that retaining wall. So, in other words, you wouldn't just have a bare wall in those cases either, but you certainly can go past the water management wall requirement of only being able to go up to 30 inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think maybe I can help this. The 30 inch requirement is only if there's a walkway alongside the wall. So maybe let's do this, if you leave it at three and we add another little phrase in there where permanent water management walls run alongside walkway areas, and not to exceed 30 inches, that would eliminate the need for handrails then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Unless the property is such -- configured in such that you have no option. So you have to make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what we're trying to avoid. If you have a walkway alongside a wall that's greater than 30-inches, you have a handrail. Let's avoid handrails. So let's -- would that be a problem just adding that? That means, in an area where it wouldn't apply, they can make it three feet. In an area where there's a walkway along side it, they've got to keep it at 30-inches. MR. SAWYER: I think we can certainly add that. It's not a problem at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then nobody is hurt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we try to cover all bases. So, are there any discussions on this one? Any further Page 193 December 1, 2005 discussion? Any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval and find it consistent with the growth management plan for Section 4.06.05 -- hold on a second -- C11. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer. Seconded by anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those -- any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None opposed. We're moving ahead at lightening speed. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mike. Now don't forget those freebies you promised. MR. SAWYER: I've got them at my desk. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, we're on Page 15 of the summary sheet. And we are moved to section 4.07.02, design requirements. And I think Mr. Weeks is here to explain this Page 194 December 1,2005 amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what's that happening to your chin? MR. WEEKS: Can we blame it on Wilma? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, Patrick had one for a while and his disappeared. MR. WEEKS: A different part of town. For the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. As the brief staff report in your packet explains, there's a few different reasons for this proposal. Primarily it's one of clarification. It's been a longstanding provision in the land development code that PUDs must have a minimum of 10 acres in size, but that if the PUD is separated by an intervening street or road, that the separated portion of the PUD had to be a minimum of five acres. Well, we also have a provision that in some locations, most particularly in the mixed use activity center, there is no minimum size requirement for PUD. So there's an inherent conflict there. How do you treat a PUD in an activity center that might be separated by an intervening road. On the one hand, you have no PUD size requirement, on the other hand, the separated portion has to be five acres. Similarly for the infill provision where an infill PUD has a minimum size requirement of two acres, but again, if it's separated by an intervening road, how do you treat that, the five acres versus two? An additional issue is that there is no definition of what an infill PUD is. There's a reference in the existing text to a definition in the growth management plan and the LDC, neither of which contains such definition. So the remedy here is to provide for that definition. And additional point of clarification is where the existing language makes reference to the fringe, urban fringe area as identified in the growth management plan. Well, we have two such areas. One is the urban coastal fringe lying south of US 41 east, and then the other area is the urban residential fringe lying on the east side of Page 195 December 1,2005 Collier Boulevard and south ofI75. And as I explained in the report, I see no compelling reason to have this zero acreage requirement. No minimum acreage requirement for a PUD for the urban residential fringe, that is lying east of County Road 951. Number one, the density limitation of that area is one and half units per acre. And, secondly, you don't really have the opportunity for a mixed use development as you would down in the urban coastal fringe area. Furthermore, in the urban coastal fringe area, the urban -- the future land use development specifically has language that says it encourages PUD zoning. So kind of putting all this together, is the background for why I've proposed the language here. To try to remedy these different circumstances and provide the clarity for how we would deal with PUDs and with different size requirements, and if they are, have a portion of the PUD separated by an intervening road or street. I'll stop there and if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of David? David, I've got one. On the infill parcels, the minimum area for PUD be two contiguous acres. Then the last line on page 175, the last portion of it says, or property sharing at least two common boundaries with parcels that are developed. And it's referring to the definition of an infill parcel. I'm wondering, how much -- say you have two small pieces of property that are developed on each side. In the middle is a neck of a piece of property that opens up to a much bigger piece up here. Does that whole piece then qualify as infill because of these two small pieces on each side of it? And is there any limitation on the size of an infill parcel? MR. WEEKS: I would say yes to the first, that that unusually shaped parcel has a skinny neck, I would say that that would comply with this definition. Secondly, I don't think it would be so much of a concern from the way you phrase it, that turns into this very large parcel above, because again, the ten acres is the minimum size requirement for PUD anyway. Page 196 -«,-"..-.-- .,-,-,..,..--.-.~-",-, December 1, 2005 So if it has a skinny neck and the balance of it gets to that threshold of ten acres, then I'd say your example is what's the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the issue, that's what I'm trying to find out. Is there -- if that then qualifies as an infill parcel, does it give it any additional connotation or benefits that it would not normally have if it wasn't considered infill? MR. WEEKS: I can't think of any because this is only in the context of qualifying for PUD zoning. This is not something related to a future land use element provision for density increase or qualifying for commercial, anything of that sort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my only concern. Any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And no other questions from the commission? Is there a recommendation to approve section 4.07.02 and find it consistent with the growth management plan? MR. MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray just made the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, David. Page 197 ,.---- _._.,--~-~".~- December 1, 2005 MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you see on your sheet, the previous amendment that was submitted for building color has been withdrawn and I might say that was Mr. Schiffer and Mr __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nichale. MS. FABACHER: -- Nichale. And we're going to be very pleased with the product. So we're going to go to page 16 and we are on page 1 79 of your original packet. And this architectural in site design standards. And Mr. Samhorne is here to answer any questions that you might have concerning the -- where is it? MS. MURRAY: It's on page 179. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, boss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the one dealing with the word reflective? MS. FABACHER: Correct. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Starts on 179. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a complicated one. Are there any questions about taking the word reflected out? I'm sure, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not just taking the word out. What it's really saying is that metal panels aren't allowed. Prior to taking the word out. MR. SCAMEHORN: Beyond 33 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Reflective metal panels were the only problem child. MR. SCAMEHORN: I'm not changing anything except the one word, whether, you know, it was restricted to 33 percent before as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now there are beautiful pieces of architecture with porcelain enamel panels totally clouding them, so this would eliminate that, which would make Richard Meyer very unhappy. Keith, what do you think, what was the intent when this was Page 198 --"-'--, December 1, 2005 written? What's the reflective problem? MR. SCAMEHORN: Confusion. The set up was for metal panels. We're trying to keep metal panels to industrial zoned properties. In this corrugated reflective metal panel, the question that starts surfaces, how much is reflective, you know. And high definition, anything that's not flat black is reflective. And black is not allowed by the -- MR. SCHIFFER: Everything we see is reflecting. MR. SCAMEHORN: Everything is, right, exactly. So this is just a confusion point and it's just dropping a word to try to eliminate confusion and highlight what we're just focusing on as keeping the metal panel to 33 percent of the facade. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm comfortable moving along. I think it makes it easier for Keith. We can't deal with it the way it is. We have to do something to it. There is a system is the architectural standards where if Richard Meyer came to town he could go before a Board and be honored probably with approval. MR. SCAMEHORN: Ifhe does a museum here, there's alternate COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's ways -- MR. SCAMEHORN: He can get a design for that, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard Meyer, does he live here or something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is he a speaker here today? MR. SCAMEHORN: He has a house in Port Royal for these German, very affluent German people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe cares enough, he should be here in the audience. MR. SCAMEHORN: He does museums in Germany and all over. Page 199 =--.-.- "h~'__,,,.,v~_ December 1, 2005 MR. MURRAY: So let me understand, may I please. I don't know what the size of panels would be. Are they specifically designated sizes panels, or are they just used as a term to describe something essentially rectangular or square? MR. SCAMEHORN: Just what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All different sizes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So does that mean that if an architect were to create a facade that had panels placed in irregular forms or locations just to enhance the look of something, that's now that's going to be -- MR. SCAMEHORN: No, it's still okay. MR. MURRAY: That's permitted? MR. SCAMEHORN: As long as it doesn't exceed the 33 __ MR. MURRAY: The 33 percent. That was the critical factor? MR. SAMHORN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, that's really all you're saying. But you say removes the term reflective. If you remove that, then 33 percent has no application. MR. SCAMEHORN: You still do the panels, it's just -- it's just a word. I've had people present well, the metal industries lose panels that they say it's not reflective, but it is reflective. MS. MURRAY: I think what the problem is is that you want __ people want to exceed the 33 percent and they're arguing that their panel is reflective or not. And so this kind of removes that ambiguity. MR. MURRAY: Okay. But does it preclude creative architecture that allows for beauty that may come from a certain type of reflective panel to be applied to a building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, let me put it this way. Frank Gary's, you know, Gugenheim Museum in Spain would not be able to be built because of this. But there would be a lot of people that would argue whether that's good or bad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point is, do we have Page 200 December 1,2005 something in the code that if the designer really felt that strongly about it, he has a way to express that to other designers. And the problem is, this is a tool Keith has to work with, the word reflective in there, it's a useless tool for Keith, so we have to fix it for him. MR. MURRAY: So, do I understand you support or not support this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I support it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get through the process so we can. You're right, this turned into a complicated word. Okay. Kathy, do we have any speakers? MS. FABACHER: No, we have no public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing no further comments from the panel, do I have a motion to recommended approval of 5.05.08 C13-CI and find it consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer has made the motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray has seconded the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) Page 201 December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody is opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Now, the court reporter needs a break. And we will take a IS-minute break for the court reporter. When we get back, I would like to discuss with the commissioner a termination date for today's meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick thing, Keith, has one more item. If we go through it, it's a tiny one, I promise you this time, and he could get out of here. So we could give him 30 seconds I bet we could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to have to come back after the break. Fifteen minutes. I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can come back to order now. Mr. White wants to put something on the record. Thanks to the help of our records department. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. Just note for the record that the court reporter has been required to leave, and that we were moving forward with an audio and videotape of these proceedings, which will subsequently be transcribed and available. And I don't believe they'll create any legal issue from that, but I would just ask that each of the speakers as they newly come up to identify themselves and if they're from the public, provide their address. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. I want to thank the records department for accommodating us this afternoon. The rest of the panel, I'd like to see us try to finish this up this afternoon and hopefully we'll get it done before six o'clock. So, with that, Mr. Scamhorne and Ms. Fabacher, let's move forward. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Now, we are doing on the bottom of page 16 on the summary sheet. We're going to do, reducing the required width of pathways from 60 to five feet. That's on one page 181 in your old packet, and Mr. Scamhorne is going to discuss why. Page 202 --~,_...... December 1, 2005 MR. SCAMHORNE: Again, my name is Keith Scamhorne, urban design planner doing land development review. The previous LDC, five foot was was the requirement. There was discussion with transportation at the time going to go six foot on all sidewalks. That was later not pursued and with transportation. However, the architectural did get the six foot approval. Since then, as you know, China has driven the price of concrete, and interest of the public, and interest and all, five foot. The way it was before is what we're going for again. And we'll leave that as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe I'm correct in saying that a number of PUDs were approved with the requirement for six feet. Will they be relieved of that requirement now in order for us to be consistent, or will that remain in that ordinance, because they're an ordinance, I would assume -- well let me just ask the question. Will the PUDs that have already been approved, assuming that they exist, will they be required to do six feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, I think this is one of your questions for you. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a PUD has a six foot requirement to do a sidewalk and we eliminate the six foot requirement by this amendment to the LDC, even though the PUD had it stated in it's document, will it have to end still doing the six foot even though the LDC is changed to five foot? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and look at this. This is only for sidewalks around buildings. This is not a subdivision situation. This is not -- MR. SCAMHORNE: It's the sidewalk from the entry to the street sidewalk and between buildings, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And essentially, when this was Page 203 ---..,. December 1, 2005 put in, it was felt that the code was going to change to six feet. It was, you know, a shot that wasn't necessary to take and they want to put it back to five. MR. MURRAY: Well, that's the reason I'm posing the question. On the premise, that because of the cost of concrete, et cetera and the burden, I thought, okay, I pose the question so the answer is no. There will be some PUDs that will have six foot. Okay. MR. SCAMHORNE: That will remain, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On item F is where you change the building perimeter path, the minimum from six feet to five feet. Item D has pedestrians' pathways must be a minimum of six feet. So, we're leaving pedestrian pathways at six feet, and the building perimeter pathways are five, or you need to change both to five feet. MR. SCAMHORNE: Yeah, it's five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So D needs to have a strike through and change to go to five feet; is that right? MR. SCAMHORNE: I'll look into that. You're right. The sidewalk and LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCAMHORNE: Transportation still has some cases where they have six foot requirements, and that does not change the transportation requirements, just the LDC requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other questions of staff? MR. MIDNEY: Sounds reasonable to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too. Any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval of section 5.05.08E2F and find it consistent with the growth management plan with the caveat that Item D gets changed to five feet as well? MR. MIDNEY: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Mr. Midney. Page 204 December 1, 2005 COMMISIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Tuff. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Nobody opposed. Thank you, Keith. MR. SCAMHORNE: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. Chair, now we're going to turn to page 17. Seventeen of the summary sheet and we're going to look at page 183. I believe we already put the definitions back in. The 10802 we've already done. So, what we're looking at are the specific standards that have been changed on 183, and it actually isn't until you get to 185 that you see the change in your old packets. And all they're doing under G ground signs. Ground signs has this information about the planting bed around it in another portion of their requirements, but it's not in the part where they mostly go. The part that they use the most when they are -- people are designing signs and so forth. So what they're doing is kind of cross referencing this to a place where it really should be. So it exists already in the code someplace else, but it needed to be in this section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Now the next change is the conservation Collier signs. And you'll remember the commission voted to recommend approval of conservation. And this is to allow them to have that one sign we talked about as a -- as being, you know, remember how we said without going through site plan review and Page 205 --~._. ..,-.^ December 1,2005 everything they could just simply put in an access way, a simple sign. Parking lot, I think it was less than ten, or ten and under. Okay. That's that. And under temporary signs, they made a change to Section D, which requires you to obtain a temporary use permit to put up the temporary coming soon sign, you know, as opposed being part of the building permit process because those signs can be up in a year or more before, so the building actually gets built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the panel? I see there's a lot of public speakers. MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there recommendation-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before you do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you do have a question for the panel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fire chief is here and what he was kind of requesting was the ability that the fire department would like to put signs on sites that they purchased long before they permitted them to let people aware of the fact that they permitted them. Is there a way we could get that into this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what I discussed with the chief, and I'll relay it to staff, he did have a concern about Item D, and he asked that, and I suggested after we talked for a while, that maybe if we were to allow the signs to be erected after the zoning was secured on a piece of property and allowed to remain in place for up to 12 months prior to the issuance of the building permit, and then this would apply at the time of building permit, that would work. If they didn't get a building permit after 12 months of rezone, then the sign would have to come down until they got one. That seemed reasonable to him. Does that work okay? MS. MURRAY: Why do they need a sign at that point? I'mjust wondering. Page 206 ,--.".. December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they're concerned that apparently them, for example, they just started their new station next to Summit Place. They went out there and they couldn't put a sign up so they started tearing the place apart and a lot of people are coming out of the woodwork wondering why they're there, how did they get there. I didn't know I moved next door to a fire station. If they had a sign up from the time they were rezoned, all the new buyers in Summit Place would have been able to see that there was actually Government institution going in next door. So that's what they're asking for. It didn't seem unreasonable. Is that going to be a problem though with staffs implementation? MS. MURRAY: I don't see how it's different from any other use. I mean, what if it's a commercial shopping center? I mean -- you know what I'm saying? That could be just as objectionable or positive, however you want to look at it, you know, as a fire station. I'm just trying to understand the distinction between the two. Try to treat everybody fairly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying we would separate them, but would there be a problem with having a sign erected at the time of zoning that someone's intention is to build on this parcel? Is that a bad thing? MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, Diana Campioni is here with a sIgn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not here with signs, she's here to talk about signs. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. MS. CAMPIONI: For the record, Diana Campioni, building review, sign review. The clarification in coming soon signs was it was unclear before when they could actually put a coming soon sign on property that was approved. And I did speak with the chief outside the door and took his issue into consideration, and maybe we can put some kind of language if it's essential services. I understand his Page 207 December 1, 2005 concern, but our concern with this is, and I'll just use it for instance, the Hooters sign that was up on Pine Ridge Road for 12 months, and then they didn't actually go through and build the project. And signs that are up like that could be all over the county for, if you were going to approve it at 12 months, or -- at least this way they have to have their building permit just applied for and then they can have their temporary use permit for up to six months. And usually they'll either have their building permit and then go into a construction sign, or they would be able to have their permanent sign up. MS. MURRAY: I think signs could give -- Susan Murray, for the record -- bad information as well as good information. And I think the insurance here is that they've applied for a building permit and they're more than likely elligible to get one and they're going to build the development rather than just having signs all over. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's a good idea to avoid proliferation of signs, and I think it's a good rule to put in, and I don't see - I agree with Susan, I don't see why a fire department or a government building should be treated different from a commercial thing. I think the six month rule is good for everybody. MR. MURRAY: And whether intended or not, pretty good advertising, pretty cheap advertising for a company like Hooters. So, there are a lot of reasons to consider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is a difference I think. In the case of the fire department, they want to notify the community that a fire department is coming so the community can make judgments based on that. In the case of a commercial situation MS. MURRAY: But there's other opportunities for them to do that. And anybody who buys property ought to be looking at who their neighbor is. And I mean, they could be asking the developer, the real estate agent. They could come to the county and ask for that information. So there's -- I don't buy it it's the only way for people to Page 208 December 1, 2005 find out that information. If they don't do their due diligence I don't really feel like -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think the chief would have brought it up if it wasn't a real problem, so let's deal with it that way. For other opportunities, what's the other opportunity for the chief to get a sign other than working in this ordinance right here? MS. CAMPIONI: Well, I did tell him that in the next cycle or the cycle directly after that we were going to try to put some language in and we would do some research on, you know, whether we could add something into the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think it is a benefit to the community to see what resources and where they're coming prior to them coming anyway, so -- again, it isn't a commercial advertisement situation. It isn't Hooters. It's a fire department. MR. MURRAY: I wonder -- and this is outside the scope, but I wonder if you couldn't -- Summit Place would be a good place for him to get some kind of reference in there if he wants to show that there's a fire department being built. It would be a good idea. I know that's particular to this issue and not to the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's let it go and have something new come in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Donna Caron, for the record. I think your idea of limiting it to essential services makes the most sense. Helps the chief and anybody moving into this community, I feel, and working on that language would seem appropriate. MS. CAMPIONI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is the consensus -- well, obviously we've got to make a motion, but before we do, is the board comfortable with limiting a temporary, or suggesting that we limit temporary signs for essential services, to a different period of time, say 12 months after rezone? Page 209 '--"~--'-~ December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I could accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you guys figure out, that's a suggestion to go to the BCC. See how they feel about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, the only -- the 12 month after rezone, if I understand the chiefs problem, it's really prior to rezone that he would like everybody aware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he got plenty of notice prior to rezone. In fact, he had to put a rezoning sign up like he's required to do. He notified the neighborhood. It was quite a contested issue. And then everything died down because he had to get the funds to build the building that he got rezoned for, and that's gone on for almost, what, a year-and-a-half, two years. During that period of time there's no sign on the property because he had to take the zoning sign down. The property sits there like an open field and the people moving in Summit, or the newer buyers, they're looking out seeing this field thinking, you know, not knowing what they're moving in against. And, yes, they should have done due diligence but not everyone ends up doing what they should do. So they moved in and all of a sudden the chief is out there with large equipment digging the place up and he's trying to tell them he's putting a fire station in, and a lot of them are expressing real concerns about sirens and things that they should have expressed had they been here when the rezone happened. So, that's what that particular issue came up for. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think he's just trying to be a good neighbor. I think we should help him in doing that. MS. MURRAY: I'm going to keep my comment to myself because we had this discussion at the rezoning, or whatever it was for that property, and I remember getting quite a bit of criticism for recommending denial of the training facility for that exact reason, and now all of a sudden it's a problem and that bothers me. I'll just leave it at that. I think what we'll do is try to look at -- we'll take your recommendation and bring it to the bored. Is that what you want to Page 210 December 1,2005 do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And then we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't get that training facility, did they? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you thought -- okay. You weren't in that argument. We supported you. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. It's not a win lose for me. I think the staff got quite a bit of criticism for recommending denial of the training facility simply from a compatibility standpoint. And now all of a sudden compatibility is a problem and we need a sign. You know what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't get -- just for the record though, this board supported the staffs position on that. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I'm not -- it's just a little -- I just don't understand the logic when somebody thinks something is compatible and all of a sudden it's not and they need a sign. I don't understand that logic but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think they're compatible. MS. MURRAY: It's outside of our scope. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's compatible either, for the record, but I think the sign would help tell the innocent people that come In -- MS. MURRAY: I agree. As a public we should be concerned about, no doubt. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You don't want to do a motion, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I'm going to go there now. Recommendation for approval-- yeah, I'd like this board to entertain a recommendation to approve section 5.06.04 and find it consistent with the GMP with the added suggestion that the staff explore a means of Page 211 December 1,2005 having a temporary sign allowed for a essential services up to 12 months after rezone. MR. MIDNEY: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney. COMMISIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Any discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Street lights. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Streets lights. We're at the bottom of page 17 of your summary sheet and we're going to page 187 of your old packet. And Russ Muller is here to answer any questions you may have and give you a little background on that amendment. MR. MULLER: For the record, Russ Muller with engineering review. And I'm kind of tag teaming with Nick Castello with transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was somebody else behind you besides you, Russ. MS. FABACHER: Sorry, Nick. I thought you were here for something else. MR. MULLER: For the record, it's M-U-L-L-E-R. What we're doing is trying to clean up a current code. Before it was the code just Page 212 --~ December 1,2005 said, arterial level lighting at street entrances and we got some questions about what that was. And we went out and did some measurements and decided to change the code to specific -- specific foot candle measurements and find out from electrical engineers that that wasn't the correct way. We weren't measuring it correctly and that wasn't the correct way to do it interior. I think Nick has some specific foot candles he would like at the entrance of the buildings, or the developments to protect the pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as the automobile traffic when somebody is driving into a development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? I have some questions if nobody else does. MR. MURRAY: Well, you provoke questions with -- well, you said Nick has some what? Some indoor or inside? MR. MULLER: He has some specific foot candle measurements that he would like to see at the entrance to a proj ect. So an entrance to a PUD, or entrance to a subdivision right at the right of way line. MR. MURRAY: I guess the question that provokes is, it's not what Nick wants, it's some standard that you've relayed to me. MR. COSTELLO: For the record, Nick Costello, transportation. We had foot candle requirements currently in the code. Russ and I went out on a moonless night at three o'clock in the morning -- I still haven't forgiven him for that -- we took some measurements the correct way, on the ground. We found out the 2.0 foot candles were pretty consistent with our original code, which was a well-lit entrance. And we took those entrances probably, I would say, a good 20 or 30 developments. So we didn't get arrested that night. That was a good sign. And we got some feedback from the electrical engineers doing the photometric plans, doing the designs for the entrance lighting. And that's why we came up with this. And they were in agreement that that was a fair number, it provided adequate lighting and we also went with the recommendation of full cutoff optics. So Page 213 December 1, 2005 when you were driving down the roadway, you wouldn't be looking at the light in your eyes like you see in some of the roads out here currently. That's where we came up with those numbers. MR. MURRAY: So if I understand that correctly, that's a consensus or agreement among qualified individuals, but not taken from any standard by any Federal state or any other forum, correct? MR. COSTELLO: We use some of the guidelines and IESA, if I'm saying that acronym correctly. And we met with some of the professionals in the area and we took field measurements. So we did a broad review and we talked to the development and the design community, we looked at the guidelines, took some field measurements, and it was a conservative number. Some were a little higher, some were a little lower. It was all within a foot candle range. A foot candle range that the naked eye couldn't really pick up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did how many again? MR. COSTELLO: Probably about 20 or so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you feel that's an adequate evaluation for all probabilities? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, sir. We probably went with some of the worst offenders and some of the ones that were too bright, and we went with some of the ones that were too dim and we found the 2.0 that we had in the original code was pretty safe, pretty bright. The only problem we had was that we wanted to see full cutoff optics, because when you were driving on the road, you don't want to look at the light. MR. MURRAY: Sounds like you're doing a good job. MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, up at the top of 188, Page 188 there's a -- I think you need a little bit more. It says the i.e. standards for street lighting are as per IESA, and then except as below, but you eliminate everything below. Shouldn't you remove the except Page 214 December 1, 2005 as below? MR. COSTELLO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a scribner point. MR. MULLER: I think below at the entry or exit. I think where we define it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that would be -- then there's a formatting problem if that's the case. MR. MULLER: It should probably say except as below, or exception B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that what's you want. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I had a question along that line that I probably should have asked you a long time ago, but -- on A, street light standards shall be designed installed utilizing the IES standard. Is that supposed to now to go IES&A standards, or -- MR. MULLER: Correct. MS. FABACHER -- or do you want to say using illumination standards for each street per. MR. MULLER: Well -- for the record again, Russ Muller. That IES&A RP8.00 is a book. And the IES is the standard. MS. FABACHER: Okay. So it's fine the way it is. MR. COSTELLO: We can say as updated just to make sure. MS. FABACHER: No, I'm just asking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? If not, my turn. Page 187 under the title of change, and requirement for full cutoff picture. Are you suggesting that we have full cutoff lighting fixtures throughout all the roads in every proj ect from here on out? MR. COSTELLO: No, sir, only on entrance lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me how this document limits it to just entrance lighting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's only in sub set B with the entrance lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm worried about A because A Page 215 December 1,2005 also refers to full cutoff fixtures. Install utilizing IES standards at each street intersection, and requiring along each street. And they took out the exceptions in A, which now makes me worry that, if you take out those exceptions, are all the streets back in? MR. MULLER: All the streets interior to a project we're recommending full cutoff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to ask. So, let's go back to my original question. You're asking for full cutoff lighting fixtures on all streets? MR. MULLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not just entry streets? Not just entry. N ow that brings in a whole myriad of problems because you're going to have to have different spacing. And I notice you're changing the height off the ground in which you measure illumination which is going to require different intensities of that lighting. What is the fiscal impact of this because you've got no values down here for fiscal impact. You say it's going to aid things, okay, but it's also going to cost money. Anything that aids something is going to cost something. MR. COSTELLO: To be honest with you, my interpretation is we're going to do the full cutoffs at the entrance, and then we'll review them for the interior. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, out on the street there's rumors that said that and there's rumors that Russ said just the opposite, that's why I'm asking the question. MR. COSTELLO: Well, we have to correct that. MR. MULLER: And I know it's going to cost more because you're going to put lights closer together. I asked an electrical engineer for that number and I never got anything back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got all kinds of scare tactics from them, and none of them I liked. And the whole obj ective was to try to find out today what you're really wanting to do. And if it's your way, you guys have to come back and tell us the fiscal impact on the Page 216 ~-_. December 1, 2005 county portion of it because the county is going to have to change it's fixture standards. MR. MULLER: No, sir. The county roads are not the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so the county gets exempted from the higher cost. MR. MULLER: Does as we say, not as we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you equate that as being fair? You know the entry roads I can go along with that, but when you want the insides of all these private developments when the county is not willing to do it themselves, seems a little extraneous or enormous on top of development impacts. I can't see how that's justifiable. MR. COSTELLO: I would agree with that in a sense that I think the development community should be able to make that decision on their own it's not a county road. But I would strongly recommend we keep it full cutoff where it meets the county right of way. I don't have a problem if you want to make a recommendation that this would apply to county entrance roads and we leave it internally up to the development community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agree too. I don't see the rationale of having that on the arterial roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If that's the case, then the rest of the questions go away. Because I don't care where you measure from, if it's just on the entrance road, you guys got to do what you got to do for the best aspects of the county and the public, but inside private developments, I just didn't see that. MR. COSTELLO: My main concern would be the county right of ways. So if we want to make that change, we will, and if you want to make that recommendation, we'll make that change going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? How about public speakers? Page 217 December 1, 2005 MS. FABACHER: No, they're not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval for section 6.06.03 and find it consistent with the growth management plan with the subject change that this will be applied to county right of way entrances only. MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nowhere else. MR. MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by commissioner Murray. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Midney. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. What a tag team you guys are. MR. MULLER: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, we are on page 18 of the summary sheet. We're looking at section 9.04.02, which is in page 190 of your packet. And I don't think that assistant county attorney Student is here, so I will try to fill in on the legal aspect of it, and Barbara Burgeson is here from environmental services in case you have a environmental question. You all got the picture of Plantation Island one, two and three -- units one, two and three. Essentially, they are -- we made -- Susan, Page 218 -..-.'--....- December 1, 2005 you may have to help me here. We made an agreement -- we settled a case with the -- was it with the state? No, the DCA whereby we would find a way to allow people to use these lots, otherwise it would be a taking. And part of the agreement was -- am I right, Patrick? MR. WHITE: So far. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We would give them some relief. So this variance has been put in to create that relief for these specific lots. And they still have to go by, you know, have to hold a meeting of the Big Cypress area of critical state concern and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions before I start mine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on the charts you gave us, are the lots in question only those that appear to look like a trailer park, or how about the ones across the waterway? Is it every lot in this area? MS. F ABACHER: It's the vacant lots in that area. Susan -- I mean, Barbara do you know? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The vacant ones are the ones I'm worried about. MS. F ABACHER: I think it's labeled on the photograph. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it the ones that are colored in yellow. MR. MURRAY: Yellow? Where are they? Oh, I see. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Bergeson, with environmental services. I'm sorry. I'm not an author on this and I don't have the advantage of having had these handouts before, nor working on this amendment, but from recollection when this was going through -- maybe about a year ago through the process with DCA, I know one of the issues was to allow some of the lots that were completely vegetated with wetlands species and were 100 percent title an opportunity to develop. So it's not just the lots that are clear, but I Page 219 ..,----,~ >-,~~._-"-, ",. December 1, 2005 cannot tell you what the boundary is -- what the boundary of the amendment of the agreement with DCA is, but it does clearly involve lots that are completely vegetative in title. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you put it on the overhead so does that waterway have a name to it going through there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On, no, you had it right. Keep going back the other way. There you go. That works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that waterway have a name, do we know? MS. BURGESON: I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are any of these lots on the opposite side of the waterway? MS BURGESON: I can't answer that question either. Unfortunately, Margie is not available. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can't see how they can develop the opposite of the waterway, since there's no roads. MS. BURGESON: Oh, no, I'm sorry. You're talking about the ones on the south side of the water. I don't believe it has anything to do with any of the areas to the southbound of that waterway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about the ones like to the east of that. Are they -- MS. BURGESON: Let me point out some of the area. Along here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the -- I'm sorry, you need a microphone. Barbara. They're going to have to transcribe this off the recording, so -- MS. BURGESON: Okay. Pointing to some of these lots here where they are completely vegetative in title. This does cover, I believe it covers all of those lots. I was not involved in the BCA agreement so I really can't give you any details on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, I'm going to have Page 220 -__,,", '^M~_.UO__.,._~. December 1, 2005 more questions that are more technical in nature involving the subdivision that is not recorded in other language here. And if it's Margie's project and she's not here, why don't we just put this thing off until the 15th, otherwise we're going to spin our wheels today and have to do it again on the 15th. Does that sound logical to everybody? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just go to the next one. Mr. chairman, I'm not sure you'll benefit from having a copy of what that agreement may have been, but certainly knowing what those lots are would seem to be the thing that we ought to ensure comes back to you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was going to be my questions. The facts that -- while I have about five or six. I'm sure Barbara is not going to be in a position to be able to respond to them, so I just assume we wait until Margie gets back here on the 15th. Let's go on to -- MS. FABACHER: All right. We're on page 19 of the summary sheet, and we're on the top box there, the top column. And its section 10.02.06 of middle of requirement for permits. Page 124 in the packet And essentially, this is to follow the GMP. What they did in the GMP was, if you receive an agriculture clearing permit for a piece of property then it says -- it used to say then you can't rezone it for ten years. They changed the GMP -- am I right, David? They changed the GMP to say 25 years, so the LDC is trying to come up with compliance with consistency with the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MIDNEY: I don't see anything to object to on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but we already realized when we don't think, there always is, so does here have any comments? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No public? Page 221 ,--~, ~ .-...,-,-.-..-, December 1, 2005 MS. FABACHER: No public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval of section 10.02.06 and find it consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney. COMMISIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Tuff. Discussion? All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? No one. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a reason we skipped page 192? MS. FABACHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was withdrawn. That was withdrawn. MS. FABACHER: Also page 197 is withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 199 now. MS. F ABACHER: Right. We're on page 199 in your old packet. And let's see, all we did on this one was to change the citation. If you look on -- a reference. If you look on page 200, when some of the other language changed during the last cycle, then we missed changing this citation. So this just corrects the citation to reference the correct -- MS. MURRAY: Section number. Page 222 ----~_. --'~- December 1, 2005 MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the panel? Mr. Midney, I be this one will go through fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have any objection to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve section 10.02.13 and find it consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney and second by Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Only one opposed. 201. MS. FABACHER: Okay. 201, this will be a little show and tell. I can't remember if I'd given you the revision. In your old packet it says, proposes to move the notification range to a mile, which is what they looked at originally. It's currently 1,000 feet and someone at a public hearing stood up and said well, we didn't get a notice on this. So Joe said well, let's change to it a mile. Well, since then we looked at a mile and all of the names and it comes down to names and property. Here's a process where the applicant under per conditional use, a zoning change, a PUD amendment, a PUD extension, these sorts of things has to notify and send letters out to all the people within Page 223 December 1, 2005 1,000 mile radius of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One mile you mean. MS. F ABACHER: No, no. It's currently -- I'm sorry. A thousand foot, you're right. Sorry. Sorry. Thousand foot. So now we're coming back and we looked at that and I've got the numbers over here. Joe had the graphics department do a couple of little runs at the process. Okay. Let's see. And this is all in Golden Gate Estates. Purely in the nonurban portion of Golden Gate Estates. The urban, you know, it's a 500-mile -- okay. He looked at doing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 500 feet. You said 500 miles. MS. FABACHER: Did I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Jacksonville might be interested in the amount. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. This is approximately what we've got with 1500 feet, and that was 160 property owners total, okay, from this part of the estates. This is 2000 feet and we got 245 property owners. Under the current regulation, 1,000 feet yielded 89 property owners. The reason I'm saying this is important is because the applicant has to pay for the postage and send letters to these people. The applicant also has to hold a neighborhood information meeting, and if it gets to be over so many people, it's no longer a meeting it's a mob. But, for your consideration, here's another -- we just tried it from different sections of the estates. So this one was 74 __ property owners at 1,000, at 1,500 we got 132, and at 2000 we got 201 property owners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, you've never gotten near a mile on any of these studies, so. MS. FABACHER: I do. I have a mile over there and it's like 3,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So whose idea is this? This is Joe's idea, and Joe creates the idea and kills it with -- MS. FABACHER: No, no, no. This is something that was Page 224 ---,... ------ December 1, 2005 brought up at a town hall meeting with the commissioners there and they said, let's look at extending the range, and Joe just said look at a mile. That's all. So he wrote it as a mile and then graphics and some of the other people in the office who have to do these notifications and came up with these names came back and said, are you trying to kill us. So, that's why they worked on all this data. But our point is, we don't want to go with a mile anymore. The choice is, to leave it at 1,000 or go to 1500 or maybe 2000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A thousand feet picks up what? A thousand people picks up 89 people, did you say? MS. FABACHER: It depends on where the property is. Say we ran it about five times. It picks up about anywhere between 90 and 125 people. You get more like 250 to 300 people at the 1500 range, and you get close to 500 people at the 2000, which I think we agree is unmanageable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but if you're within 1,000 feet as this purple area shows, my goodness, how can anything affect you beyond that point? MS. FABACHER: Putting in a fire station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Beyond 1000 feet? I mean, four blocks over from that red square, I don't know. MS. FABACHER: I agree. MS. MURRAY: It's really dependent on where the subject property is, but most of these are going to be, you know, for conditional uses and things like that anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not intense. MS. MURRAY: On the main roads. I mean, they're not in the middle of neighborhoods, per se, on, you know, on dead end streets at the end or something like that. MR. MURRAY: They still have to put a sign up? They still have to advertise? MS. MURRAY: Correct. Page 225 '--~ December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just leave it like it is. MS. F ABACHER: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why make life harder? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the only thought that I would throw in was maybe the streets in which it's on, you can notify property owners along that. But once you put the sign up, they go by the property they see the sign and they can take an interest. It's the people in the back that wouldn't see the sign and you pick up with that. MS. F ABACHER: Right. I think Joe's attitude was let's give the planning commission and the board a chance to look at the issue and see what they think. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the consensus of the board seems to not let this one go forward. So is there a recommendation to deny COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 10.03.05 and find it inconsistent with the growth management. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion. All those in favor. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. MR. WHITE: Was the form of the motion that it was consistent or inconsistent? Page 226 '---"--" ~---"-"--'-'"-'~'_." December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inconsistent. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. We're on the next page 21, and we're in the same section of the code the land development code which is the public notice requirements at 10.03.05. What we did back in the last cycle was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Mine has a big gray section on it. MS. FABACHER: That's because you hadn't seen it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do we have -- where is that paper to be found? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. That paper came -- okay now I'm in your October 18th packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into that packet, let's finish up the back of the original book, which is page 203, then we can put that book aside and start on the new one. MS. FABACHER: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the last one on page 21 then; is that right? MS. FABACHER: That is correct. That is correct. And this was -- Ray Bellows wrote this, and it's just adding the fact that when -- when people put in an application for conditional use and they kind of let it slide past their deadlines, the application dies. So this is just to -- before, I guess we wrote them, but now we want to send them by certified mail and just have that in our records that they were notified. That their application had expired. Because they didn't meet the time lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any comments from the commission? Hearing none, is there a recommendation for approval of section 10.08.00 and find it consistent with the growth management plan? MR. MURRAY: So moved. Page 227 December 1,2005 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Midney. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONERMURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, now -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. Chair, we want to go back then and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 18th you sent us a packet. Is that the one you want to start working on? MS. FABACHER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one in the packet is section 1.04.0 and that's in the beginning of the summary packet that we got today; is that right? MS. FABACHER: Exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then we'll start there. that would be very organized. MS. F ABACHER: All right. And I am, for purposes of this discussion, going to turn this over to assistant county attorney White and to Nick, because they have fashioned this for our consideration. MR. WHITE: To give some background to it as it comes from the podium, I'm going to simply try to walk you through what the problem is as it was presented to my over the past two to three years. From time to time one of our eminent domain lawyers would call and say, we're really having a problem here trying to come to some reasonable understanding of what the code covers and doesn't cover in terms of curing nonconformities that arise when land is acquired for Page 228 December 1, 2005 public purpose, typically a right of way. Sometimes a corner clip around an intersection, whatever the case may be. And so, one of the last things that got added on to my task list before leaving was to work on this set of provisions. It is one of the hardest things I've ever worked on because it requires you to try to envision an almost infinite number of fact possibilities pertaining to two categories of regulation. The first of them have to do with what I call the land or the dirt. They're regulations that pertain to lot size, area, and those type of dimensional requirements. And the second class are the structural types of regulations we have, those that pertain to building setbacks and things along -- well, more the structural things. And as you look through the regulation in subsections A, Band C it's designed to operate so that the cures are provided for under A for the land. Something that's made nonconforming under A is considered cure. Under B those structural things that arise and are made nonconforming are likewise cure; parking, things along that line. C -- let me go back half a step. A says that they're cured unless or until you come back and recreate the lot. That is a circumstance where the property owner at some point in time, for whatever their reasons may have been, would have previously chosen to go ahead and replat or recreate a lot. They would then have to come in and comply with whatever the LDC then said. We're not changing that. Same thing under B, you come in and recreate the lot of parcel or you want to redevelop your parcel on your own, absent and independent of this acquisition of the land for public use, you've got to follow the rules that then exist. Nothing is deemed cured. Subsection C looks at the point in time as part of the taking process. If the property owner would otherwise have to come in and ask the county for some type of a development approval in order to effect the taking, in order to comply with the order of taking. In other words, a building permit, site development plan, something along those lines. Then the only new restriction is that you can't make Page 229 December 1,2005 something that other than for the purposes of the taking, that was previously nonconforming. You cannot make that more nonconforming. Okay? So, A operates independent with respect to the land; B operates with respect to the other regulations that are not pertaining to the actual dirt; C operates in a circumstances where in order to effect the order of taking, you need a development order development permit, you have to come to county, you can't make anything under be more nonconforming. Okay? And other than that, everything else is considered cure by these rules. We've had discussions in front of the DE SAC subcommittee and had discussions with staff more recently and agreed -- and I'm certain that Nick agrees that the balance of the text that follows in subsection C, that last phrase is pertaining to except and all the words thereafter. We've agreed to withdraw those. It was intended to create a circumstance where the staff would have authority to, if it was agreed by the experts for the property owner and the experts for the county as part of the taking, that some additional degree of compliance with the LDC could be obtained without additional cost. In other words, you're going to relocate a building that previously was not the correct architectural, let's say, color, and there was no additional cost to make it the right color, or, quote, compliant color. Staff was authorized to impose that as a condition of the development approval. We've agreed that that is something we ought to take some time to investigate further. See how these rules apply over the intervening, you know, six, eight, whatever months with the now pending taking cases and see how things turn out. If we need to come back and, you know, add this degree of flexibility, its something that can be done in the future. With that said, I'm just going to ask Nick to talk a little bit about what the fiscal operationals are so we can get that out of the way in case there might be some questions on it. MR. COSTELLO: For the record, Nick Costello, transportation, Page 230 December 1, 2005 once again. Thank you. I have been here a little over a year. I come from the private side. I have been in several development review applications where this has come to affect. And I've got to give Patrick a lot of credit because nobody wanted to touch this puppy. It was very difficult for him to write. It was very difficult for me to understand and work with him on. And speaking to the people that work in the right of way department and transportation division, terrible waste of our impact fees, our time and our money. And the last pre-application meeting I was at, there was a gentleman there from the private side whose only function was to see how much money he could get for his client in the settlement charges for the impact fees. And that was his only job there. And to me, the first thing I did was walk back and talk to staff and said what are we doing? It's a terrible waste of our funds, our time and our effort. To Pat's credit to help me put this together and bring it to you. And I'll answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. WHITE: I'd just ask Nick what estimates. I know he's got it written there. What the financial impact on the county would be? MR. COSTELLO: Sure. Talking to Kevin Hendricks, we estimated approximately almost $1,750,000 this year alone on fiscal '06 that just went by. Approximately three to five percent of right of way acquisition cost in future years. And that would be dependant on where the right of way was taken. For instance, if it was Vanderbilt Beach road extension, which is probably only our rural area, or a roadway taken that was in an urban area where there's a lot of commercial involved, that would carry those costs between three and five percent range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can look for a reduction in our tax bill next year. MR. COSTELLO: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you had a question. Page 23 1 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First question, Nick. What are the kinds of things you pay for? I mean -- MR. COSTELLO: I can give you an example. At the last one I was at, there was a pole barn that was abutting the new road that was going to be constructed, and it was going to be required to meet architectural standards, which meant the pole barn that was there, because it was being reviewed as a site development plan, abutting a future collective road, would have to become architecturally standards. The existing use in that area was agricultural. It was usng it to grow plant materials for nursery and shrubbery. It was a very large parcel, maybe 20 to 30 acres, and it abutted a residential area. They could have imposed upon us -- and may well, depending on how this goes -- the requirement to put a privacy wall between the planting area and the residential area. When I say privacy wall, I mean an eight-foot concrete wall around the whole property. And that committment, or that requirement would then not have to be done by the owner. He could take the check from the right of way department and walk away. Those are the kind of things that I saw that shocked me. And I said this is crazy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Nick, I mean, the architectural standards don't apply to agricultural buildings. I know that's not the issue here. Anyway, there's one thing in B it says, unless or until the remaining lot or yard. What is really a yard? I mean, I think of a side yard setback. Is that what that's referring to? MR. WHITE: Yes. Any of the defined yards for front, side, rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would that be recreated? What's happening there? MR. WHITE: Recreated goes back to what I was talking about as far as a lot line adjustment, a lot split and recombination, or the most typical case would be a red plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, essentially what Page 232 .,--~.. December 1, 2005 you're saying is that if we create a nonconformity, it would be conforming use unless you touch it, then you're going to -- it's going to have to be brought under compliance. MR. WHITE: And that's the same circumstance as I mentioned before. Nick, any time a property owner with nonconformities comes forward to redevelop or recreate their property, they have to then comply with whatever the code says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me give you an example. Let's say a guy had -- somehow the road right of way caused the side setback to be reduced and he wanted to put an addition on the side of the house, it would have been allowed had this not have happened. Would he still be allowed to do that, or would this be the -- MR. WHITE: Part of the thing that's happened in those type of takes, those potential developments have been the subject of discussion. And what I believe we're saying at this point is to the degree that the setback would be reduced for the yard, that you could build up to the edge of it. Obviously you can't build beyond it. Now, there's an economic impact there. Arguably as to what the lost buildable space or area would be. That is supposed to be accommodated as part of the damages that are provided in the take. So we cure as much as we can under it and make it lawfully conforming, and as to the balance of some other potential loss, that is something that we may have to address. As I said, you can think up almost an infinite number of fact patterns, and I think you have to talk about how to apply that ABC logic. Arguably here, you don't need to apply C in order to effect the order of taking. That means unless there were present plans for that property to bring forward an addition, they're talking about some future right. That future right has some value, but it is supposed to be accounted for as part of what the damages are that are paid for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's just give an example. Let's say he was 30 feet from the property line, 24 was the setback. Page 233 December 1,2005 MR. WHITE: Uh-uh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you took ten, or you took 15 feet, so therefore he's nonconforming. He's 15 feet from the property line. He would have been able to build an addition 15 feet off his existing cage, but at the time of taking, you would calculate his loss to be able to build that addition? MR. WHITE: I don't know that they will or won't. But I'm saying that under this rule, it will be deemed as to the diminutin as conforming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it exists? MR. WHITE: Yup. And it's more intended to address existing circumstances than future contemplated development, because someone, I think, can equally argue from our experts side and take a situation like that you hadn't sought to do so. And whatever it is that you're going to be compensated for the loss of the value of your land, is more than adequate to compensate for the loss of the use of that land under it's highest and best use. Weare looking to try to draw the lines a little brighter and tighter so in that give and take of discussion and negotiation, assuming we don't have to go to litigation, there's more clarity for both the staff and the property owner -- for the county and the property owner. I'd be happy to talk about any number of examples. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. MR. MURRA Y: Just for my clarification, in the taking, the damages to the loss of the space that is necessary to be taken is considered. If there were a structure of some sort, like the pole house that had to be moved in order to initiate the setbacks again, that would be an additional charge that you're referring to; is that right? They would seek compensation for the removal and replacement on site or what? Page 234 December 1,2005 MR. COSTELLO: The county would pay for that. That's existing, that wouldn't change. MR. MURRAY: That would not change? MR. COSTELLO: We would still do that. In other words, if the roadway widening required us to relocate a building to a different part of the property, it's part of the judgment and the settlement or the negotiation. We'd say, the gentleman might say mI want to remove the building to this area, and they would talk about that with the right of way division and it could be relocated. that's not the part that we're MR. MURRAY: Okay. Well, then help me a little bit more. Because I know you said further, you mentioned something about a call or somebody, or someone did. MR. COSTELLO: If further -- in that relocation they move the building to the side of the road, let's say it meets the setback at 30 feet, now that requires an SDP, site development plan, to initiate that move because you may be relocating some parking, doing stuff like. At that point in time, here's where the trigger comes in. Once you go to that site development plan, you are to do all these other things to comply with the site development plan requirements. N ow it will say, well now that pole barn has to meet the architectural standards. It's facing a collector so it has to meet those requirements. Now we'll look at the rear of the lot and therefore, you'll have to put up a privacy wall. You may be subj ect to a 25 year stone berm. You may be subj ect to all these other requirements. In doing so, the owner of the property does not have to do these things. He can just take the check and walk away. MR. MURRAY: That's I guess where I'm a little bit -- he does not have to do these things. You're going to pay him, but he doesn't have to do it. MR. COSTELLO: That's part of the settlement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he doesn't have a pole barn Page 235 --,.." December 1, 2005 and the fence. I mean, he doesn't have the use of the land that you're describing then. MR. COSTELLO: Well, in that case, he's entitled to the money from any damages from the taking. And I would never want to take that away from anybody being a property rights, you wouldn't want to do that. But what I'm saying is, we're pulling that string and kicking ourselves in the rear with that boot by making us do all these other things. In that, you know, he may just -- in the end it's a settlement and he gets a check. Now, does he intend to have to do that? Well, if he applies for site development plan, he would. If he decides to sell his property and say, and close my business and walk away, he does it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be the C characteristic here when you can't make it worse than it would have been? MR. WHITE: Right. But remember, the things you can't make more nonconforming are just the type B. MR. MURRAY: Right, because those are the improvements. MR. WHITE: Correct, structural points. As to the type A, those involving the land and its dimensional standards, those you can effect regardless. You can make prior existing nonconformity, more nonconforming. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because wouldn't that be considered in the settlement in the first instance? MR. WHITE: Right, you're paying for the -- MR. MURRAY: That's the volume? MR. WHITE: Right. MR. MURRAY: I think I understand it better now. I'm sure there are many -- MR. WHITE: I'm hoping that we've written it in such a way that it's general enough so it can be applied and still give us some factual examples over the intervening months and perhaps years that we may Page 236 December 1, 2005 be able to refine it more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick one. Nick, it sounds like the thing that we're overcoming is our own regulations. MR. COSTELLO: Not necessarily overcoming. I think we're applying in a more common sense type of way. I won't use the word overcoming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, when you list the problems you're having, all the problems you're having are with their own regulations. MR. COSTELLO: Correct. And three times I've seen it since I have been here, Commissoner, and three times I've looked around the room and said why aren't we taking care of this and everyone said this is a tough one to do. It took a lot of work to put forward and get this thing done. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. In a sense it's a relaxation of the standards. And, for the record, I'm not big on the phrase common sense, because common sense means different things to different people. I think it's probably just a use of good judgment in a case like this. You get a better use of the taxpayers' money. Our standards are pretty restrictive when it comes to even moving or relocating or expanding buildings. And in this case, it's just simply a relaxation of sorts, which is the intent. And we had had a conversation with the attorney's office and the transportation department over a year ago on looking at even ways to relax specific standards in the landscape and architectural provisions under situations like this And I think, you know, Patrick stated it was a really difficult thing to write. It will be interesting to apply it. I think you'll look to see some changes to it after we apply it for a time, but I think overall this probably addresses all the concerns that they were looking to in cases like this, for what that's worth. MR. MURRAY: Under the example that was given though, the Page 237 ."--,--.~ December 1, 2005 one about the person walking away with all those dollars, he flips the property, sells the property, essentially the person that has now acquired the property new to them, they're looking at a new configuration of property. MR. COSTELLO: Sure. MR. MURRAY: They now have to apply if they're going to go for site development plan. They have to pay all those fees and do all those things anyway. So, it seems a gift to give somebody something that they mayor may never be subject to, especially if they can walk away. So I certainly understand it I think now. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from the commission? How about all the public speakers? MS. FABACHER: None. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for approval, for recommendation of approval of section 1.04.04 ? Would the striking of the word after the -- in item C -- I think is the words except, past the word except, and finding it consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Murray. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Nick. I have, Catherine, two other -- three sections actually left, but I notice Page 238 -.----,-. December 1, 2005 there's only one gray area left in our summary sheet. MS. FABACHER: That's correct. Well, can we go in order still? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I just want to make sure -- MS. FABACHER: That's correct, we're almost done. If you go to page two of the summary sheet then, we're looking at page four of your new packet now. We're working on the new packet. We finished the old. So following the transportation amendment now we have this -- you asked us to bring back the definition of lot width. Now we have really worked on this one. And what we're going to say to you is we want to defer it until the next meeting because we have been working with Patrick and Susan and I, and we're thinking about instead of having the measurements -- remember we talked about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just defer it to the next -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. We're deferring it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's be clear about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one for lot and width depth. The first one on page 2 of the summary sheet. It's the one for lot and width. MS. MURRAY: Definition for lot and width. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say something because I did read the thing. And I'm glad you're deferring it, but couldn't that definition solely be the measurement of the width of the lot at the setback line that would cover your curbside, your straight side, everything? MR. WHITE: I think you hit upon in a nutshell type fashion what has probably otherwise probably taken us hours, if not days, to try to reason through any number of geometric shapes, different equations for measuring, and come to the conclusion that doing it from the inside out, i.e. from the setback lines and yards outward, makes much more sense and is a consistent approach regardless of lot shapes, size, dimension. So that is what we're evolving towards in terms of Page 239 December 1, 2005 how to. And where it will be located is going to be in the new subsection that is in your title block and it's 4.01.03. And if it doesn't combine some of the aspects of measurement that we talked about earlier with the seawalls and some of the other things that have arguably existed more in the form of staff clarifications than is actual land development code regulations. So, its again, been kind of a clean up challenge and task and I'm kind of going out the door. And there's just more of those than there is days. We'll get them done though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just throw this in. And this would be created on a computer by some designers. So there's a command called offset, so no matter what the shape of the front property line is, we can offset the setback of the property line. And if that's the line we measure, could be the width of the lot. MS. FABACHER: Are you volunteering to help, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I always volunteer. You have to call me up though. You're waiting for me to call you and I'm waiting for you to call me. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'll gladly help with this. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: And the last thing that we have in definitions, you asked us to bring back the waterfront yard, and that is on page nine. Actually, I'm sorry, it's not page nine. You're in the new packet. It's the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page three of the summary sheets, the second item. It's the next one in the definition packet. It's the one for yard waterfront. MS. FABACHER: Waterfront property. We're not totally happy with it at this point. However, since we need it, we want to put it in and then look at it in the same fashion that Patrick talked about looking at how we're going to measure lots and putting it in section. In the beginning section of the design standards and development Page 240 ,~--". December 1, 2005 standards 4.01.03, was where we were going to put the lot widths. And we want to do that with -- you see we still have a measurement here but for now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, can I ask you some questions? MS. FABACHER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the first one for the waterfront property, is the intent that the streams and the artificial canals are navigable? Or are there just navigable streams? MS. F ABACHER: That is just the old language that was there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cross out -- MS. FABACHER: I crossed out on man-created and made it artificial, because a woman could have dug it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably difficult too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you dig it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing on yard waterfront, and this is just to make Patrick mad, is that a seawall is an object, it isn't really a line. And if you look at the illustrations that go with our seawall ordinance, you'll see that the base of the seawall should be -- I would like to see instead of just the word seawall, we say the water side face of the seawall. MR. WHITE: And that is not consistent with the way that the staffhas applied those provisions. And I think what it's going to require is looking back at the provisions we talked about earlier in 22-301. That's ordinance 85-2 as amended, and see if there's any further direction there. But in order to be consistent with what the staff has done, and how they have essentially as I've said in working on these things, where do you put the, you know, the beginning end of that measuring tape. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do you put it on a seawall? MR. WHITE: If the seawall has no cap or the cap is the same Page 241 ____ N'_"'__~~__"~ December 1,2005 face as the seawall itself, then I believe that it is the water word edge. What I think has been done when there is a cap that extends is they take an average -- kind of the mid point of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I'm having, and again, I argue the ordinance. MR. WHITE: Which, obviously is inconsistent with your suggestion about the face. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's like measuring from a car, where do you measure from a car? And the other question is bulkhead. What exactly do you mean by that? What is -- MR. WHITE: I was going to mention earlier when we talked about this that a lot of times in days of old Dallas County I think is a good example of this, people platted lots right out into the water, knowing it was the water, and they went out and they bulkheaded them, which is the equivalent of a seawall. And statutorily they came back and fixed it and said that is the land. They did that by state statutes. So bulkheading is a term that I think derives more from the Florida statutes than local usage, but I think it's synonomous with, and would be measured in the same manner as the face, or of a seawall, the bulkhead lot. There are some statutes that talk about where you own from relative to where you bulkheaded to in combination with where those platted lot lines were. And it goes back in a county like Pinellas where there was so much of that that was done and kind of resolves a lot of what became title issues. Title issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're going to come back MS. F ABACHER: Does that answer your question about the bulkhead? Does that clear it up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: You drive pilings, you put in a dead man, you anchor the pilings to the dead man, you put some boards on the back of the pilings and that's the bulkhead. Page 242 December 1, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we determined that you're going to go look at this? MS. FABACHER: Right. So we'll be bringing this one back anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we'll do this on the 15th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. I have a question. The last sentence under yard waterfront, however DC yards shall never be less than 10 feet for any structure, unless specifically provided for in section 4.02.03A three table four dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures on waterfront lots and golf course lots. I think you need another table in there and it would be under section 4.02.01 table 2.1 and it would be for marinas because marinas have zero setback. MS. FABACHER: Marinas,oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So a marina can be right on top of a seawall of the property line, so with that your ten feet would be a conflict. So if you look at that when you come back so that the exception is in there as well. MR. WHITE: Low and behold when you look at the table, none of them are less than ten. So -- we know we got some fixing to do. MS. F ABACHER: We were going to look at it some more, but when we looked at it the last time we said, well, I think it's all covered in that table but we weren't sure. All right. Last item for today would be, I believe in your packet, it would be the next -- no, where it is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21 of our summary sheet it would be the last two pages of our February 18th packet. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Okay. And basically in the last cycle, if you recall, it's been so long, we amended this section. It used to be a 15 day letter and a 30 day letter that staff had to send out. Then they wanted to kind of ease the burden on staff, so they said, Page 243 December 1, 2005 well, let's just make it one letter, which is what we did, and we made it a 21 day letter. Well the problem is is that the 21 day letter goes out before the deadline for staff to change anything. The deadline for staff to change anything is more like 15 or 16 days, because the deadline is the publishing deadline. So what I'm saying now is people are receiving letters 21 days after they submitted their application, but then three or four days later, the whole thing changes and it gets, you know, moved to another or continued to another meeting so the letters are wrong. So what staff is asking is to be able to send the letter no less than 15 days after the receipt of the application, and it will actually work out to be more like 18 days. So it will match -- so they won't send out incorrect information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments from the planning commission? I have one, Catherine. At one point we had asked that notices be provided for GMP amendments, rezones in particular to adjoining areas around. And the language in the second page under B, it doesn't seem to indicate this was providing GMP amendments. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could someone look into that? MS. FABACHER: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it. Commissioners have any questions? Public certainly doesn't have any. With that we will entertain a motion to recommend approval of section 10.03.05 and find it consistent with the growth management plan, subject to staffs research on the issue of the growth management plan amendments being possibly added to it. MS. FABACHER: Um. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- who's saying um? MS. FABACHER: No, I'm just wondering if that's a significant Page 244 '--'~~"'---'-~-~'-" ,',,-,-,"."-- December 1, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we just wait and bring it back on the 15th, Patrick? MR. WHITE: I'll defer to the staffs suggestion, but we can. MS. MURRAY: I don't think so. I think if it's not addressed, we're just going to add it in. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm saying. Just like we have other times, just research it -- MS. FABACHER: I was concerned because I wanted to know what they thought, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's -- do we have a motion consistent with that? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? All in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I think that takes care of it. MS. FABACHER: I believe it does, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what I'd like to ask on the 15th, we've deferred a series of things. We're going to be changing the Gateway Triangle Bayshore again, from what I heard. You're going to amend some language in the Golden Gate one. You've got about five Page 245 December 1, 2005 or six small ones as a result of today. Could you give us a new booklet numerically for the new summary, so that when we all come to the next meeting, we have one new booklet, everybody consistent on the same page and that might help us move through it quicker. MS. FABACHER: Not a problem, but I won't be able to get it to you two weeks before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, a week before. Thursday or Friday -- it's to be a smaller booklet. We're not going to have much on the 10th so we should be able to dive into that. And we've already got drafts on the Bayshore and Gateway one we can start reviewing. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm afraid they're going to change agaIn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MS. FABACHER: I'll try -- I will put that in your new packet, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be a lot less than what we've got this time and hopefully we'll get through it. MS. FABACHER: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's anything else on the agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick question, Mr. Chair. Is there a way we could get a group together off cycle to try to figure out how to do less paper than we're doing? I mean, I'm politically incorrect probably, but also there's a lot of redundant Xeroxing going on. MS. FABACHER: Actually, this time I think I cut that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're getting better. And here's the problem -- again is what you do is, if you do mark up a set, and pitty the poor guy that marks up the first set, if you mark up the set, you're constantly transferring -- MS. FABACHER: Well, I have a couple of ideas for that. I don't think we ever told you, but we just started a new committee, an Page 246 ____".'-.,·.-...o,,'"~,~>~,~~~....._",.______. "".._~.__._-..... December 1,2005 LDCA kind of writing and vetting committee. You might want to describe it differently. So we will be vetting internally, hopefully, so there won't be so many last minute revisions and we won't be working on this stuff during the cycle, which I think is wrong. We also decided not to take -- which Joe directed us to put a drop dead date for staff submittals this time. There's a first date, but then drop there's a drop dead, and after that, that's before you even get a packet. There aren't going to be any changes or new additions. So, we're hoping that will help. And the third thing is, everything is kept revised on the zoning and land development review page of the county internet under LDR. The summary sheet, I keep it on there revised. I keep all the latest revisions of the amendment, so for those who can at any time want to access those things, they can. I will still send out the hard copies to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, I have to request that, unless the county will provide me with a laptop that's functionable, a wireless internet access and a printer, I'll need the hardcopy. MS. F ABACHER: Well, you'll still get them. I just mean for your convenience it's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I understand where Brad is trying to go, but every time we try to do that we miss paperwork and you guys try to email it and then we've got 5to have printers working. MS. FABACHER: I understand. I was directed not to email you anymore, and I'm not going to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, this meeting is adjourned. Congratulations. Page 247 December 1,2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman Page 248