Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/03/2006 R w/LDC August 3, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 3, 2006 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 Strain Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron (absent) Lindy Adelstein (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2006, 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 MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 15, 2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-8289, Ricardo Andisco, represented by Turrell & Associates, Inc., requesting a 21- foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet for a protrusion of 41 feet into the waterway, to facilitate the mooring of one vessel. The subject property is located at 185 Bayfront Drive, Bayfront Gardens, Lot 33, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition: BD-2006-AR-9563, David L. Fuller, represented by Turrell &Associates, Inc., requesting a 13- foot boat dock extension, from the 20 feet allowed to authorize a 33-foot boat dock facility to accommodate 2 vessels. The subject property is located at 689 Palm Avenue, Lot 12, Block F, Goodland Isles Second Addition, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Goodland, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) 1 C. Petition: SV-2006-AR-9662, Collier Regional Medical Center, represented by Trent Eckfeld, of Architectural Identification, Inc., requesting a variance to the maximum allowed number of directional, ground/pole, and wall signs allowed under Section 5.06.05 of the LDC. The subject property is located at the east side of intersection at Collier Blvd., and Lely Cultural Parkway, in Section 23, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337, Sembler Florida, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a proposed commercial shopping center to be known as Brooks Village CPUD. The subject property, consisting of 22.7 acres, is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. RE-ADVERTISED FROM 6/15/06 (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS- Require official approval to hear EAR-Based Adoption Amendments at pre-scheduled CCPC Hearings of October 5, 2006 and October 19, 2006. This item is currently listed on Zoning Departments CCPC/BCC 2006 Calendar. I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 8-3-06 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul, that was a pledge up front and close, wasn't it? And I'm not sure what I did to offend my two people on each side of me today. They're not going to be here. So I will do the roll call. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron is not here today. Commissioner Strain is here. Commissioner Adelstein is not here today. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, by the way, is not here today, for those you that weren't here Tuesday, because he is now I think it's a sixth-time grandfather. He's got another granddaughter, actually. So he's very happy and with his family. Page 2 August 3, 2006 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA With that, we'll get into the agenda. Is there any addenda to the agenda? I have one under new business. Based on some of the discussions that we've heard during the LDC meeting, it is obvious we are lacking information. So under new business, there will be a discussion about needs from staff for further information to help this board understand what is going on in this county. And I'll bring that up under new business. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning commission absences. We have a -- we're going to continue today's meeting -- well, today's meeting will be adjourned and we're going to reopen the continuation of the LDC amendments this afternoon, sometime after 1 :00. I'm hoping that at least five of us will be here for that. I know some of you didn't expect the day to be necessarily long, but we need to get the LDC amendments completed. And we have the 8th of next week scheduled for that and the 9th. But it would be nice with some help today to finish up on the 8th. So we'll continue that meeting this afternoon. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I won't be able to be here on the 8th or the 9th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully, we're not going to need the 9th, but is everybody else planning on being here on at least the 8th? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The 8th, yes, but not the 9th. Page 3 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, in terms of absences, I may have a problem with the Copeland meeting, so __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's maybe under -- well, maybe right now we might talk about that. That is the 17th. It will be in Copeland. It will start at 5:00, is that __ MR. BELLOWS: 5:05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:05. And following that meeting, we will continue the remaining LDC amendment for the Copeland area to convenience the people in Copeland that evening as well. So it will be maybe a lengthy evening, because there's going to be the rezoning of Copeland and the amendment for Copeland, and I'm not sure the extent of the turnout. But we're going to be there to listen to the residents and try to figure out what's going on there. Ray, a lot of our attendance is going to be contingent on the county helping us get there. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We reserved the van, and we also have a Taurus also. So we have two vehicles that will be car pooling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the most logical place will be to pick us up down here in the parking lot where we have our reserved parking? MR. BELLOWS: If you'd rather do there instead of our CPSI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'd rather do here. We're used to being here and I think we can probably gather here a lot __ MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- simpler without getting lost over in your larger building over there. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the pickup point will be downstairs in the parking lot where our reserve parking spaces are. At what time? It's at least a 40 or 45-minute drive. So I think we'd want to leave by 4: 00, 4: 15. Page 4 August 3, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to leave at 4:00, just to make it safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at 4:00 on the 17th we'll round up a meeting in the parking lot if you want a ride to Copeland. Otherwise you're there on your own. And Ray, is someone going to provide directions for those people that may want to drive? MR. BELLOWS: We'll e-mail those out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If somebody is not going to be there in that meeting -- Mr. Midney won't be there on the 17th. Brad, you may not be there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I may not be, but -- and it's due to something I have to do Friday, which would make it difficult to get to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only thing is I want to make sure we have a quorum. Russell, will you be able to be there? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I will be there on the 17th, but I won't be there on the 8th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the 17th an evening? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want a ride, we'll be downstairs at 4:00. If you want to drive, you'd better leave by 4:15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'll be here in the morning. We have a meeting here in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, we don't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We only have the meeting in the evenIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm glad you told me that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have been here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would have been lonely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, are you going to be able to make it on the 17th? Both Bobs. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Page 5 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, will you be able to make it? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly will, so that's five of us. And hopefully Mr. Adelstein and Ms. Caron will make it as well, so at least we have a quorum. And Ray, as far as the court reporter goes and the video, I would assume if you feel those are required, you're going to make those arrangements. I did make a note to Mr. Schmitt that maybe -- and I think I copied you with it, and maybe for that evening to convenience the court reporter we could do minutes instead of a transacted report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I have one of our staff people working on that and I'll double check. I'll get back to you before the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think it's going to be __ including the drive, it will be a rather late and long evening. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Would you recommend snakeskin boots? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For you? Maybe one of those ball and chains they put around your feet. Okay, well, that will take care of our next meeting. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 5. 2006. REGULAR MEETING The approval of the minutes of the June 15th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve or correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. Page 6 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, second by Commissioner Vigliotti to approve. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS Ray, do we have any BCC reports? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners met on July 25th and they heard and approved the PUD amendment for AR-8833, and that was approved 5-0. The PUD extension for AR-9571 was approved 4-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you tell us the names of those? I don't remember the numbers. MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately I don't have the names on this particular list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't remember the names either, right? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for the numbers. Page 7 August 3, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: They were two PUD extensions that were approved. That's all I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? Thank you. Chairman's report. I have plenty of comments that I added under my agenda item when we get to that. MR. BELLOWS: There was an administrative determination of an appeal of -- that was for the ASGM. That was also approved 5-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was in today's paper, but that was done last week. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's punctual. MR. SCHMITT: Can I correct the record? Sorry, Ray. Joe Schmitt, your administrator for community development, environmental services. Actually, the administrative appeal was never heard, it was withdrawn. The appeal -- or the extension, which was actually not an extension for the ASGM business park, it was an agreement to basically toll the clock based on federal and state permitting. So in essence what has happened -- and I don't have the date, I can't remember, but the board did agree that in fact the time that has, I guess, basically expired or -- for state and federal permitting would not count against the actual time for the PUD expiration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- to get that extension, is the applicant or applicants in the future required to go to the BCC each time? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We have very clear guidance that this was not a decision that would be made by staff, that the materials would be brought forward to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners would then make the determination that the information -- or the claim had merit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you -- I mean, I know you know the Corps permitting. Page 8 August 3, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where you're from. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know it's gotten extremely lengthy nowadays. South Florida is not quite as lengthy but cumbersome to begin with. Maybe rightfully so. I'm not getting into that part of it. But if that's the trend, how are any of our PUDs going to meet their sunset provisions without having to now come to the board all over agaIn. MR. SCHMITT: And that's a very good point. Staff recognizes three years is not sufficient for a PUD, that we ought to come back to the board with an amendment for at least five years. Most of the properties today, as you probably all well know, are properties, frankly, that were bypassed by other developers. Now it's certainly more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Onerous. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's more -- well, it's at least deemed to be profitable now to go after some of those properties that had environmental issues in the past. And as Mr. Strain points out, the federal permitting can take 18, 24 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Easily. MR. SCHMITT: Easily. Between public meetings and other agencies involved. And the state permitting can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months. And we recognize three years is not sufficient for the life of a PUD. And staff will probably ask board for direction, but we'll probably bring back a proposal to change that to a five-year __ minimum five-year life span, similar to what exists with the PUDs before 2001. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would seem practicable. Otherwise, the BCC is going to be in a position of rehearing every __ Page 9 August 3, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- single one again all over, and I'm not sure that's going to be productive. MR. SCHMITT: And we're going to look at some of the criteria as well. We think that we can develop criteria that would allow staff to basically make that determination that the clock has been tolled. If the application's there, just as what they submitted for ASGM business park, it was a very detailed record and dossier of the time that had been expended going after the permits. And I think with that we could propose with the board, as long as there's substantial proof that we could -- staff could make that determination. But the guidance from the board was that they reserve the right to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2005-AR-8289 Okay. With that, I believe we can go into advertised public hearings. The first one today is Petition BD-2005-AR-8289, Ricardo Andisco, represented by Turrell & Associates, requesting a 21- foot boat dock extension. For all those wishing to speak in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the presentation by the applicant. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Page 10 August 3, 2006 my name is Jeff Rogers with Turrell & Associates. We're here today representing, as you know, Ricardo Andisco at 185 Bayfront Drive, in Little Hickory Bay, as shown on the aerial that was just passed out by Rocky. We are here today requesting a 21- foot boat dock extension due to insufficient water depths on-site. Our proposed design will not impede navigation or interfere with the use of neighboring docks due to the site's location. The site is off the marked channel, as you can see here. Right here, the site is located -- right here, I'm pointing to it. Is off the marked channel where only the owner will need to access this area. We have received state and federal permits for this proposed dock. Extension is consistent with most other docks in the area, as you can see here on the aerial. I put some measurements, anywhere from 30 feet to 50 feet in Little Hickory Bay. Here is the proposed dock details. As you can see here, we have stayed away from the preserve area on the site, as requested by staff, and have extended out 41 feet with a 21- foot extension. The vessel is approximately 30 feet with a draft of anywhere from two and a half to three feet of water. With this 21- foot extension, we have reached sufficient water depths, and applicant Ricardo can access his boat in and out at low tide without any problems. It's off the marked channel, as I stated before, and there will be no through traffic. And due to the location and the preserve next to the site, there will be no boat traffic passing southward, heading southward down through Little Hickory Bay. The marked channel runs off to the right -- marked channel heads out to the middle of Rookery Bay, which is heading east and then south through Little Hickory Bay. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer any questions that Page 11 August 3,2006 you have in regards to this proposed dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I would be disappointed if you didn't have questions today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I just have a few. First off, the riparian line is perpendicular to the shoreline, rather than extending to the property line. Is that normal practice? MR. ROGERS: Is that what? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Normal practice to use that as the riparian line, rather than have the property line? MR. ROGERS : Well, you take -- from the property line we just extended it out parallel to the center of the marked channel or center of the channel that he's going to be using. So perpendicular from the property, straight out into the center of the channel. As you can see, there's a mangrove island located just east of the site which, you know, is 25 percent of the -- our protrusion is 25 percent of the waterway exactly, but due to the mangrove island that will never be built on, you know, the measurement could extend thousands of feet outward. And 25 percent is exact just because of the mangrove island. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Looking at your site survey here also, the distance to that mangrove island is listed as 132 feet, not 164. MR. ROGERS: The 164 feet came from the mean high water line. It's a mangrove island, and the water goes up through the roots of the mangroves and the mean high water extends further out than the actual fringe line of the mangroves. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the height of the 132 distance then? MR. ROGERS: That's to the edge of the fringe line of the mangroves. Then the mean high water line extends up further into the roots of the mangroves. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, the shore point that you measured for that 41- foot protrusion __ Page 12 August 3, 2006 MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- what determined that? In other words, you could go up along the shore one direction or the other and there would be a different protrusion. MR. ROGERS: We wanted to take the measurement that was the most extended, most restrictive point. As you can see, the property curves inward, down as you head south. It curves in. And that's __ from that point where that measurement was taken we thought was the most restrictive point and the best area to measure it, due to where the boat lift is itself and where the property begins to curve in. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all the questions that I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm with Mr. Kolflat, the riparian line -- and we've discussed this before but I've researched this since then, how do you come up with that angle? MR. ROGERS: We just took it parallel to the shoreline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you mean perpendicular. MR. ROGERS: Perpendicular, sorry, sir. Are you talking about the riparian line to the north or the riparian line to the south? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The riparian line to the south is an extension of the property line, which I kind of always thought a riparian line would do. In our code I know we have two sections. And Rocky, you said you helped write it. I went back and researched it, it was the 2001 change, correct? MR. SCOFIELD: The riparian lines are always measured perpendicular to the thread of a channel is how it reads, which is the center -- if you take a channel, however it meanders or wherever it Page 13 August 3, 2006 goes, and draw a line down the center of it, the line corning off of the property line, where the property line meets the shoreline, you take __ connect that to a 90-degree angle to the thread of the channel, and that's how riparian lines are established. So they're -- if you look at the thread of the channel and take a 90-degree off of that line perpendicular to the thread of channel and go connect wherever it goes to the property line -- excuse me, Rocky Scofield for the record -- and that's how riparian lines are established. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, when I read what the ordinance says, it says you can do it the normal way, which gives me the impression there is a normal way. Or if the shoreline is regular, meaning a straight line in a bulkhead thing, you measure perpendicular from that shoreline. If the shoreline's irregular, meaning, let's say, a wavy shape to it, and you can't find the perpendicular from it, then you measure perpendicular to the thread of the channel. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem I'm having on these lots, and the next one we're going to have a longer conversation about it, is they always seem to go across the neighbor's land. They never -- you know, this project, as you see it, it's feathering out to the right. I don't see how it's even perpendicular to where the thread of the thing is anyway. There is no thread. If you look it up on the visualizer, the channel is actually shooting parallel with the channel. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the shoreline -- actually, where this proj ect is, there is no channel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. MR. SCOFIELD: There is no channel over there. And so we just kind of went with -- if you follow the curvature of the shoreline. If you were to imagine a channel corning in front of this person's property and around there, you draw a line kind of mirroring the Page 14 August 3, 2006 shoreline, and you draw a line out there. We're still over -- we're 17 and a half feet away. If you were to straighten the line out, you might be -- you know, it would be close to 15 feet. But there's no -- we're currently -- we have -- we're doing the work for the owner next door. His dock is all the way around on the inside. He's aware of what's going on here. But, you know __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not what I'm concerned about. Because what you've actually done -- and you've really done it because of depth, I understand it, I can see that on the chart why you're hooking up around. But you're kind of getting in the way of your neighbor's view. And that's kind of why, you know, these things corne before us for that reason. If you look at the code, it does say that the riparian line has to be equitable for both property owners. So I think cutting in front of the neighbor's property isn't that equitable. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, you're only talking a matter of a couple of feet. This dock does not corne into the view play of this owner, the way his lot lays out. We've already laid out a dock for his lot. He's aware of the situation. You know, his house is going to be facing on that lot to the northeast, and they usually landscape, and they won't even be able to see this dock at that point. I mean, there's no complaints from the neighbor that's going to build on that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'm -- I think you have to put the dock there because of the water level. MR. SCOFIELD: We have to. It's a dead end. If you look at the overhead and you see the sandbars, that's just a -- it's a little tiny cove there. It's the only place really the dock can go. We did have it a little bit different before. The staff said we had to move it because of the preserve area. So we had to actually lengthen the walkway out and move it down some. But that's kind of where it has to go. Page 15 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question, and that is do you have any document you provided us that shows the setback? MR. ROGERS: That shows the setback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ROGERS: That shows the upper setback, the north setback. Would you like to see the southern setback? The southern one is 61.4 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the north setback, where does that show that? MR. ROGERS: Just above it. See the riparian line to the north? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I mean, where's -- the setback isn't measured from the riparian line, it's measured from the property -- extension of the property. MR. ROGERS: The setback is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or is it measured -- maybe staff can clarify it. MR. ROGERS: It's measured from the riparian line, right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'm looking at the code and it shows an extension of the property lines for the setback measurement. I have it right here. But I guess staff can comment on that then. Okay, my last question is you have an easement on the property next door with a cul-de-sac, and the cul-de-sac doesn't reach the property that you're asking for a dock on. The dock needs to have a principal structure, I believe, unless it's a boat dock lot. And those are a life of their own. How are you going to get the road over to __ MR. ROGERS: The easement has been taken care of. There was an easement for this property onto the -- for the property to the north. He was going to have to put his dock on the property to the Page 16 August 3, 2006 north. But the easement was taken care of by attorneys. The only easement that still remains now is the driveway easement, an access easement for this property from the cul-de-sac onto his property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This property that the boat dock's in front of, the one in the blue lines on our aerial, you are going -- that is a property that's going to have a house built on it? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir, they're both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you believe there's an easement for the house to have access? MR. ROGERS: Yes. There is an access easement only now. There was -- for the road. There was a dock easement that was done with due to this new design and the conditions as is on-site. They decided to put the dock here and it would work with staying away from the preserve. The preserve was the main issue on this site with staff. Once we complied with their request, the easement was no longer necessary and was taken away. The only easement still remaining is the access easement from the cul-de-sac. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the preserve area that's shown in the gray area on the black and white seems to be on this aerial that you just had on there where the filled area is, is that -- why are we preserving a filled -- a disturbed area? MR. ROGERS: This was a preserve area that was logged on with the county, that was their preserve. We just complied with their requirements to stay away from the area. I'm not sure why they decided to preserve a little fill area on this site. You know, it's a mangrove shoreline. Over time it will, I'm sure, grow back if it's left alone. And annual trimming will probably be done to the mangroves. And other than that, we have been requested to stay away from it and let it be, and hopefully it will start flourishing and be back into a full mangrove forest. Page 1 7 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you move further to the south on your aerial, you've got areas that are undisturbed. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. But due to the insufficient water depths, this is really -- if you look on the survey, if you stay 10 feet away from the preserve and extend out as we are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going somewhere I'm not. MR. ROGERS: Okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have natural habitat to the south or natural foliage and it's undisturbed, why would that be a better place to put a preserve than over the areas that have been filled and degraded? MR. ROGERS: The area to the south on the aerial -- let me show you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the preserve is not the subject of today's meeting, but you went to great lengths to work around a preserve that doesn't make any sense. MR. ROGERS: That was a -- MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. Joyce might be able to answer some of these questions for you. That -- when these subdivisions were platted up here, Southport, Bayfront Gardens, they're conservation easements. And then in spotted areas there were preserves. These preserves, a lot of them were established natural vegetation or wetlands. They're spotty preserves, not to be confused with conservation easements around the shorelines. All's we know is what was platted, you know. Whether it's disturbed or not is not -- you know, we have no control over that. We just have to stay away from platted preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you intend to put the boat dock in without the house? MR. SCOFIELD: You can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make sure we understoodS Page 18 August 3, 2006 that. MR. SCOFIELD: To answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your answer was correct. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: I know the permits for an upland structure is in the works right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I don't think these have been introduced into the record, have they, these two documents that were given us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had them in my package. Are they different than what's in our package? MR. SCOFIELD: They shouldn't be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The colored ones? MR. ROGERS: The colored ones I brought along for you guys to look at. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just today. MR. ROGERS: Just today, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So they were not in our packet. MR. ROGERS: The two new aerials that were handed out today are new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to make a motion, or-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I move they be introduced into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Midney. Motion made by Mr. Kolflat. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 19 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And then Mr. Chairman, I also suggest that in the future, why couldn't we get these with our packet rather than have them delivered at the last moment while we're in session, because there's information in here that's not in the proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that they'll endeavor to do that, as they have in the past. This one seems -- MR. ROGERS: We can provide them with our application to the staff in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a staff report? MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst from zoning and land development review. Now of course this is -- this property is located in Bayfront Gardens, which is part of Lely Barefoot Beach. And you can see that it's at the end of Bayfront Drive. And the property to the north is undeveloped. To the south they're preserves. So based on this, staff feels that this boat dock extension will not have a significant difference on any adjacent neighbors. Now, the preserve -- when this development was platted years ago, apparently there was a preserve there. It was wetland -- it was heavy mangroves. And through the course of time it seems like somebody had cleared that property. Now, Mark, I had asked environmental the same question about, you know, that property being cleared there, because I had gone to the site. And they said that, well, you know, basically the same thing, that it was there when they were -- there were mangroves there, heavy mangroves there when it was platted and, you know, over the course of time things change, and somebody more than likely had gone and cleared some of that. And I think it may be part of their building permit that they have Page 20 August 3, 2006 to replant that, I don't know. But it is a platted preserve. For them to vacate that platted preserve, they would have to go through an awful lot, including going back to the state. So a recommendation was to have access to the dock south of the preserve and extend over in front of the preserve. This way they would not go into the preserve. They did not have to vacate that preserve. Because if they vacated it, they would have to mitigate and have a preserve somewhere else on their site. And so this was -- you know, a long drawn-out process, and this turned out to be a much quicker solution to that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Joyce, I appreciate your explanation, but if it's a platted preserve, it's a problem that people destroy that everywhere in this county. I mean, I've seen all kinds of trouble raised over those issues. Even areas where they've cleared that aren't platted, people's properties, they make a mistake and clear one tree too much. N ow this you've got a platted preserve that was cleared and filled. N at only that, you've got a platted preserve that has mangroves on it. Now that mangrove destruction I thought elevates something to a higher level than the local issues, because I know DEP is pretty heavy on even trimming mangroves, well enough filling them with dirt. Has anybody looked into this to see if we have another issue here? MS. ERNST: Yeah, environmental has. And I'm not sure if they put a stipulation on the building of the house on that lot that they would have to replant. But environmental is aware of it. And they have -- you know, they have looked into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ERNST: They haven't given any documentation as to how it would be resolved, but they are very much aware of this. Because we had several meetings. Both Rocky Scofield and myself had several Page 21 August 3, 2006 meetings with environmental to try to -- you know, to work out a solution for this dock, because apparently, based on the information from the applicant, the water in front of this preserve is the deeper water, and that would be the only logical place for a dock. And so, you know, they were looking at first to -- as I say, to vacate this and to have mitigation and designate another area as a preserve. But because of all the -- you know, all the paperwork one has to go through, this -- as I said before, this was a quicker and easier solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't mean to sidetrack your presentation, but I don't want to lose this one issue you started to bring up. That lot next door that was cleared and filled, and the lot that we're now talking about that has been cleared and filled, were the building permits issued for those lots? Because I just heard from a prior statement that a building permit basically is in the works. So if there isn't a building permit, how did any of this clearing and filling happen in the first place? MS. ERNST: For the property -- the lot north of this what you're referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, both of them. Because if you look at the aerial, the clearing and the filling has occurred on both lots. MS. ERNST: Well, when they corne in for building permits for homes, environmental will look at that and it's very possible that they will have to do some replanting on those sites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm wondering how did they get to clear it in the first place? And how did they get to fill it in the first place? If you have to have permits to do these things, do you have permits for both property owners on this aerial that we're now talking about today? MS. ERNST: You mean to build a house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, to clear and fill their property. Page 22 August 3, 2006 MS. ERNST: I didn't look into whether they had permits for that. Typically you don't get a permit until you're ready to build, and I never saw a building permit applied for for either one of these lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got some people corning in here today looking for some acceptance or a change to the code. They want approval of that. Well, a lot of the approval is going to be contingent to how they've handled themselves in regards to where they're building and what they're doing. MS. ERNST: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we've got someone that has multiple violations on the site for not even having permits in the first place, I'd sure like to know that before we know if we want to trust them with an extension on a boat dock that they may violate that as well. So does anybody on staff have any idea how this dirt got on that property and how that property got cleared? Is there a permit or is there not? That's the only -- and why wouldn't have staff looked at that before they even went this far with it? Especially since it was in a platted area and they were destroying mangroves, which are more of a state offense than a local offense. MS. ERNST: Well, typically it's environmental that -- our environmental section that looks at the clearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well-- MS. ERNST: And they haven't said anything. You know, when they go out to review -- because they also go out and do site visits. If they feel it's been cleared, they do put stipulations that before building permits can be issued for the house -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joyce, I know all that. But the answer to my question isn't being provided, and I know you may not be able to provide that, is what it boils down to. We're going to take a break at 10:00. Ifwe were to continue this until you got -- got to the break, got to a phone and called somebody in environmental to answer this question, that might help me Page 23 August 3, 2006 understand this project better. Without that question, I certainly am not in a position where I feel I can fairly vote on this. Maybe the others can, but that's my issue, and I'll wait to hear from the others. Rocky seems to have -- anxiously wanting to say something. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record. Mark, excuse me, there's only a -- I have a plat map here showing the preserve. I know what you're seeing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the speaker, Rocky. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. This is the lot right here. Lot 33. As you can see, this little dotted area right here in the corner, that is the preserve, platted preserve area. Extends across on this other property. The mangroves have not been disturbed on this. Preserves encompass protected species or wetlands or vegetation. It doesn't have to be mangroves. The shoreline has not been disturbed. And if you look at the aerial, this little area, there may be a fringe of it that is disturbed, but it appears that most of this area was not, and certainly not the mangrove shoreline. N one of that has been disturbed. The fill comes right up to that, if you look at the aerials. And I believe -- I'm not sure exactly what that measurement is, but it's pretty much close to being intact. And that may be infringed in there a little bit. And if that is, what normally happens at the environmental level, prior to permitting a house permit, then they would go in there and that area has to be staked. If it is -- if it has been impacted, then those areas, normally they have them restore it to whatever was in there, whether it was Spartina or other grasses. But it is upland. The mangrove shoreline has not been disturbed in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on it, I have two questions in response to you. But the first one has to do with this particular drawing you've got and the dotted gold area. Is that your property line? I'm assuming this is, but I want you to tell me it is. Show me the Page 24 August 3, 2006 property line. MR. SCOFIELD: This gold line is the platted mean high water line, which is the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the platted mean high water line -- MR. SCOFIELD: But the actual mean high water line is -- the actual property line is the actual mean high water line. This is the platted line. Mean high water lines change over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, could you put the diagram on that's black and white that shows the supposedly preserve area? MR. SCOFIELD: The aerial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, the black and white. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, your mean high water line is the-- towards the bottom right on -- okay, now it's towards the right, right? That's the outside edge of the preserve? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the inside edge is where it is. Now, since the mean high water line is the property line. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plat you showed me indicates that is the property line. Can you put the aerial back on that has the two lots on it, with your rendition of where the boat dock is going. See that blue line? No, that's the right one. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see it. Could you slide the picture over so we all can see it. There you go. See that blue line? MR. SCOFIELD: Let me zoom in on that. This area, there is vegetation all the way up in this area right here. The shoreline is undisturbed. You know, the back side, the most landward edge of that preserve may be partially impacted and filled, that's correct. The Page 25 August 3, 2006 mangrove shoreline has not been disturbed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- that's fine. Let's just stop right there for a minute. Can you tell me if there is a permit to have done that work, to fill and clear that property. MR. SCOFIELD: I can't tell you that, Mark. I would guess no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The property to the north, you said that's your client as well? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. Well, they were. They've changed owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know at the time that you were representing that property owner if they had a permit to clear and fill that? MR. SCOFIELD: No, when we were hired, that's how it looked. Those aerials are -- those aerials are '05, so it was done sometime before that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So back to my original question. Nobody knows as of right now if there's any permits to clear and fill those two lots? MR. SCOFIELD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For my part of this, I certainly think that's an issue to understand, because if they've cleared and filled without permits, I'm just wondering why we would be in a mindset to think they deserve any addition to a boat extension before we even got the issue cleared up that may be illegal to begin with. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I'm not sure if there's fill on these lots or not, I'll have to check. It has been cleared, as you can obviously see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll let Joyce try to finish her presentation and planning commission can make a decision where they want to go with it. MS. ERNST: I briefly talked to Laura Royce, she's in environmental. And she just told me that -- I will have to verify this Page 26 August 3, 2006 through Barbara, but more than likely it was cleared illegally. And what they do in their department is they don't hold up the boat dock extension, you know, approval with this issue. They do it at the time of building permits. And at building permit time, they put stipulations regarding mitigation, regarding replanting of that site and maybe even removing some fill. But if you want, I will be able to -- you know, if you want to give me a break and I can check with Barbara Burgeson as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just looking for consistency in the way the citizens of this county are treated. I can tell you, there are many, many occasions where people are being cited for clearing illegally. They're not cited and then said well, we're not going to bother -- you're not -- it's not discovered and then said, well, you know, you cleared illegally but if you ever want a building permit, we're going to make you fix that. That's not the way it's done in this county that I understand. Why is it being done differently in this case? MS. ERNST: I know I had another boat dock extension where they also put the stipulation on the house permit and not the dock permit. This is the way that the environmental reviews these, because they feel, I guess, they're not doing any upland work, so they would put the stipulation when they build the house. Because I guess until they know where the house is going and what they have to replant -- because they may tell them to replant something and then they have to corne in for another removal permit. So that's done at the time of the building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Joyce, I'm not disagreeing with the things you're saying, I just find it hard to have these different levels of enforcement. I think that's kind of interesting in this county when there's so much said about -- MS. ERNST: They can't get the dock permit -- Page 27 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to talk one at a time, so-- MS. ERNST: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when I finish. We have a lot of things that are done in regards to enforcing our clearing codes. They don't all seem to be contingent upon applications for permit, so -- but I'll let you go ahead. MS. ERNST: Well, they won't be able to get the permit for the dock until the house permit is issued. And so because of that, before the house permit is issued that's when their department will rectify any issues they have with illegal clearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Had you finished your presentation, or did I get off on a tangent before you got through? MS. ERNST: Well, what else I wanted to say is that, you know, because of the location of the dock, staff feels that this will obstruct the channel with boats going in and out. And I have not received any comments for or against the project. It complies with all the criteria and, therefore, staff has recommended approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff at this point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you heard from the neighbor to the north of this? MS. ERNST: You mean the undeveloped property? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And they've been notified properly, and -- that they had the right to object and they didn't? MS. ERNST: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you think we calculate riparian lines? Are you comfortable with -- MS. ERNST: Yeah. Uh-uh. I believe-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on what, though? MS. ERNST: We leave it up to the experts, because we're not Page 28 August 3, 2006 really versed in how to do it. But from what I understand for this type of a lot, you take it perpendicular, is that right, with the shoreline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Anyway, we'll talk about -- probably on the next one. And you're comfortable this is a buildable lot, the easement works and everything? I mean, it's -- MS. ERNST: Yeah. In fact, there was -- there was at one time a larger right-of-way easement to the site, which really didn't affect this lot, but affected the lot to the north. And that easement was vacated and then another easement was drawn up. And in fact, this lot, because of all the mangroves on it, they also -- and this was just worked out with attorneys, they had created a dock access lot -- a dock access on the north lot for this -- for a dock on this property. And we had told them that we can't issue a dock for this lot off of somebody else's lot. But that's all to do with the lot to the north and it really has nothing to do with this lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when the access easement's revised, does that go through a staff review at all? Because my concern is that you're coming through a 20-foot throat 15 feet deep. You're never going to get a fire truck to make a turn into this place. So, I mean, is that a buildable lot? Because you probably don't have proper access. And I'm assuming the property line to the left of that is to the cul-de-sac, it is part of the right-of-way, correct? MS. ERNST: I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can see the way the easement's dotted on the visualizer. MR. SCOFIELD: That easement's gone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That easement's gone? So how do people access the site then? Page 29 August 3, 2006 MS. ERNST: There's an easement right down through here. I think this -- it comes up this way and goes down to this property. I believe there's a survey in the packet -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, that's what I'm looking at. MS. ERNST: Well, I don't think it shows that whole easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's a preserve area on the easement, so there's like a 20- foot gap that the people can access, and it's 15 feet wide. And Rocky, when you say that easement's gone, what does that mean? MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. Jeff got into it a little while ago. I know it was confusing. There's two easements. And this drawing for some reason, you know, that shouldn't have been shown like that. That easement right there was originally granted to this lot in order for this man to have access across that guy's lot to build his boat dock on the inside over there. That easement has been -- that easement is gone. The other easement corning into this property, the only thing that remains -- I'm sorry, I stand corrected. That is the easement -- there was an easement just to the north of that. You have it on there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you got it the other way around. MR. SCOFIELD: I did, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. That easement remains. That is the access into his property corning in from the cul-de-sac there. The other easement to the north of that, there was one there, which is gone now. That was a dock easement which they vacated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't need to see that. That thing on the visualizer is history. So let's go back to what we actually have. That's not showing where the easement is. Page 30 August 3, 2006 MR. SCOFIELD: It's on there, but it's hard to see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And orient it I think to the north . , so It s -- MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, if you see -- the concern I have is first of all, Mark, they did a lot more damage knocking out the preserve up at the right-of-way than they did on this site. And it looks like if that preserve's going to be rebuilt, if you zoom in on where this access is up against the right-of-way -- can you do that, Joyce? And that preserve area is shown, correct? And it's -- from the aerials that's been taken out also. I'm just -- where will they -- where will the road that accesses this site corne through? MS. ERNST: Okay. The road actually -- it ends right here, the right-of-way -- you know, the Bayfront Drive. And then the extension for their easement goes down this way and then down. And that's their -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's my concern, going through a 20- foot, you know, dimension, 15 feet deep is not going to cut it in plat land, let me put it that way. But anyway, to me I think they've been moving the easement around. You can see there's an old access easement by plat, which makes sense because you can actually get a road in there. But just -- the concern is this has to be a buildable lot before we let them have a dock. MS. ERNST: Well, this is a private easement. It's just for this lot. And private easements, does it say how wide that is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fifteen feet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fifteen feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A lot has to have access to a right-of-way. MS. ERNST: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This one has a preserve, you Page 31 August 3, 2006 know, an old -- I mean, the preserve's gone. Mark's right, they creamed the preserve. But I guess it will be rebuilt. And I think -- you know, even though it's private, it still has to be accessed by our emergency vehicles and everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, unfortunately once it's a driveway there are some less stringent requirements for things that are considered driveways. I know that, because living in Golden Gate Estates, we have driveways that aren't accessible, as last year we were indicating they need to be. Go ahead, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, assistant county attorney. The planning commission is to be governed by the criteria in the code to grant this dock extension, and they're listed in the staff report on my Page 2 through 5. And case law tells us that a decision-making board such as this is bound to look at those criteria and those criteria only. As to the buildability of the lot, if they can't build a house on it, the dock is accessory. And whether or not they get -- if they get this extension and they can't build a house on it, then they can never build the lot until they can, because it's an accessory structure. So that's kind of independent from this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were going to say that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And as also is the case with any violations, because there's an independent way for the county to get at that and fix that as well, and I have advised this board in the past, because we have had situations where people -- property have corne in that have code violations on it. But again, the courts have told us that a decision, quasi-judicial decision-making body such as this is bound by the criteria in the code and only that criteria. And to go beyond those criteria, the courts are not going to uphold it. Page 32 August 3, 2006 So I just need to get that on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question also, and it goes back to the setback. Are you accepting the riparian line as the setback -- the marked point of setback? MS. ERNST: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under what basis in the code are you accepting that? MS. ERNST: Well, the setback for a dock has always been measured to the riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just was -- back to my question, because I'm reading the definition of setback, and it says -- it lists things, and some of those things could be the riparian line. But it says whichever is the most restrictive. One detail in the code had an extension of the property line corning straight out and showing the setbacks from that. Well, it would then seem that in this case the property line would be the most restrictive if it was extended straight out from that. MS. ERNST: Well, the property line, though, is on land and the riparian line extends into the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, but I'm just going by what was in the diagram that I saw in the code. So you're comfortable that -- and the riparian line is what we've used as the -- MS. ERNST: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- consistent basis -- MS. ERNST: Under the boat dock section, it does say that you measure your setback to the riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Joyce? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: A lot of the discussion today has Page 33 August 3, 2006 surfaced because of these two aerials that were submitted at this hearing. I'd like a commitment from staff that in the future on these kind of petitions that these kind of aerials will be included with the documents that are sent us, affording some opportunity to pursue these issues a little more thoroughly. MS. ERNST: I think you have a good point there, and we'll make a note of it and request that if they have any aerials like that, that they do present them prior to the meeting so you can get them with your packet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing. Is there any motion regarding this issue? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'll recommend we approve Petition BD-2005-AR-8289 with staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Midney. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After we make this motion, I'm going to ask staff to look into the issues of the clearing that apparently was done without a permit, and the plat and the -- platted preserve areas, and ask that they report back to us at our next meeting -- or actually, our first -- whatever meeting they can. It won't be our next one, because it happens to be in Copeland. But whatever meeting that's convenient to let us know the status of the permitting and how it's being addressed by Collier County in regards to the clearing and filling that may not have been done properly. Page 34 August 3, 2006 That's my only comment. Other than that, I have none. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, thank you. Item #8B PETITION: BD-2006-AR-9563 Next item on the agenda is Petition BD-2006-AR-9563, David L. Fuller, represented by Turrell & Associates, requesting a 13-foot boat dock extension. 689 Palm Avenue. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise, be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may proceed. Mr. Kolflat, do you want to make a motion to accept this material we're being handed out into evidence? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I so move and hope in the future it will corne earlier. Page 35 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield, representing -- of Turrell & Associates, representing Mr. Fuller, the applicant. I have an overhead aerial on -- an aerial on the overhead. This is the parcel on Palm Avenue, at the end of Palm Avenue in Goodland. Directly across the canal to the west over here is the Goodland Marina property and the Goodland Villas, I believe. They're built along the waterway. That aerial doesn't show, there is now a marginal dock, if you all are familiar with the area, going along the shoreline all the way up here. And boats park parallel on there. We are here today requesting a 13- foot extension into the waterway in order to moor a boat on the front of this dock. The only reason we are here today is to be able to moor a boat on the front of this dock. The dock extends at its furthest point out only 20 feet, actually 19 and a half feet, into the waterway. So a lot of docks in this situation in the past, and some still do, they can just take this permit and if it don't show a boat on the front, they can go to the building department and pull a building permit and get a dock permit. Simple as that. We are complying with the code and the BBE and all the criteria. Page 36 August 3,2006 In order to dock a boat on the front of this dock we need a boat dock extension. The applicant currently does not have a boat. The inside slip is for a flats boat, which is right up against the seawall. And he intends to get that, and whether or not he purchases a boat in the future to put on the outside, it's up to him, ifhe wants to go through that headache. So that's what the extension is here. That's what we are doing today. And I'll show you -- that's the drawing showing the dock and a 40-foot boat with a 13-foot beam on the outside. That's the largest boat. I drew in here the largest boat that he could put in there. Now, whether he gets that or not, I have no idea. As I said again, he is -- right now he is boatless. So the owner has received a permit to build on this lot. He's been over a year struggle trying to get a house permit. He has received that recently and is going to build within the next several months on this lot. So any concerns about this being speculation, he is committed and has been trying for over a year to get a house permit here. The -- go back to the aerial. That's the large arrow. You can see the position of the boat on this lot. We did receive a few letters, Joyce received some letters of concern from neighbors, mainly due to going to impede navigation. As you can see by this drawing, we are on the widest part of the fork of this waterway. There's absolutely no impediment to navigation or safety or anything like that. You can see the boat traveling in the waterway right there. There is more than adequate room. This is idle speed through this area. And again, one of the things you have to look -- and when you're looking at extensions like this, is the criteria number four says -- and it's always been a little ambiguous, and we've been through this before, but it says the width of the waterway, you cannot go more than 25 percent. Well, we're not. The actual width of the waterway. But Page 37 August 3, 2006 we're measuring, the property line goes inland. And when you look at that -- well, you've got drawings there in front of you -- the property line goes inside, eight to 10 feet inside. And we have to measure all the way back in there. So that's really not even actually the width of the waterway. So we still meet the criteria for less than 25 percent. And if you just took the actual width of the waterway, we're even less than that. We're less than 20 percent of the waterway width. But that's how things are measured. And just the criteria is a little ambiguous when they refer to width of waterway. The state, we do have DEP and Corps permits. When the state looks at things like this, they have a 25 percent rule. Theirs is actual waterway width, not property lines that extend up into the property, because that's not waterway. So anyway, it does meet that criteria in that area. On the -- if you look at the waterway heading south down here where it narrows where this boat is traveling, if you were to corne out from the property line -- if you look at the seawall on this area where the waterway narrows, and if you measure out 20 feet from this seawall, you corne out to the end of the boat. So from the narrow waterway, the boat and the dock together only extend out 20 feet, which is from -- you know, under the guidelines is permissible. But we're taking the most restrictive point and we're going on the inland and on the wide part of the waterway. This is just a blowup showing the dock and a large boat, the largest boat that would be possible to dock here at this dock on this property . Again, in the handouts you got, there's a survey showing water depths. There's adequate water all the way across in either direction. So there's no issue of this impeding a navigable waterway or the channel is closer to this property. It's not. It's clearly out of the main paths of anything. Now, let me put this on. Sensing earlier there may be a question Page 38 August 3, 2006 on riparian lines, this is a perfect example of what we were -- the discussion we got into a little bit earlier. The riparian lines -- and go to -- perpendicular to the thread of the channel. If you -- I'm going to draw a line down the thread of this channel and you can see how these riparian lines intersect. The thing here is -- this is done by the surveyor. These are the riparian lines according to the surveyor. I tend to agree with them, because they are correct. Weare still 25 feet away from the neighbor's property, which are the state setbacks. If you go less than 25 feet to your neighbor's property, the DEP requires you get an affidavit from the neighbor saying he recognizes you're closer than 25 feet. The county rules are 15 feet. So we only have to be 15 feet away . We are 25 feet away from the neighbor's property lines, and that is actual property lines. But I'm just going to draw a line down this part of this channel and show you how these riparian lines intersect. That's actually up here, okay? The line I drew, this is corning from the south down the narrow part. And if you turn and go into this waterway up here, that's how the thread of the channel turns. If you were to go, continue north, then it extends up this way. Now, you draw those riparian lines out, they're perpendicular to the thread of that channel. And this is a classic example, I guess, when you look at the irregular shore lines. The part that we discussed before when they corne straight out, that's when you're in a nice waterway where the lots are straight, the waterway is straight, and everything comes out straight off the property lines. But this is how riparian lines are drawn. The next door neighbor over here, his riparian line would skew off to this way. So he has -- that just assures everybody the same kind of deal. It gets narrower when it gets down in the middle, back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The thread of the channel follows the deepest part of the channel? MR. SCOFIELD: It's either the center line of the channel or in Page 39 August 3, 2006 this case it's the middle of the waterway, because there's no marked channel, but the water depths are deep all the way across, so you take the middle of the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, your graphic doesn't fairly represent that. MR. SCOFIELD: So anyway, this -- going back to the big overhead aerial. Again, I just want to reiterate one more time, there's no impediment to navigation or view or anything else. This is very unobtrusive, the layout of this dock. Again, the dock only sticks out 13 feet from the seawall on the south, and on the north end it sticks out 20 feet from the seawall. That's it. As you can see up this channel on those aerials I gave you, there's docks out 20 feet with boats stacked out outside of them out to 30 and 40 feet and beyond back in this narrow channel, and we don't corne close to do anything like that. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize that it's a geometric issue here, and an arc is involved, and I'm just wondering about that other lot. You're saying that that person's lot will have lost a great degree of their riparian line so they will be really boxed in, so to speak. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. SCOFIELD: No, not at all. I'll draw these in dark lines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the same riparian line, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dark yellow works. MR. SCOFIELD: Does the yellow work? That would be the riparian lines for the neighbor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, if I could jump in. Page 40 August 3, 2006 Rocky, that -- first all, it's supposed to be perpendicular to the property line first, unless you have an irregular shoreline. So why wouldn't you just go perpendicular to the property line, which -- this is a platted circle, it's all going to be lines that are radians from that, so that would be -- it would be a perfect extension of the thing. I mean, let's not waste time here on it. I don't think we're doing this right and I'd like to talk to staff about it. We need some Riparian Line 101 course or something for all -- at least for the board -- at least for me. Since you're 25 feet away and 15 feet is the setback anyway, it's a wasted conversation. MR. SCOFIELD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have staffreport? MS. ERNST: For the record, Joyce Ernst, from zoning and land development review. And as Rocky pointed out, that this -- here, let me give you one of my aerials. The site is located where two canals intersect. And as he said, this is the widest part of the waterway at that point. The property to the south is developed with a single-family home and they have a boathouse, and of course you could see that the lot to the east is undeveloped. And because of the location of the facility, staff feels that this will have little impact on the view of adjacent neighbors. I have received three letters of objection. One of them I put in your packets. The other two were received after the packets went out. So if I may, I'd like to give you each a copy of those objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Won't they have to be accepted into evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait until we -- let's just wait until we have them so we can say that we've seen them. Page 41 August 3, 2006 MS. ERNST: I have stapled the two of them together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray, we have two letters of objection. Did you want to accept these into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that they be made evidence in this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Nobody opposed. MS. ERNST: Now, the letter that you received in your packet-- right there, right there, is that property owner. And with the other letters that you received, you recently received one from Olga and Bruce Smith. I'll just show you where their property is. They're way down here. It appears to be a vacant lot way at the end of the canal. And their objection is that they feel that this facility will impede boat traffic in and out of the canal into Blue Hill Creek. Now the third letter of objection was from Louis and Linda Van Meter (phonetic). And I'll just show you where their lot is located. They're right here. They're just a few doors away from this adjacent site. And in their letter, they state that they feel that if the owner could dredge, he wouldn't need this boat dock extension. Now, I don't know if that's the case, you may have to ask Turrell & Associates to see if that would suffice. But from what he's saying, it doesn't seem like that would take care of the situation. Page 42 August 3, 2006 And because of the location again, where the dock is and the canals, you know, with the intersecting canals it's wider at this point, staff feels that this facility will have little impact on the navigation. And again, a stipulation is added -- I always add this to the docks when there's no home on the lot, that a building permit for the house has to be issued prior to any building permit for a dock. This complies with five of the five primary criteria and five of the six secondary criteria, and therefore staff is recommending approval. Does anyone have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you, Joyce. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I recommend approval of Petition BD-2006-AR-9563 with staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion is made by Mr. Tuff, second by Mr. Vigliotti to approve. Discussion? My only comment is, and I'm in favor of the motion, in the future, since everyone is recognizing this board may be concerned about the riparian line and how it has come about, why don't we just show the thread of the channel on future documents that are submitted to us and it might solve a lot of problems. Having said that -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question of the petitioner not related to this subject. Should that wait until after the vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not related to this subject, yes. Let's get the vote passed. Is there any other discussion? Page 43 August 3, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Kolflat, you had one question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Rocky, could I ask you a question? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You've built a lot of boat docks. Have you ever built any docks with canopies on the top? MR. SCOFIELD: You know, I watched you guys on TV the other day and I said, you know, I think I should have been at that meeting. I have not. I have not put -- I have never put a canopy when I was actually building the docks. They didn't have them back at that point. But I have seen those. And you know, if you would like -_ I understand that's going to be heard again today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's going to be heard on the 23rd or thereafter. We're starting the second round of hearings on the 23rd. Staff is supposed to come back to us with revised language consistent with what our recommendations on that were, but I can't tell you what date exactly . We will try to figure out a time certain because there are people involved in that. Maybe if you were to communicate with Mr. Page 44 August 3, 2006 Kolflat and you guys can get together somehow to figure __ MR. SCOFIELD: I would be happy -- I think I'm going to be here, I can appear at that hearing, you know, to answer some questions. Because, like, I did happen to stumble across it on TV and watched the thing, the whole thing on TV the other morning, so -- and I did have comments. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I would urge you to counsel with some of the others in town like Sun Master and so forth that have been involved in this kind of construction, because I feel we need a lot of information on that to at least go against this amendment that we're talking about. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I will try to be here. And you can have my e-mail. You can contact me. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You can contact others that are in the similar business with you. MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You can contact others that are in that type of business in the area. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Rocky. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to go to your comment, though, and see if staff and Ray, this -- if there was a way that you could maybe get a little report from a registered land surveyor, you know, in Collier County to write us a report as to how to measure the riparian lines. I mean, there is code in there, and what -- I mean, there's a couple of ways to do it in the code. Rocky is picking one of the ways. It always seems to be beneficial to his sites as they fan out away from his sites. I think there's other ways in there. So I wouldn't mind __ MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I read over the language myself. It is consistent with the language in the LDC. But you're right, there is two ways of measuring it. And how one way is decided upon another, it Page 45 August 3, 2006 shows on a survey, which is certified, so staff has typically accepted that. But I agree, we all could use a little more information along those lines to help making these decisions, and I'll look into them and see what we can put together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. It would be interesting to see the day that a hired expert comes up with an argument against his client. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, don't hire Rocky's surveyor. Item #8C PETITION: SV-2006-AR-9662 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move on to the next hearing. Petition SV-2006-AR-9662, Collier Regional Medical Center, represented by Trent Eckfeld of Architectural Identification, Inc., concerning a directional ground/pole and wall signs. All those wishing to speak on this issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures from the planning commission members? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had conversation with Mr. Mastej and Mr. Eckfeld regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move into the presentation. MR. MASTEJ: Good morning. Thank you for letting us be here. Page 46 August 3, 2006 My name is Mike Mastej. I'm the CEO of Collier Regional Medical Center. And I wanted to start this off by -- first, I'm sure you've reviewed all of this, but to understand the reason for the request for variance and signage, and it's simply nothing more than additional signs that's been normally allowed under the ordinance, and that is that this is a health care facility. We have two entrances that go back into this property. And by the nature of the business that we will be in, we'll be having inpatient entrances, outpatient entrances. We'll have two emergency room entrances for, as I refer to, walking wounded. And the other entrance is for ambulance and emergency vehicles, EMS, fire, rescue. Additionally to that we'll have another separate building that will need to be identified. That's a woman's pavilion. And we're fortunate to be building a separate and identifiable facility for women, for labor and delivery and nursery. So that will be a separate entrance for them. Around the back of the campus is a medical office building that needs to be identifiable for patients so they can find their physicians when they go in there. So it's a little bit different than the routine commercial-type building that you're dealing with. This one needs identifiable signs so that people in time of emergency, physicians likewise, will be able to get to the quickest -- to the place, most appropriate speed and time, lifesaving, and we felt very important. Trent Eckfeld, our expert from Architectural Identification, is here, and I wanted to make the opening comments and then turn it over to Trent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ECKFELD: Trent Eckfeld, Architectural Identification. Working with Collier and actually also HMA, the corporation tried to take close consideration of appropriate directional signage, informational signage and the labeling of the building. As Mike had expressed, the biggest concern is obviously a health Page 47 August 3, 2006 care facility that needs to get people quickly and adequately to the proper entrance. The signage that we have proposed, I just wanted to show real quick, there's the site plan detailing the locations of signs. It looks to appear more than what it really is. That's all of the directional signs. Mainly all of them are internal to the property. We do have two site signs which are labeling the north and south entrance. The north entrance of the property is -- as you're heading south on Collier, is left turn accessible by emergency vehicles only, therefore, needing direction down to the south entrance at Lely Cultural Parkway. And that would also have a traffic light. So the site signs -- this is the general design that we had come up with -- try to take in some elements of the building and introduce some style that's not actually typical to the HMA signs, but more unique to this facility. All of the internal directional signs, basically tried not to go overboard on the size of them but yet large enough to where people can see them in the distance, and the appropriate amount for each of the important entrances you have. In the front entrance we're going to try to make sure that we get everybody to a separate outpatient entrance, visitor entrance and emergency entrance. In addition to, on the back side of the property there's a separate -- let me go back here -- the back side of the property, which, if you look at sign location V, that's actually the women's center. So you can see that if somebody is in labor, they have a little bit of distance to travel. And we certainly don't want them going into the front part of the hospital when they need to be in the back part. Let me go back to -- this sign's actually a non-illuminated sign. We do have -- this is a little bit larger. There's only two of these that are on the property. It's an illuminated sign. We tried to illuminate a couple of the main signs that had emergency on them. Page 48 August 3, 2006 This particular sign here, it's actually an architectural feature, a serpentine wall. This is the blow-up of the sign itself. The wall itself is mainly -- has been in the -- has been in the PUD since the very beginning. They had just -- and we felt that it would be a nice feature to add. These letters are non-illuminated. The wall itself is floodlit but with a lot of extra landscape features around it. These are the various blowup elevations of the separate set of building letters. Let me go to the -- this is the main set. These letters are basically a reverse channel letter that is halo-illuminated so the wall will actually light behind it, and only Collier Regional and the logo itself is illuminated. Medical Center are just aluminum letters, non - illuminated. These letters, visitor entrance, non-illuminated letters, identifying the entrance. Outpatient services, the same way. And emergency entrance, those letters are illuminated and are actually required in order for the facility to be open. In addition, all of the ground directional signs, it's clearly stated in the Florida and the -- the Florida Engineering Code basically says you have to have clear identification of and directions to an emergency room. Sorry, wrong way. Ambulances Only, illuminated set of letters. Women's Center, these are also illuminated. Receiving, non-illuminated letters, just identifying the area. And that is actually it. And I'm free for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just one comment. Your Collier Boulevard -- your 951 reference, County Road 951, at the time you got your PUD it may have been that, I don't remember how far back that was, but it's now called Collier Boulevard. You may want to save Page 49 August 3, 2006 yourself some money and not have to change it in the future. MR. ECKFELD: We already recognized that. We're making changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a lot easier than a boat dock. Is there a presentation? MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with zoning and land development review. As noted in the staff report, petitioner is asking for a variance in the amount of signs that they can have in the buildings, within the side and in the front of the property. As noted, we are recommending approval of this variance, and just wanted to add to the commissioners that you may have noticed that in the present cycle, staff is proposing an amendment to except uses such as hospitals, such as this one that we're talking about today from the amount of signs that they can have on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think that's a good amendment, Carolina. Are we going to refund them the cost for them to get here today? MS. VALERA: Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, I'll let the question pass. Are there any questions of Carolina or anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that Petition SV-2006-AR-9662, Collier Regional Medical Center PUD signage request be granted, approved and recommended to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 50 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean recommend for approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recommend for approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Commissioner Murray, second by Commissioner Kolflat. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. That was a nice, quick. We'll take a 15-minute break and come back here at 10 after 10:00 to discuss the Brooks Village. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll come back to order. Item #8D PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8337 The next petition is PUDZ-2005-AR-8337. Sembler Florida, Inc., for the Brooks Village CPUD. Would all those wishing to speak on this matter please rise to be Page 51 August 3, 2006 sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thought you all were here for the boat docks. Is there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got an e-mail from Diane and Dan McClear (phonetic), from Guy and Andrea Frazier, and from somebody with the e-mail IC4U. Cut off their name. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just normal e-mails that everybody else has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Without going into greater identification, a whole bunch of e-mails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've all received numerous e-mails. Everyone that I received is on my county e-mail site, and I don't think there are any different than the other ones stated here. In addition to those, I have had conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Lamb concerning mostly the entrance onto 11 th and the school bus issue. And I also met with the applicant and his attorney, and we discussed those two issues, as well as use issues and a few other matters that I'm sure will come out in today's meeting. Hearing that, Mr. Anderson, welcome back and we'll allow you to give your presentation. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Bruce Anderson, from the Roetzel and Andress law firm on behalf of the Sembler Company. On June 15th, you all held a hearing on this project and Page 52 August 3, 2006 continued it so that Mr. Filippelli from the Sembler Company and his staff could meet again with area residents to try to reach a compromIse. Sembler has held two more neighborhood meetings and they invited and sent surveys to area residents, and I will ask Amber Overby of the Sembler marketing department to come up and tell you how those meetings and the surveys were done. And then I will come back up here and list specifically the changes that have been made to the project as a result of those meetings and surveys. MS. OVERBY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Amber Overby and I'm the director of public relations and community affairs for the Sembler Company. It is my job to assure that Sembler is fully engaged with nearby residents and potential customers in every community where we develop. We do this in a number of ways: Through direct mailings, surveys, e-mails and of course resident meetings. In the case of Brooks Village, Sembler has held four meetings beginning in November of 2005. Two of those meetings have been held since our last CCPC hearing, and the most recent was last Thursday with about 15 residents in attendance. These meetings have progressively been more productive and have really opened up the dialogue between us and the neighbors. They have also yielded significant changes to the site plan, which Mr. Anderson will go over later. Additionally, we sent out a survey to all residents on 11 th Avenue, and the survey was meant to gauge general public opinion about a commercial development on the site. Only about 25 percent of the residents responded to the survey, and it was split down the middle. Half those respondents do not want development of any kind, and the other half realize it will happen and want it done right. We then sent out a direct mailing with an attached reply card which was meant to introduce our company and our concept to those Page 53 August 3, 2006 who may shop at the center. The mailing was sent out to a targeted trade area which included about 5,000 households within one or two miles of the project, depending on the direction. On the reply card we asked would you generally be in favor of this type of development at this location. So far we've received back 251 responses, or about five percent, which is actually an above-average return for a direct mail piece. 185 of those 251 responded yes, or 74 percent. We believe our communication efforts have resulted in positive feedback and support for our project, and we hope you've had a chance to read over some of the responses which were included as back-up material in your staff report. Furthermore, many residents have e-mailed you directly to voice their support for the project, and have recognized that Sembler has been working with them to address their questions and concerns. The neighbors requested and the Sembler Company has listened, and together we've created a project that's a win/win for the entire community. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: I'll walk you through the changes that have been made as a result of those meetings. First of all, there has been a reduction in the intensity. The normal or typical ratio is 10,000 square feet of retail commercial building for every acre of land. This project is 20 acres, so that would equate to 200,000 square feet. The PUD master plan has large building envelopes on it in order to allow for some flexibility of building locations based on site conditions when it comes time to actually construct the building. Those building envelopes, as shown on the PUD master plan, would have accommodated up to 170,000 square feet. At the last planning commission hearing, Sembler stated that it intended to build no more than 120,000 square feet of retail uses. Since that time, Sembler has reduced the -- will reduce the square footage request from 120,000 square feet to 105,000. Page 54 August 3, 2006 As a result of the feedback that was received from the area residents, Sembler has shifted the anchor tenant and the two outparcels that are at the south end of the project, and they've moved it about 45 feet to the north in order to create a park-like green space area along 11 th Avenue. And in addition to the sidewalks on both sides of 11 th Avenue that my client previously agreed to, the green space area will feature a meandering sidewalk, benches, decorative lighting and shade trees. Meandering sidewalk in the green space area will connect to the sidewalk along 951. My client has offered to build a new school bus stop and shelter on their property, and has communicated with school district staff with responsibilities for the bus program. But the school district will not make a decision as to an exact location at this time. I also yesterday spoke with Amy Taylor and Art Dobberstein of the school district, and they confirmed my client's understanding that no decision would be made at this time. Third, Sembler will construct an entry feature with a decorative wall and shallow fountain and landscaping on its corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 11 th Avenue. And if allowed by the county, they would like to install a brass Brooks Village wall sign on that entry feature. Fourth, both sides of 11th Avenue for the full 640-feet of commercial frontage on 11 th Avenue will be landscaped and irrigated with palms and shrubs, which are in addition to the Land Development Code required 25- foot perimeter landscape buffer. Fifth, palm trees would be installed on both sides of all three of the entry drives to the shopping center in order to create a palm-lined boulevard effect. Sixth, after the preserve area is cleared of the exotics, as required by the code, in order to fill in any thin areas which may exist, developer Sembler is willing to plant new trees and shrubs in the Page 55 August 3, 2006 preserve area in consultation with the environmental review staff. Seventh, a five-foot wall, the maximum that will be allowed, would be installed along the eastern boundary of the preserve area next to the development area. And in addition to the requirements already included in the Land Development Code that no lighting is allowed to spill onto adjacent residential properties, my client will commit that no light source on his property will be visible from the adjacent properties to the west. Ninth item, subject to county DOT approval, Sembler would be willing to install No Outlet signs on 11 th Avenue and construct a traffic calming device on 11 th Avenue just west of the shopping center entrance on 11 th Avenue. And last, but certainly not least, in response to comments that were received at the last neighborhood meeting, my client has spoken with the tenants that would be coming into the shopping center and has secured their acquiescence that access on 11 th Avenue would be limited to only turns in and no left turn out. Specifically, I've got some language that I want to read into the record about the 11 th Avenue access. If Collier County permits a right out exit onto Collier Boulevard at the southeast corner of Tract 113 in addition to the right in, right out entrance and exit on Tract 112, the developer shall not be permitted a left out exit on 11 th Avenue southwest. An access to 11 th Avenue will be limited to a right in and left in entrance. However, if the county should deny or eliminate either of the right out exits on Collier Boulevard, developer shall have the right to a left out exit on 11 th Avenue southwest without the need to amend their PUD master plan. Here is the new exit that we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you'll need the speaker. MR. ANDERSON: This is the new exit point that we're talking about. The feedback that we received at the neighborhood meeting Page 56 August 3, 2006 was that the residents were willing to follow this route and come back here in order to get back to their homes rather than having exit on 11th. I think we've made substantial progress. And I will be happy to answer any questions or the other members of the team. Thank you. Now or later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know I have pages of questions, but I will obviously first ask the commission if they have any they would like to ask. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait for staff. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, I'm going to start going through some questions. I picked up some notes that were received in this packet. Understand where you stand on them. You may have already addressed these. If you did, sorry for the second redundancy. And I also have some questions about some of your specific PUD language and uses. I think you made more progress obviously than the last meeting. I told you when I met with you and the gentleman that owns the facility that the bus stop issue is a big issue with me. And I suggested you find some way of verifying with the school system that you can do what you're proposing, because there's a lot of input out there that says you maybe can't do what you're proposing. And if you can't do it, that does absolutely affect the lifestyles of the people on 11 th Street. I'm disappointed you haven't been able to secure that. But dealing with the school system sometimes is hard to deal with, and I understand that. So we'll discuss further options there in a few minutes. On 11 th Street, you did take away the left turn, although now you have a contingency which transportation is going to have to address strongly today in order for that to be comfortable. But you have a Page 57 August 3, 2006 right in. The residents, from the e-mails I have and from the discussions I've heard, and it isn't just from one, it's from others, indicated the left turn lane in for the residents only was the preferred alternative. Yet you show a right in and a left turn lane in. Why do you insist you need the right in? MR. ANDERSON: Those were the terms that the anchor tenants were willing to abide by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not concerned about the anchor tenants at all, I'm concerned about the neighborhood. MR. ANDERSON: You asked me why. And I'll ask Mr. Filippelli to elaborate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a functional need that it has to be there? MR. FILIPPELLI: I can answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. You have to state your name for the record. MR. FILIPPELLI: Joe Filippelli, Sembler Company. The right in off of 11 th is to utilize the left off of 951 to 11 th Avenue. There's -- that's the only way to enter the shopping center or the neighborhood once -- with or without a channelized left. If it's an open median or a channelized left, in order to get into the shopping center from the south, you know, northbound traffic from the south, you must make a left there, make a right into the shopping center. If not, you'd have to go beyond the shopping center and turn around, do a U-turn at Pine Ridge and 951, then make a right into the shopping center. And the county has plans underway to six-lane 951 and add multiple left turns on Pine Ridge. So now you're talking about a major intersection that mayor may not have U-turns or may not be a safe place for the public to make U-turns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know your company does Page 58 August 3, 2006 due diligence and all that. So you probably have read how this property got to be zoned this way in the first place. It was during a GMP amendment process through the Board of County Commissioners. One of those stipulations under findings and conclusions -- and I'll read it to you, it's about the shopping center. During the adoption of the EAR-based amendments at which time this neighborhood center was enlarged to plus 20 acres, the Board of County Commissioners discussed a loop road running from Collier Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road. This would be a desirable and a beneficial addition and is recommended by both the planning and transportation staff. How have you addressed that issue? MR. FILIPPELLI: A loop -- could you explain the loop road again? Pine Ridge, is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect it was something like the Sweetbay project up the street from you has done with Wolf Road, where they've got a loop road around their project connecting to major roads. And on the southwest corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 there's another GMP amendment that was done for that corner that has a similar loop road that is required to go through and connect Vanderbilt Road to 951 so that people have alternate ways of getting around the intersection. I just read that same type of language to you from a recommendation of why and how this thing got approved. And I'm wondering how that loop road would fit into your plans. And that loop road, I would have envisioned by the language I'm reading, such as the others are, that would be your left turn. Now, maybe transportation needs to address this, because transportation and planning, or apparently the staff that recommended this to the Board of County Commissioners back years and years ago, and since Nick wasn't here, it's going to be fun to hear his explanation. But I will ask that of transportation, and maybe through their insight, Page 59 August 3, 2006 you may have another entrance into your property with a left turn lane. MR. FILIPPELLI: I could make an attempt to explain the loop road and the access to 951. I'm happy to. I think I understand the county codes and what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you weren't here at that time. MR. FILIPPELLI: Well, I think I understand the separation requirements along the roadway, you know. I think that's what determines whether a loop road could be constructed here, and if you constructed a loop road, whether or not that loop road would have a left in from 951. F or instance, I believe the separation requirement for a right in, right out is 660 feet here, or that's what the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far-- MR. FILIPPELLI: I think the county might be much better -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right- MR. FILIPPELLI: -- at explaining that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't ask -- I just wanted to know if you knew anything about it or if it had fit in your plans. And if you don't, I'd just as soon transportation would -- MR. FILIPPELLI: Yes. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may help your position, too. So rather than dig yourself a hole, let's just let Nick get up here in a little bit and we'll go for that. MR. FILIPPELLI: And the other thing I could mention before that's not related to the traffic is also the buffer on the west side of the property. In order to do a loop road type of structure, I believe that you would have to enter that large buffer that we've created on the west side of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FILIPPELLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you want to try the rest ofh Page 60 August 3, 2006 these? Try. I know you might think of it as in the sense of a trial. It certainly is not. MR. ANDERSON: It would be my pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The bus stop. If there's not a right turn in off of 11th Street and there's just a left and it's a directional left coming from the west going east, you basically then don't change the entrance configuration of 11 th Street, which then allows the bus stop situation to remain like it is. And that's going to be an important issue before we get done discussing this today. And I wanted you to be aware that I'm working towards that goal. In some of the various meetings you had with the people, one of the things I noticed in either an e-mail or the staff report, it talked about reduced hours of operation. I didn't notice those necessarily in the PUD. I may have missed them. I've got, I don't know, six renditions of your PUD, so it got to be pretty cumbersome tracking it. Are you -- have you put some further thought or do you have some time frames that you were suggesting to the folks? MR. FILIPPELLI: I'll answer that one also. Again, Joe Filippelli, Sembler Company. We have gone back, renegotiated with the anchor tenants, the tenants, and we are prepared to limit deliveries from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's deliveries. What about operation? MR. FILIPPELLI: We'd like to maintain the current limited hours that we proposed. I think it's 6:00 to -- MR. ANDERSON: Midnight. MR. FILIPPELLI: -- midnight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just writing it down. Thank you. You were talking in some -- and I'm not sure what you meant by this, improved landscaping on 11 tho Sidewalks, benches and Page 61 August 3, 2006 decorative lighting; a meandering sidewalk to connect to the new school bus shelter. Now, that's assuming the shelter is allowed and it's on your property. Is that where you were heading to? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then I have quite a few PUD questions. But I notice the young lady talked about your survey. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about your survey. Not that she needs to address, but maybe you can. MR. ANDERSON: What young lady? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, the older lady. I didn't think she was that old. MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, I was thinking of land survey, not public opinion. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your survey, it said in its design, Brooks Village will reflect the history and culture of Southwest Florida. How are you doing that? Is it other than the fact that we have a lot of shopping centers, you're building another one? MR. ANDERSON: The old Florida style. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you're consistent then with the language that's in the Golden Gate master plan for neighborhood shopping centers? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to have lots of shade trees. Lots is fine. I'm assuming that the plan you put in front of us today is the plan you're going to live with in regards to a master plan. And I'm sure staff will make sure you have lots of shade trees. Is this the plan you're proposing for the PUD? MR. ANDERSON: No, this is not the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I'm glad I asked the question, because it looks different than the PUD master plan. So should we be asking you questions from the PUD master -- well, Page 62 August 3, 2006 obviously it has to be the PUD master plan. MR. ANDERSON: Each of the items that I specifically enumerated when I got up to speak are commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got those in written matter you could hand out to us? MR. ANDERSON: I thought you had some of them attached to your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. MR. ANDERSON: -- staffreport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some. MR. ANDERSON: They would be incorporated into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Which has been a work in progress as a result of discussions with surrounding residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to get into your PUD, Bruce, if we could. I'd like to talk about section three, commercial development. And under 3.2 it says permitted uses. And by the way, that's page -- on one version I used, and it's the one I'm going to have to live with, Roman numeral In-I. I mentioned this to you when we met that I was going to have some questions about SIC codes that you've called out in here. And this says -- the heading under this, under permitted uses states, the following are selected permitted uses provided for in the commercial zoning districts C-l, C-2, C-3. None of the following permitted uses are subj ect to a gross floor area square footage limitation. Are you willing to live with that language? MR. ANDERSON: By and large, yes. Because we've gone through and identified uses that were -- well, actually, I would like to use the language that is in the Golden Gate master plan, which uses the phrase similar to C-l through C-3 uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would rather go with the Page 63 August 3, 2006 language in the master plan, and the language that's in this PUD is apparently in error? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now you want to go with similar C-l, C-2 and C-3 uses? MR. ANDERSON: I simply want to follow what the law already provides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rest of the sentence you're agreeable with, or the rest of the paragraph you're agreeable with that I read to you? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with Number 2. Amusement, recreation services, group 7911. MR. ANDERSON: We're prepared to give that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good, because it's a conditional use in C-3 only. And the rest of them are in -- 7922 is in C-4, 7933 is in C-4, and 7992 is in -- 7993 is in C-4. 7933, for example, is a bowling center. They're very noisy. I used to own one. Neighbors don't like them. 7993 are pinball, video, slots and gambling. I'm not sure you really want that in your neighborhood center, but they are C-4 uses. Are you telling me you want C-4 uses when you're supposed to be similar to C-l, 2 and 3? MR. ANDERSON: All of the uses listed in Number 2 are gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Number 5. In C-l and C-3, the automobile parking group is restricted as an accessory use only, not a permitted use. The way you have it stated here, it could be a permitted use. MR. ANDERSON: Consider it stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 6 is the same way. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Page 64 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stricken or an accessory? MR. ANDERSON: Stricken. I mean, it will be accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's already an allowable accessory, so I'm not sure you need to state that. Under Number 7, 7542 is a C-4 and C-5 use. It's car washes and bus washes. Now, I know you want that as a convenience store use, and we'll get to that in a minute, but this one opens it up beyond the convenience store use that you tried to get it to apply to. MR. ANDERSON: We're prepared to live with limiting it to in association with a convenience store only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would -- 7542 under Number 5 can be struck? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7549 is a do-it-yourself garage. And I can't find in any of our code listings, in our tables -- I brought the tables with me, you're more than welcome to look at them, but I couldn't find it listed there. Do you need a do-it-yourself garage? Number 7 then is -- Number 7 is struck completely? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the next page, Number 10, business services, you have a real noisy service on here, 7338 is court reporting. I wanted to see if I could get a smile out of her. Number 15, food stores, including convenience stores and accessory car wash. Car washes are C-4 and C-5. How does that fit, whether a convenience store or not? Is there some exception that you know of that allows convenience stores to have an accessory car wash in a C-3, 2 or 1 district? I couldn't find it. And I can ask staff, if you'd rather I do that, when they get up here, because Melissa may be ready to address that, Bruce, so we could hold off on that one. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, let's do. Page 65 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I brought my books with me, we can go over it again. Number 17, gasoline service station, group 5541. That also includes truck stops. Do you have any objection to not making this a truck stop? You know what a truck stop is compared to a gasoline service station? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. I don't think you intended that in a neighborhood shopping center. MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Melissa, since you're the planner, I'm hoping that you're keeping track of these things. MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 28, miscellaneous retail. I could not find in the SIC 5920, 5922, 5960. I'll check again. My note says, what is this? I brought the SIC to help you out with this, Bruce, because I know you may not be able to find it either. I go from 5912 to 5921. I don't have a 5920, nor anything in between as your thing indicates. Have I got an old book or a bad book? I got the one the county gave me, so maybe there's a better verSIon. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, what is your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it doesn't exist, I'm afraid that when it does exist, it could be a roller coaster or something as grievous as that and I assume you don't want that there. So why don't you just say 5912 and not leave the dash to 5920 so that anything on the future that pops in you're not dropping it in your -- MR. ANDERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 5922, again, it's not in this SIC code, so -- and 5960, it jumps from 5949 to 5961. So if you don't -- if those don't exist, do we need them in there? And especially with the dashes in between, because those encompass all kinds of good things. Page 66 August 3, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Well, and I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if there's items in between 5922 and 5960 and yet those two numbers don't exist, why don't you pick the numbers that do and suggest that as a range so we have a more accurate reading of what you're talking about. MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate your suggestion, because we certainly don't want to rule out bookstores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying you need to. In fact, bookstores would be nice. And Starbucks would be nice too, by the way. Anyway, you want to clear up that range? I mean, you've got some -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- time between now -- we're not going to be done quickly on this, so before we end today if you could clarify the ranges, that might help. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said 5963, except pawn shops and building materials. I'm glad you said that, but the 5963 that I have doesn't have those in it to begin with. And I've got that right in front of me. MR. ANDERSON: I believe they fall within the category of hucksters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't want hucksters, do you? So that would be 5963, excepting hucksters? Okay. So -- and then under 5992 to 5999 you list some exceptions, but you missed fireworks. You don't want to sell fireworks, do you? MR. ANDERSON: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then on those same group of categories under miscellaneous retail, you have drugstores and prescription stores may have drive-through facilities. Can you tell me what SIC code that fits under? Page 67 August 3, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Oh, the SIC code, okay. Our planner advises me that there is no reference to drugstores with drive-throughs in the SIC code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good, because I said the same thing. I couldn't find it. MR. ANDERSON: I mean, that's the problem with using this. I . , mean, It s -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish we'd move over to NAICS, but apparently it's not happened yet, so -- okay, I understand your intent there. I can't imagine a corner of this county without a drugstore. Number 29, motion picture theaters, except drive-in. Those are listed as C-4 uses. MR. ANDERSON: We can eliminate that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 34, permitted uses with less than 700 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure. What in the world -- what does that -- what are you trying to do there? MR. ANDERSON: Kiosk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I couldn't figure out what you were getting at. Number 35, personal services. You know, 7215 is a coin operated laundry? Did you intend to have a coin operated laundry in there? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then 7215 I'm assuming you don't need. 7216, this is only a heavy duty laundry. Maybe you're trying to get to 7219, and I'll tell you what that is here in a minute. MR. ANDERSON: All that my client is interested in is the pick-up and drop-off laundry service, not to actually have the dry cleaning service on premises. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then Melissa, I'm assuming that you can figure that out before the BCC meeting. Page 68 August 3, 2006 MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Number 43, social service groups, 8322 to 8399 . You go back and look at Number 11. MR. ANDERSON: We're willing to eliminate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will just save redundancy and a lot of further discussion. Under 44, transportation services group, 4742. This is just -- this is like a travel agency for booking airline flights and things like that, nothing else? Not a -- because generally 4724 comes under a heavier use, but a travel agency is a C-3, so that's okay. Under 47, video rental, group 7848. Videotape rental. Nothing -- I don't really have a problem with that, but you, in your prelude that I read to you that you wanted to live with, none of the following permitted uses are subj ect to a gross floor area square footage limitation. Yet in a footnote to our code, reading one of those little, small footnotes, I noticed that videotape rentals are limited to 1,800 square feet. Are you familiar with that? Is anybody in staff familiar with that? I have that code with me. MS. ZONE: Good, I'm not familiar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do a videotape rental, do you need to have it larger than 1,800 square feet? MS. ZONE: A Blockbuster's -- for the record, Melissa Zone, principal planner with zoning and land development. Your Blockbuster style type of video rental stores are always larger than 1,800 square feet. Some of the corrections, I think, with these groups too, Commissioner, came out of the Golden Gate area master plan of uses that were specifically allowed in the GMP for this -- for neighborhood centers is where this was pulled. And possibly when they created neighborhood centers, the big box, Blockbuster's didn't exist and we haven't updated those codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I just think for clarification Page 69 August 3, 2006 if the intent is -- first of all, you start in the preamble saying nothing is restricted by square footage. If there is something to square footage, and in this particular issue I think there might be, and certainly would be subject to your verification, the videotape rental, then you're saying is not subject to the square footage limitations -- MS. ZONE: I will verify it further for you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Bruce, that's the extent of my SIC code questions. On page -- on Table 2 on III -7 you -- under your principal structures, in your standards, you list two things that I thought are regulated based on your presentation. One is floor area ratio, and the other is maximum gross leasable floor area. I think you've committed that you're not going to have over 105,000 square feet. So I think maybe there is a maximum gross leasable floor area and I think that there is a floor area ratio then in the sense that it won't exceed what you've committed to. Is that right or wrong? MR. ANDERSON: We're committing to a flat-out 105,000 square feet, but do not want to be locked in to any floor area ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why don't -- I understand what you're trying to do. And if that's the square footage that survives the process, why don't we clean up this language so that we're not having things in your standards that don't apply to you because you made a different form of commitment. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under maximum building height, we get into this fun subject of zone type versus architectural height. I'm assuming the 50 feet is architectural height? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Because the footnote -- the three footnotes, architectural appurtenances shall not exceed 75 feet in height, that was struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I only got two footnotes so I must Page 70 August 3, 2006 have got the struck version. That's why I asked the question. Then I'd like to say in this document the maximum architectural building height is, and then it's the 50 feet. That way there's no doubt that we're talking about zoned or architectural, because there's a significant difference in both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I just say something on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was watching this conversation. You're saying actual height, but Bruce, I think you want zoned height to be 50 feet. So you're accepting something -- what Mark's saying is that he wants your actual height to be 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two definitions in the code that are real fun to deal with. One is zoned and one is actual. Actual includes all your architectural features and zoned includes the actual envelope you can utilize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think everybody is nodding. I don't think you should be nodding. At least from my angle here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes these architects, I don't know. MS. ZONE: I was nodding to agree with you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, when Mark says actual architectural, what he means in the land development code is the actual height, which is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and I hate to use the old word that we used to use, to the tippy top. That's why we have that definition, to get rid of that. The zoned height I think is what you intend, especially if you had Page 71 August 3, 2006 -- used to have in there 75 feet to the top of any roof structures. So anyway, you guys can go back talking about it. I just didn't think Bruce was under the understanding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're talking about a height higher than 50 feet, I certainly want this neighborhood to know that you're doing that, and that's -- then we need to clear this up. I thought, based on your statement, the 50 feet was architecturally done at 50 feet. MR. ANDERSON: My client tells me they will live with actual architectural height, 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Your preserve setback is 10 feet. On page V-5, Number C, I think it says 15 feet. Are they the same issue? MR. ANDERSON: Where was the 15 feet, sir? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page V -- well, Roman numeral v-v. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item C under environmental. Buffers shall be provided around wetlands extending at least 15 feet landward. And I think your table says 10 feet. MR. ANDERSON: This is under v-v you're finding? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like I said, I must have gotten six copies of your PUD, and I started using one of them. The first sentence in the -- of the third paragraph, the environmental section. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, environmental, as opposed to landscape buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any wetlands on the property? Because if you don't have any wetlands then you don't have a 15-foot issue to worry about. I didn't know if you had any wetlands by the way you shaped your preserves, so I just wanted to make sure there is consistency. The first asterisk on the development standards table, temporary Page 72 August 3, 2006 mobile sales structures are permitted to have a minimum floor area of 25 square feet. That's five by five. I couldn't even lay down in a five-by-five area. Not that your salespeople will. But what do you plan to do there that you needed 25 square foot something? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's a minimum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is that? Just out of curiosity . MR. ANDERSON: I'm told that it was intended, again, to capture kiosks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the other one said less than 700 feet, so would you need that asterisk? I mean, it certainly is confusing. If you can do a kiosk less than 700 square feet, why would you need to have another statement in your standards table addressing something of 25 square feet? MR. ANDERSON: You know planners, they can never say anything briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that was attorneys, but anyway -- MR. ANDERSON: That's who we learned from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- interrupt again? Is it the intent to have like have cart sales, which would be small things that you'd have on the sidewalk which would be less than 700 feet? The other thing says the minimum floor area is 700 feet, thus not allowing anything less than that, right? So therefore, they may want carts in the walkway selling -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that's the intent, that's all I was trying to find out is what you were intending to do. I wasn't -- I couldn't understand what it was. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let's leave that in then. Page 73 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a guy selling flowers can pull up a little cart and sell his flowers, or a lady selling flowers. Okay. On page V-I, you start with your landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. I'm assuming that staff will make sure that the commitments you read on the record will be now incorporated, if they haven't already been, into this language; is that an assumption Michelle -- I mean, I'm sorry, Melissa. MS. ZONE: It's a certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certain. Good for you. 5.6, lighting, Bruce. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses with halogen lighting prohibited. And I think the GMP goes a stretch further and says low pressure sodium. Is that what you guys had in mind, or do you have an issue with that? And Melissa, did you want to say something on that? MS. ZONE: The GMP says both. It says that the halogen lighting is prohibited and that the low sodium is encouraged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: If you would like it to be it shall be, then we'll make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see if Bruce wants to be super consistent or more inconsistent. Do you have any problem with low sodium? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have transportation issues, Bruce, which I think if I reserve them to those folks, they will probably get to the crux of the matter. The buildings that you have shown on the master plan, you have a large anchor tenant. I don't know what that intends to be. I'm assuming it's a supermarket. What square footage is that building? Do you know approximately, what's the biggest that building's going to be? Page 74 August 3, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Approximately, and this is not a commitment, 46,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I will save some more for transportation. Mr. Murray, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a couple of items there. This is not the master plan. Do you have the master plan handy that you could show us so we could see if there's a comparison or any changes of consequence? So my question, I guess, would be, this is what you're going to go by? This is what you've indicated you're going to go by? MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be updated to reflect the stipulations that I read through at the beginning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But do the stipulations reflect also the document that you just had on the visualizer there, which was a rendering of a new configuration? MR. ANDERSON: The building envelopes would stay the same on here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if we just compare the anchor, what I presume to be the anchor tenant, that seems to be a lot larger structure than the one you've shown us in the newest document. MR. ANDERSON: That is to allow for flexibility in location of the building when it comes time to construct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It's important for people to know when those folks here who are living and folks who are looking at this -- and they've seen one rendering and now they're seeing the other, and I want to point out that this is the rendering that may ultimately be seen. Is that a fair statement? MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're going to show the preserve area that needs to be added along 11 th Avenue and the shifting of the anchor tenant in the other two outparcels about 45 feet north. That needs to be done on the master plan. Page 75 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you just couldn't get it to it, in other words. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. This was a work in progress up until -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the rendering that we first saw will be the closest to the reality that you wish to provide. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's one part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, before you leave that part, if you don't mind me asking Margie. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, when they showed that earlier site plan -- and I'm glad Bob brought back up the master plan, because I had notes on mine and my little tab was missing so I forgot to look there -- and I've got more questions when Bob and Brad finish. If there's any recommendation to go forward on this project today, would it go forward with the plan that's attached as you see here, or would it go forward with the plan they use for discussion that they said is not part of their master plan, not part of their PUD? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It should go with the master plan, what is officially the master plan. If they wish to change that on the record and substitute another plan for their official master plan and it would meet the requirements that planning staff would have for the master plan, that would be okay, or any alternative. If it is kind of a further refinement and it was for another purpose, it could be a separate exhibit besides the master plan to depict something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I have watched many of the Board of County Commissioners meetings, and I know when they get to issues when there's been a change between the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the commissioners have many times individually suggested well, why don't we put this back through the planning commission? Why are we Page 76 August 3, 2006 reviewing something that the planning commission has not thoroughly vetted because they didn't have the same inconsistent information that the BCC had? And Bruce, that's where I'm going. MR. ANDERSON: Everything that is shown on here is committed to except the building locations, so that there is room to shift the buildings, depending on site conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But would those building locations be within the envelope of the impervious surface that's shown on this plan? MR. FILIPPELLI: Joe Filippelli, Sembler Company. Again, the master plan that we have attached to the PUD right now, if we plan on building this development, this is what we're proposing. If we have the flexibility to build this type of development, this type of -- these buildings and maybe a little larger, maybe a little smaller because things change along the way, within those building envelopes that's on the master plan, this is what we're ready to commit to. And also that when you're in design with SD P, maybe they want, you know, to shift the parking lot. The parking spaces are not going to be exactly the same. So, I mean, it's really a matter of that master plan needs to be adjusted to incorporate this plan, but we need a certain amount of flexibility for, you know, design construction to meet SDP and to develop the center. So I mean, if you can envision dropping this center on top of that master plan and giving me the -- giving the PUD the flexibility to move within those building envelopes on that master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, basically you want to be able to build up to your 105,000 square feet within the impervious area shown on the master plan in front of us here. MR. FILIPPELLI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Okay. That does help clarify it. Page 77 August 3, 2006 And I think if this were to go forward, anything that it would go forward with should include a review using this master plan, not the other one, because the other is pretty -- much more onerous than this one. MR. FILIPPELLI: Our intent is absolutely to modify the master plan to be substantially similar to this rendering of -- on the screen today here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Glad I brought it up. Because certainly the neighbors here, they need to know that what they're hearing is real, and that -- a school bus shelter as against the CAT bus shelter, has any conversation been had regarding that? I realize that the school district has not responded to you. And the CAT people are going to wait until the SDP. Could you give me an idea of where you planned to put the school bus, if you had the full freedom to act? MR. ANDERSON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, good. I don't know anything about the transportation part of it. Perhaps transportation will talk to that issue and see, maybe they know something about the CAT and any potential. But that looks for the moment as a good spot. MR. ANDERSON: That was for the school bus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. And the CAT people then would have to consider some other location, and then hopefully there would be no conflict. And perhaps they wouldn't be -- they might be able to use them both, I don't know. Let me just go back to some of those other items. And I -- not to certainly suggest that I know anything more than Mark on this. But I thought it was curious on page Roman nI -4, Number 48, vocational schools. What kind of vocational schools would we have, beauty shop or something of that nature, those groups? Mark, you didn't find anything in those, I guess, that was an issue. But I thought that Page 78 August 3, 2006 CUrIOUS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I actually went through every one of them and if they seemed like they weren't going to be noisy, create undue, more traffic, or if they weren't outside of the C-2, one or three category, basically I didn't see where they would violate the GMP -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well, I would rely -- I would certainly rely upon your knowledge more than I. There was an issue on Roman 111-2. There was an issue, and I don't have an absolute recollection of it. But on number -- let's see, where is it, 13, depository institutions. I assume that's banks. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was an issue that was raised some time ago about one of them requiring a minimum -- or, I'm sorry, a maximum of a single drive-through. And I don't know where that was or whether we codified that or what we did with it. At the moment I don't remember. But I just wondered if anybody, perhaps you, Mark, would remember, or whether we'd want to limit it to a single drive-through window, if there is a drive-through window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue I think you're talking about was -- there was an issue involving some of the commercial architectural language, I think, and it was during that East Naples review board that you and I sat on for a short period of time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was one, but there was -- the other one was up where the new fire department place will be up there, up on Wolf Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's near some of the -- yeah, I don't know if it ever got -- how it got -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know how it got -- and I can't remember offhand. I did remember that we had quite a conversation about it. I don't wish to have quite a long conversation about it, but I thought I'd bring it up just in the offhand that it was Page 79 August 3, 2006 important. And I think if you intend to have the banking that would probably be in one of the outparcels, it looks like there's a fair amount of room based on this new intended master plan. And that would be the extent of it. The other questions that were asked during the first effort at this I think you've answered everything. And looks to me like you've gone a long way to try to help the community and look forward to hearing what the community has to say about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kind of go back to the conversation you had with Margie, is there anything in this PUD that would prevent somebody from putting one big building with 105,000 square feet? Mark asked you if the impervious areas are going to be the only impervious areas. Yet the parking is an impervious area. The concern I have is that these master plans have some pretty good disclaimers in them which kind of say these are purely conceptual in nature, everything can be moved around. MR. ANDERSON: We can add a provision to the PUD that no single use will exceed 60,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And could you also, when you do revise the Exhibit A, would you get rid of -- and I can barely read these things, but two and three, which essentially are disclaimers that show that this is purely for entertainment value, you know, that they're not really to lock down anything on it. So if you do submit it, would you not use footnote two and footnote three. Or at least -- because as it is right now, you could walk out of here, sell this to somebody else and they could build a 105,000 square foot store plop in the center of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer that, Margie, if someone provides us with a PUD, their disclaimers on the master plan that they sent in to the PUD aren't something that the -- I mean, they're not validated, are they? Page 80 August 3, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Generally on the master plan and in the language in the PUD, it says it's conceptual in nature. Because we are doing rezoning here, we're not doing site plan work. And if they want to submit -- and there have been a few times where an applicant has committed to what's on an exhibit for a plan. So their site plan should absolutely mirror that, if that's what the commitment IS. But if they want to attach something as a, you know, conceptual or have parts of it be conceptual, I think they can note that so everyone knows what's what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer's got a good point, because it says the facilities improvements shown on the PUD master plan will be considered conceptual in nature. Would that give them the ability, under what Brad's trying to get to, to put in a giant Home Depot using all the square footage and walk away and say we're done? I mean, say they were zoned for Home Depot; I'm not going there at this point. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So in other words, they would be taking -- all the other uses would be gone and then they just put one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One big use. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I suppose that, yeah, you probably could, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Build a 105,000 square foot architectural office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you'd like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I wouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What numbers -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we have like, for example, the open space, you know, there's no requirement for that. So -- you know, we see the pretty pictures, but like I said, they're kind of for our entertainment. I have more questions. Should I go on? Page 81 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go on when they finish responding-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just would like to pose -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to this, is intensity another way of attacking that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, because they've limited it to 105. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, did you have a comment you wanted to make? MS. ZONE: Yes. Melissa Zone, principal planner with zoning and land development. Commissioner, your concern -- Commissioner Schiffer, about the big box, basically, though the SIC code does not really call out big box as a use, that type of a use is not a permitted use in the PUD document which is the permitted uses per the GMPs of neighborhood centers. So the GMP -- but it could at some point down the road, the GMP, be amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I never mentioned big box. I mentioned one building 105,000 square feet plopped in the middle of the site. MS. ZONE: I stand corrected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that they could do with all the uses that are in within that. Let me move on. And I think somebody from RWA could answer the next question. And this is, since the master plan really intended to have a loop road go through this, that loop road would be very busy. And since in smart growth we're trying to create these little downtown entertainment, fun places to go, why didn't you look at that when you were doing the site, as opposed to this 60 vernacular shopping center? MR. NADEAU: When we were working with the Sembler -- for Page 82 August 3, 2006 the record, Dwight Nadeau, RW A. When we were working with the petitioner on doing the site planning effort, we were providing for the circulation between Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road through the development, not intending to have a per se frontage road. So the intent behind the loop road concerns in the Golden Gate area master plan, it was our opinion that it had been addressed by providing that internal circulation opportunity between the two major collectors and arterials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my thought here is that that loop road could have gone into the site, it could have created a small little downtown area, it could have had a lot of traffic on it, and you could be providing residential -- you know, some of the comments in here are people would rather see affordable housing in this thing. When you really could have mixed it all up. I mean, you could have taken what we're trying to put in the land development code and made a different creature, I think a nicer creature, and I think you could have added the ability to put housing and stuff -- affordable housing into it. But did you ever look at that and decide this was more economical or you just never looked at it? MR. NADEAU: No, the Golden Gate area master plan doesn't contemplate residential land uses within the neighborhood centers. The PUD provisions of the land development code do contemplate that, but they're not permitted uses in the land use tables. So the plan doesn't provide for it and the land development code doesn't give clear guidance related to housing in a commercial shopping center, particularly in this neighborhood center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the PUD you said that the Golden Gate states that you may have 100 percent housing. So the Golden Gate master plan should have been written you shall -- I mean, commercial -- means you shall have 100 percent commercial? Is that what it should have said, or -- Page 83 August 3, 2006 MR. NADEAU: I'm not going to question the authorship of that document. It could have said may have or should have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're testifying that by the plan it has to be 100 percent commercial. MR. NADEAU: What I'm saying is by the plan the residential land uses are not contemplated. They're provided for in C-l, 2 and 3, or similar land uses, as Mr. Anderson pointed out. The land development code itself in division two provides for commercial PUDs to have C-l through C-5 and TTRVC uses, and may have accessory residential land uses. But in the land development code itself, it does not provide for residential land uses in commercial zones. They're not in the chart. They're provided for in text, but they're not in the chart. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think that's something that you -- well, anyway, I mean, my question really was, and I've asked other developers, have they looked at this property for that kind of development, and it sounds like you haven't. MR. NADEAU: My direction was not to look at any housing component of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you still feel that you could not put residential on that property because of the Golden Gate master plan? MR. NADEAU: Well, then we'd have to deal with density issues in the Estates, and I'm not sure the residents would have even contemplated this as a part of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of them in your survey contemplated it, actually requested it. But anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was that it, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Schiffer, the Golden Gate master plan states under the Estates mixed use district, which is where the Page 84 August 3, 2006 neighborhood centers are authorized, it says residential Estates subdistrict, single-family residential development may be allowed within the Estates mixed use district at a maximum density of one unit per two and a quarter gross acres, unless the lot is considered a legal nonconforming lot of record. I believe in order to do the kind of thing that you're talking about that's allowed in the urban area would require an amendment of the Golden Gate master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's no provision for multi-family mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankfully, no, there isn't. Hopefully there will never be. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the master plan you have does not show where the functional open space will be that's required by the master plan. MR. ANDERSON: (Indicating). The greenspace area. That's where the sidewalk and the benches -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll spend some time looking at that in a few minutes, but I honestly didn't think that's what the intent was. I mean, if any particular greenspace or open space all of a sudden becomes functional open space, I'm not sure that was the intent of what we were trying to get at. I think it was more of a courtyard effect, and I'm sure there's more language in there, I've just got to locate it. I'll do so in a little bit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's a well easement area where that area is. Would that interfere with the use of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, being as how Mr. Anderson is an attorney, and it's a well easement, if they put a well there, it becomes Page 85 August 3, 2006 functional open space, doesn't it? Again, I don't think that's the intent. Your point's well taken. I think you're pushing the envelope on what the intent of functional open space was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, in your master plan it does cite a well easement area in the very space that you're talking about where you would have passive recreation or whatever that represents. Are they compatible uses and do you run into a snag? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will look the language over and I'm sure Melissa will, so we'll make sure that the issue is addressed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And again, it brings the question as to maybe this master plan, as relative to the current document, we need to be looking at it a little bit more. MR. ANDERSON: It's the last paragraph in the neighborhood center subdistrict language before the listing of what uses are prohibited. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are you on, sir? MR. ANDERSON: Page 36 of the Golden Gate area master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right, that's the paragraph. It references an open space shall be developed with a greenspace within a pedestrian accessible courtyard. A sidewalk through the middle of that well easement qualifies, do you think? MR. ANDERSON: It's -- the county wants the wells close to a public right-of-way. Otherwise then you have to provide them another access easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't even notice that. I'm glad Mr. Murray pointed it out. The county is actually -- they want a well easement at the entrance to 11th Street. Wow. Okay. That's all I have of the applicant. Is everybody else -- Mr. Page 86 August 3, 2006 Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aren't well easements fenced off? I mean, you have to keep those safe from the public. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It creates kind of a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, do they-- MS. ZONE: No, because you have to access the well easement. And public utilities encourages them to put them by right-of-ways because the county trucks need to get in to service that easement, to service the well. So a fence there would complicate, prohibit them to access it if there was -- I can't think of an emergency off the top of my head. But if the county needs to access it, that would just hinder them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But at the same time, you know, public water supply, it has to be protected from, you know, as an example, a terrorist who wants to contaminate the water. I mean, the way I see them, they're well protected from the public. MS. ZONE: Right. They're protected, but not by a fence, per se. There are measures that our public utilities department use, I'm hoping, to prevent that if, you know, if there's coverings and that might have been something. And if you want, Commissioner Midney, I'd be happy to talk to public utilities and get back with you personally on that answer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It just seems as though there's a conflict there to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Midney, I'm glad you brought that up, because in truth, I don't remember if it's the AUIR or the EAR but I do have a good recollection of the questions having been asked about security and protection and the emphasis, great emphasis placed on the safety of the water supply and that there would typically be fences around and so forth. Now, this well easement, I also remember that not every well Page 87 August 3, 2006 easement that's been offered to the county will ever be used. So maybe this needs to be qualified a little bit further. But certainly that needs to be looked into, because that's a direct conflict for what your interest is, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if we see well easements going in at the front entries to Grey Oaks and Pelican Marsh and Pelican Bay, maybe then it's time the utilities should have the nerve to ask the same thing being put at the entries to our homes in Golden Gate Estates. But until then, I would strongly recommend that if this were to go forward that that well easement be taken away from the front entry of this property, period. MS. ZONE: Do you have a suggestion to where you would like to see it then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't put that on record. MS. ZONE: Okay. So I will make sure that it is not at the major right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would support your -- Commissioner Strain, I would support that then, that there might be another alternative location, perhaps. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I think we've finished entertaining you. I think county staff may want to finish their presentation, and we certainly need to talk to transportation. Bruce, we're going to have public speakers, and after that, we'll have time, we will need to rebut. You may want to -- he's not listening. You may want to rebut the public speakers. And if you don't, say so now. If you don't, fine, you will not be able to. You completely missed that, didn't you? You might want to pay attention to me instead of Mr. Nadeau when we're talking. And that is after the staff gets done, the transportation gets done, we're going to have public speakers. I'm assuming you'll want to Page 88 August 3, 2006 rebut, a time for rebuttal, or not? MR. ANDERSON: I will want to respond. I don't know that I necessarily would characterize it as a rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking of your normal trade. And then after that we will continue with further questions. Thank you. Melissa? MS. ZONE: Thank you. Melissa Zone, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development. We've reviewed this petition for rezoning to a commercial planned unit development, and there's probably not the -- it's not probably, there's nothing -- the project still shows consistency with our codes. There is one question I have, and I want to find the spot so I can bring you there. Forgive me. Taking all of my notes that are here. There was one use that you had questioned, and this is where I'm trying to elude to, with -- I need to find my page. Give me a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roman numeral III was where the SIC codes were. MS. ZONE: Actually, it was the new number 15, Roman numeral 111-2, the food stores, including convenience stores with accessory structures, car washes. That came from the June 15th, 2006 public hearing for this petition. And in that I took the meeting notes, and compared them. And when Mr. Mulhere had suggested that they would take out the car washes but they would like it as an accessory car use, car wash to convenience stores. And though it really isn't in the SIC code, planning commission from their notes said that they didn't see that as a problem. And that's why staff allowed that to be. So I just wanted to address that with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're on that one, Melissa, my notes indicate that a car wash is a C-4, C-5, and -- Page 89 August 3, 2006 MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I've already explained that. But if the food store that it's part of is over 5,000 square feet, then it becomes a conditional use in the C- 3. Is that -- MS. ZONE: That's up to the applicant to apply for the conditional use then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that. But I just want to understand, do they realize that. Because if that's -- they're looking for uses in C-l, C-2 or C-3. Are (sic) the convenience store that they're talking about going to be over 5,000 square feet? Do they realize -- MR. ANDERSON: It could. That's why we have the statement at the beginning about the no limitation on the square footage of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there any other limitations on square footage of uses that I failed to discover? I asked the one I knew about, and on this one is another application there. Is there any others that you know of that had limitations in the code that are being more or less eliminated by the language that you're suggesting here? MS. ZONE: No, I did not notice any others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ZONE: If there's any questions that you would like me to address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If this plan's approved, what would it do with the architectural standards? And here's the concern I have, is I know they could design a building but in the standards we spent great time trying to get rid of that Sixties shopping center by having -- and the joke was we called it a field of parking, and here you called it a parking field. Since I think this wouldn't comply with the architectural standards, what would happen to the site plan from this point on? MS. ZONE: We haven't determined if this site plan is conceptual Page 90 August 3, 2006 or if it is actually solid, but under the Golden Gate master plan, they have to architecturally follow the old Florida style that is addressed in our codes. I'm not quite sure exactly what question -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is that in the architectural standards you have a requirement that you can't put all the parking in front of the building. You have to put it around the side, some of it in the back. This has all the parking in front of the building. The reason we had that requirement is we didn't want fields of parking, which is what they're proudly labeling this as. MS. ZONE: And that's a good point to bring up. We like our master plans to stay conceptual because during site development plan the architectural reviewer will then come in and say your building needs to be positioned here to maybe alleviate some of the parking off of the major right-of-way. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. The petitioner is also not asking any definitions from the architectural code requirements. This is not -- the conceptual plan before you is not something they're attaching to the document. They'll have to revise the master plan to be consistent with the general intent of this conceptual plan, but they will not be -- they're not asking for any deviations from the architectural requirement. So they would be enforced and applied at the time of SDP review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. During this review, do you ever have the architectural -- have it reviewed to meet those standards? I mean, we go through transportation, we go through everything. The neighbors are all looking at this, thinking this is it. And I may be wrong -- MR. BELLOWS: This is not the architectural review board. And there's no way to have an architectural plan reviewed without going through an SDP process. And they can't go through an SDP process without the zoning in place. Page 91 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is there is some things like parking that are in there. And I certainly realize you can't do the buildings. But there is some site plan issues in there that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I can assure you, I'm going through one of the commercial sites now that's been rejected three times, and it's a lot of fun, and it's all because of architectural standards' interpretation by the architects. Different architects, as you know, have different ways of interpreting them. But staff is, from what I can tell, very thoroughly reviewing the architectural standards in the LDC against the commercial applications, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is I know of one requirement that's pretty objective that this could have problems with it. MS. ZONE: Right. And again, that's why staffs of the opinion that these master plans be conceptual so that we can -- it allows us to be more stringent with the codes when it comes to the details of the site development plan. And if we make this master plan that the applicant has presented today more concise and actual, we could do more harm to the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point. Okay. That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have, just for my education, if nothing else. In that same regard, when a master plan is presented and the standards are understood that parking needs to be about, not all in front, just because you have the absence of an architectural review board, wouldn't you just say this doesn't comport and that main building, that main structure may end up going forward or toward Collier Boulevard in order to comport or comply with the Page 92 August 3, 2006 requirements; is that correct? MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I don't understand then it -- okay. Then this is something for you folks that you do, and I guess I just find it curious that we wouldn't ask them to comply in the first instance rather than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's multiple ways of complying with the architectural standards and there's alternatives and options that you could do to a building to make it more compliable in different ways, and those would all have impacts on a fixed site plan. And I think that's why they want to have the site plan subject to variations required by permit review. And I don't know any other way it could practically be done. MR. BELLOWS: That's an excellent way to put it. It really is -- many alternative ways to put specific provisions of the LDC to accomplish that task. And if you lock it in at the time of zoning, it may not be flexible enough to do a better job at the time of SDP review when the staff is actually reviewing the plans being proposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand all of that. But what I'm trying to establish for the record, if nothing else, and for the folks in the audience, that what they're seeing here and what they may have seen in the original master plan may not be what the ultimate result will be. And I want them to be aware that that's the case. MS. ZONE: Yes. And I would hope that and if they would like if this is approved to go forward to the Board of County Commissioners, that any time, and most of them have my number, and I'd be happy to give my card, that if they want to follow this project, that -- to contact me and I would be happy to let them know at what process that if it had changed and if it was a reason because of the code, they would be informed that that's why this might have been altered in some way. Page 93 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll just say finally that that may not change the aesthetics of the entire project terribly. It may very well still be quite lovely, you know. But I just wanted to make sure that they understood that that's a moving -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I hate to tell you, the intent of those architectural standards will make it better, so hopefully it will come out more improved than what we've got. I would hope they would come out better than less, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to ask anything of Melissa? If not, I sure would like to talk to transportation. MS. ZONE: I'm sure you do. But I have one more thing I want to bring up. In Section five, page V-2, paragraph 5.6 of lighting, where it has halogen lighting prohibited. And Commissioner Strain, I know you wanted the low sodium. And partly what staff felt by omitting low sodium is the one good thing we know about technology is we're always improving, and at one time halogen was the standard below sodium. And so what I'd like to do is if we could just make sure that halogen lighting is prohibited. Because what if something five years down the road if they are coming in to amend their PUD document and from that point the GMP or we found better lighting that's even of higher quality than low sodium, we would hate to limit ourselves. But you would know more, being an engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, first of all, I'm not. Second of all, being on the Golden Gate master plan committee for a number of years, our intent was not to have a -- I think maybe Racetrak is the one that's got these glaring bright white lights that blind you as you drive by. We did not think that was appropriate in the Estates setting because the light travels so far, regardless of how it's shielded. Page 94 August 3, 2006 And if the intent -- I mean, if halogen is prohibited and the applicant is willing to look at low pressure sodium or use low pressure sodium or an equivalent that produces the same type of light or similar type of light, that's what I think we would be looking for. It's that bright, glaring white neon light that was so startling, you know, problematic in our review. MS. ZONE: Right. And staff agrees with you on that. And a lot of new development they don't use it. It's more costly at that. I just -- and I might be assuming this -- well, I am assuming that with technology we might be coming up with -- there might be something. And I don't want to restrict this to just one type of lighting. I'd like to leave it open. But that's on you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that all you need to do is put in something to the effect that it's low pressure sodium or an equivalent form of lighting. That way we're not boxed in to just low sodium, we're open to new things that come up. But we're not going to open the door for something as bright and as white as halogen. MS. ZONE: I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Are there any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to Nick, and he's so anxious to talk to us today. Just for a point now, we're at 20 minutes to 12:00. We normally break at a quarter to 12: 00 and come back at a quarter to 1: 00. There are a lot of people here from the public that have spent all morning, and I'm sure they have jobs to get back to, and families to be considerate of. If the board doesn't mind, at a quarter of 12:00 or when we finish with Nick, I can see us taking a 15-minute break and coming back and finishing up with the public so they can go home and then we can take our lunch after that. Is that okay with everybody? Okay. Good morning, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For Page 95 August 3, 2006 the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I read a paragraph earlier about a loop road. I know you weren't here when that happened. Did anybody fill you in on the history of that or what that was meaning and what the intent was? (Commissioner Schiffer has left the room.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I have been filled in on that. And I've come across that in other neighborhood activity centers where similar problems or questions came up. Mr. Schiffer just left and I wanted to address his questions as well too. With the loop road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He can hear you, I know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The problem with the loop road is the access management and the spacing. I think when it was envisioned in the past, what we come across now is that when we widen these facilities and we apply access management to them, you restrict -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. THE COURT REPORTER: A lot. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry I didn't catch that for you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we widen the facilities and we apply the access management policies that are required, you restrict the movements at these entrance points. In other words, you can't take a left in or take a left out in certain areas. So what you're basically getting is a right in bypass. Now, it works if you do it to all four corners, you can get a good bypass around the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: You've got to try just a little -- you Page 96 August 3, 2006 do talk real fast, like I sometimes do when I'm very tired. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fair enough. So when you look at the bypass road or the system that they put on their plan there, it basically works as a right bypass to the intersection. And because you cannot take lefts or lefts out, it provides no other purpose than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wasn't too hung up on the issue of the loop road, but since I found it in the record, I wanted to understand why it wasn't applied in similar circumstances. When we did Estey Avenue, remember the proj ect, the commercial project that turned to residential on Estey Avenue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember how you deviated from your standards to allow them to have a left turn out of that project onto Estey when it was so close to the entrance onto Airport Road? We talked about it at this meeting. I know you probably didn't dwell on it after you left here, but that was a subj ect that I know you and I discussed at this meeting here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. I think it was their only access, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it was a big issue whether it should be right in, right out, something similar. But it was just an access Issue. On this plan here, if you were going down Pine Ridge from 951, why couldn't you make a left-hand turn into this project's entrance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're going to have the left turn lanes that head eastbound on Pine Ridge Road that would go north on 951 that would conflict with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if you were to triple lane that eastbound? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even that left -- that left couldn't be Page 97 August 3, 2006 expanded enough to provide the left stacking to get a left into this proj ect? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, we've looked at that already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other issue on there, the previous plans showed a, what seemed to be I thought, a continuous decellane along the western side of their property on 951. Now they've got pieced decel lanes and they have this proposed entrance, looks like a right out only. How does that sit with your department? Because they're making some stipulations but it's all contingent on that issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The stipulations that Mr. Anderson spoke of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The only problem I had was when you referenced Tract I believe 113. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 114. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 114. We can fit that right out only. Providing an egress point is not as big of a problem as an ingress point. The deceleration lane that's shown on their primary entrance would meet standards and we would want that. The right out, as long as it was before the road came back in for the deceleration lane for 11 th, we would be okay with that as well too. I think specifying that it would be in between their primary entrance and 11 th would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you do the future six-Ianing of 951, was it transportation's current plan to leave a left turn opening onto 11 th Street? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Has not been decided, but we would be putting a left in based on the needs for the shopping center and the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the shopping center wasn't there, Page 98 August 3, 2006 would you put the left in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It may be in there. It would meet spacing requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you put it in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know if I would put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you doing that typically for the streets as you go up 951 in the six laning version of it? Right now you have lefts at every single street. Is that what you're planning to do along 951 as it's expanding to six-lane? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. It would be selective. But this would be an area that would meet the spacing requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's interesting now, because we're stumbling on a whole new subject. You're saying that the future neighborhoods in the six-lane version of this 951 going, say, north of Pine Ridge Road -- and even south, but mostly north -- they're not going to have all left turn accesses into their streets? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: Probably not every single one, sir. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means they're not going to have lefts out either? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you aired this -- I mean, I know it's not the subject but I hope you guys air that -- before you build that road I hope you go to the Estates people and the commissioner of that district. MR. CASSALANGUIDA: We have a policy that we're working with that we do not do median openings -- unprotected median openings in the six-lane facilities. We're trying to get to a more proj ected movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care what your policy is, people have lived there for decades and that's quite a change. To get to home anymore you're not going to be able to turn down your street. You Page 99 August 3, 2006 ought to air that very carefully in the public. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be done at the 30 percent design reVIew. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- let me jump in on that, is that I live in a street where you closed that and that's a real pain in the butt. And it also puts you into intersections that are busy. And while you're sitting there waiting, you wonder what was the wisdom of closing that off when we had a really clear, easy shot, never got in the way of traffic. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be the conflict in providing that left turn lane back-to-back with something else. The idea that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't need the answer. I'm just saying be careful, because, you know, as you're waiting in this traffic jam you look back and no traffic around where you could have made that turn. Go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. The six-Ianing on 951, what's the timetable on completion? Now, remember, we have gone through this with you guys before. We have stipulated projects on completion dates instead of actions. And maybe actions are the way to go, but I just, for the sake of future discussion I'm going to be having with Mr. Anderson, when is the completion of 951 going to occur? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: Sir, this portion of the project is scheduled to begin construction in 2008, so I would anticipate a 24 to 30-month time frame for construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2010 is approximate then, sometime. Is it funded? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: It's funded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it contracted? Page 100 August 3, 2006 MR. CASSALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is funded. Is it designed? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: It's 30 percent now, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The commission has at various times approached these projects, and I think it was Commissioner Coyle that was looking at was it funded and contracted, and if it was, that's some of the criteria he set. Is that a fair statement? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: I believe he's brought that up, that's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're getting certain benefits from this project, right-of-ways and things like that; is that correct? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: Right-of-way and water management, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything on this project that if they were required to -- and I'm thinking of the mess that is now going on down at Manatee Road between Manatee and u.S. 41, that Wal-Mart that's being done and backing traffic up every single day for miles and miles. It's absolutely ludicrous to have had that happen. And that's partly because they're doing their on-site activities at the same time they're building the road. They should have built the road first and then not been issued an SDP until that road got completed. Is there any reason a similar instance couldn't occur here, in the sense that if there are any off-site improvements needed, including turn lanes, access points and all that, that they couldn't be completed before the SDPs were approved? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: I would say that we would stipulate that the off-site improvements be done before on-site improvements begin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is anybody -- oh, one last question. $25,000 for signalization improvements. Have you evaluated that? Is that a fair contribution? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: It is, sir. It is approximately going to Page 101 August 3, 2006 be 10 percent higher than what our calculations show, but we've agreed to that for a safety error -- margin of safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Margie before Mr. Kolflat. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is just a comment about the donation language throughout that paragraph. The word convey, dedicate and donate seem to be used interchangeably. And I discussed this with Mr. Casalanguida, and he suggested just utilizing the term donate. Because you typically dedicate on a plat and convey otherwise. And since it's not known exactly what format that may come through in and what stages, the donate seems to make better sense to be utilized throughout. So it gives the leeway to either dedicate or convey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, did you make that note? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nick, 11th Avenue Southwest is a dead-end street; is it not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do you anticipate any increased traffic going down that street towards the dead-end with this installation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, there may be some initial bypass that, oops I made a mistake, that stuff, but no. No, sir, no -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it will remain about where it is now, subject to future development? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me, could you repeat that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It would remain as it is subject to future development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. I'd like to follow up with one comment as to what you just brought up. Any commitments the applicant may make to the community, Page 102 August 3, 2006 such as traffic calming and things like that, would be subj ect to meeting our warrants. On a dead-end road they mentioned they would offer to traffic calm that road. If it's a dead-end road, it would meet the county's warrant requirements for any sort of traffic calming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good point. And how -- if the -- if they were just to provide a left turn into this property, no right turn in from 11 th Street, how could that be controlled from a traffic viewpoint, without changing the configuration of 11 th Street? I mean, I'm wondering what would stop people from going in if there's no median to prevent them and if there's no curbing to prevent them or something like that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say going in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going in from a different direction. There's been a proposal by the residents that they be allowed a left turn lane into the shopping center so they don't have to go out and make multiple lefts to get into this facility. And they've asked that that be restricted to that turn movement, not have a right turn in as shown on this plan. I'm wondering, in practical application, is that something that is feasible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you wanted to restrict it to only an eastbound left into the shopping center for the residents only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could pork chop it or design it in such a way that it would restrict it from the right turn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, 11th Street as it is now is just a narrow Estates typical road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that require any modifications to 11 th Street? MR. CASALANGUIDA: To pork chop the entrance you could Page 103 August 3, 2006 probably do it mostly on-site with some minor modifications to 11th Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minor meaning a widening of the street or a median in the street or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: To put a -- you wouldn't put a directional -- for the amount of left turns coming from 11 th Street, you wouldn't put a dedicated left turn lane in there. You wouldn't have the volume requirements to do a dedicated left turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just put a break in the pavement markings, probably? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. And also just do something in the right-of-way in terms of a pork chop. But you wouldn't put a dedicated left turn in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the entrance coming -- or the exit coming out -- I should say there would be an entrance, not an exit. The part that's part of the project, it would have some kind of curbing or something that would prevent a right turn in? Is that possible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's if you're going to deviate from what's shown on this plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, if we're going to deviate from what's shown on this plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to do something like that, yes, sIr. I caution you, if you do -- just as discussion matter, if you restrict that to a left in only for the residents, any northbound traffic that comes into the center or would want to come into the center -- THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll slow down. I apologize. Any northbound traffic that wanted to enter the center may not be able to make a U-turn at Pine Ridge Road if there's dual lefts there. So you may be sending additional traffic throughout the network without providing that northbound left in. Page 104 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But also the assumption is that if anybody's coming to the shopping center, they know where they're going because by the time they recognize it they'd be past the opportunity to turn left at 11 tho MR. CASALANGUIDA: On the first pass. It would be a learned access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on that point. If it was only a left in, you wouldn't have the road cut on Collier, would you? In other words, the road cut's there because traffic could enter the shopping center. Would you still have a road cut into the dead-end street? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. On Collier Boulevard they cannot go northbound and enter that shopping center without either making a U-turn or going someplace else and coming around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not the question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the question he -- yes, that's not the question he asked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, just to follow what Mark said. Mark said if you limited it to be a left in only for the residents, you would not -- or would you still put the road cut into that street? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's talking about the road cut on 951. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you were to restrict that to residents only, I think we would have to consider if the shopping center could provide safe access at the southeast corner, providing them a northbound directional left. You may restrict the residents that left turn. That left may go away into 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the residents then -- possibility, if the residents don't accept the right turn into this shopping center, along with their ability to make a left turn in, then there's a greater Page 105 August 3, 2006 possibility that the left turn in off of 951 that now exists for 11 th Street is going to go away. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We would look at that as an option, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you ever consider opening up a left turn in to the western entrance, the larger entrance on this shopping center like is shown on this map? Because there's already existing left turn lanes there, you just put another break farther back. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The main entrance that you show halfway down, is that the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the one. MR. CASSALANGUIDA: We would not recommend putting a northbound left into that access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But would you-- MR. CASSALANGUIDA: Would we consider it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm not saying recommend because I know you guys don't ever recommend anything, you just kind of let it happen. But there are all kinds of traffic arguments, and Reed is a wizard at making those arguments. So if he came in with this great TIS that showed all the benefits of that, would you be inclined to allow something like that to happen? MR. CASSALANGUIDA: It would not be under our access management policies right now, so we'd have to deviate from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you've made plenty of deviations to those policies in the past. I mean, Estey Avenue is an example of one. MR. CASSALANGUIDA: I think for that to happen, we would have to -- if this PUD was approved, it would have to be brought up as part of our 30, 60, 90 percent plans for Collier, incorporated in terms of a board decision for an access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of transportation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one more. Page 106 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, the density on that intersection right now, you feel, and Mark is right, I can hear in the back, you feel that a right turn in, right out loop road, as it was called in the Growth Management Plan, would not be recommended? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it is recommended. What I found in many of the other projects I've worked with now where you have activity centers at the corner of two arterials, especially going to six lanes, that because of the access management that you have restrictions, you cannot provide full movements there. So they lose the viability of a loop road, as required in the GMP or activity center documentation. Doesn't meet the intent of what it was put in there for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in this case it does relieve that pressure for the right turn. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the right turn. Only for the right turn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And right now if somebody went to the shopping center to do that, they'd come out with a sheriffs deputy on their tail, probably, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think you're going to get many people that would bypass that intersection through the shopping center just for the purpose of getting around the intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll take a break till 12:10. Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 12:10 then, and we'll resume the meeting. Just so that everything is squared away during the break, I have more disclosures. I talked to Mrs. Lamb and some of the other residents about looking for a way to resolve some of these issues. And Page 107 August 3, 2006 I also talked to Mr. Anderson in the same manner. Does anybody else have any conversations during break you need to disclose? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that same spirit, I chatted with the folks, but I didn't get into any detail, but -- so if anybody observed that, I was just being generally nice with the folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your nature, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I did speak with an individual about that right turn off for the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll go forward. We left off with the ending of transportation. I know that with all that's been discussed, there's going to be a lot more questions and debate with the applicant as we go through this. But I think it's beneficial now that we hear the registered speakers. And Ray is not here to help us with that, since he has all the registrations. Maybe Melissa can find those for me. Ah, he's returning. MS. ZONE: Do we want me to start? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many speakers do we have, Melissa; do you know? MS. ZONE: I believe he said 11, but let me make certain. Ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those people wishing to speak, we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. Weare somewhat flexible, but longer dissertations don't necessarily help your cause. We ask that you don't be redundant and focus on the facts. It will be the best way to get your points across to us. Ray, if you could call the first speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Kelly Huff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one, sir. MR. HUFF: Hi. Kelly Huff. Resident on 11 th Avenue for over 20 years. Page 108 August 3, 2006 I'm going to throw my cheat sheets away, you guys addressed most of the concerns and answers today. I appreciate you setting the standard for what will go here. We all wish that nothing will be built here ever, but that's not going to happen. I do support this project. I supported it the first time they presented it. I appreciate you guys asking for it to be down-sized. Now some more concerns have come about today for the safety of getting in and out of this proj ect to me more than anything. I don't want to lose my entrance into 11 th Avenue. If you create only a left turn into that project on 11 th Avenue, we're going to have more traffic turning down there to make U-turns on the street just to turn back into that project. This is the best design I think in general, most of us, with Sembler taking our suggestions into thought, this is what it came out to be. I also don't want to have to go farther north to try to turn into the main entrance of the project and try to cross over three lanes of traffic that close to Pine Ridge Road. There was another -- oh, Mr. Strain, your first answer was, I think, was concerning the deacceleration (sic) lane going south onto 11 th Avenue where the bus stop would be. I personally wouldn't want to be going south on three lanes of traffic to have traffic stop behind me so I could turn in there. I support the deacceleration (sic) lane into 11 th Avenue. I know a lot of the residents were all going to have the same concerns. In the design or the question about parking being behind the building, I hope it don't come to that either. Mr. Matusiak (phonetic) that lives back there that's, you know, paying the price for most of this development, I don't think he'd want to see that either as far as traffic being behind these buildings, as much as possible. I think that's most of my concerns. I appreciate you guys looking out for us to make sure this is done. I support this type of project. I Page 109 August 3, 2006 don't want five strip malls in there. I don't want us to be back here, since Mr. Strain mentioned a racetrack gas station lit up at night and them being the next one to try to get approved to put on this whole site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to relate to you that even if this project were not to happen when they six-lane the road, that issue about 11 th has to be addressed to the transportation department. And so they're in the 30 percent design, so I would recommend you strongly relate there. Because that really is not even a matter for us. I mean, we'll take that into consideration. But that may -- it's more a matter of transportation. I strongly recommend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Huff, do you, through your children, utilize the bus stop at the end of the street? MR. HUFF: No, I don't. I'm fortunate, my wife takes my son to school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'm going to be asking every resident up here that question. I want to know what their thoughts are, so they can start thinking about how important that bus stop is. Because that is an issue that I'm very concerned about. But I do appreciate your comment on that. MR. HUFF: I would hope, and I think it would be the safest, hopefully the bus stop can be incorporated into the wooded park area that we all asked to be there. I think from the safety issue of the children at that bus stop, I would hope they would not incorporate the CAT system in with our children for the bus stop. I hope they keep those separated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Frederick Leisse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the speakers can use either podium, whatever is most convenient to you. Page 110 August 3, 2006 MR. LEISSE: I'm a 17 -year resident of 11 th Avenue Southwest. I'll guarantee you, I did not move to 11 th Avenue Southwest or the Golden Gate Estates to be in proximity to a retail center. It certainly was a reason to move away. Before living where I do now, I lived in the Glades, and I was within walking distance of the old K-Mart and Naples Town Center. And I sought out Golden Gate Estates because of its isolation, quiet, minimal traffic, and just the pleasure of living in the woods. Well, I do not agree that development is improvement. And I don't think our area is going to be improved by this development. But it seems like the development itself in some form is a fait accompli, and so we have to accept it. The major thing that I am concerned about more than anything else, as all of us are, is all northbound traffic on 951 going into this development is going to end up on 11 th Avenue Southwest. And we're going to have traffic. If it is a successful development, and I'm sure that's everyone's wish in terms of the developing side of the argument, we're going to have major, major traffic problems on 11th A venue Southwest. Because everything going north that turns in to get into it will come out on 11 th Avenue to go south and return whence they came. So the end of our street is going to become a major traffic choke point. And I just do not really relish the thought of what we're going to have to deal with after what we've enjoyed for so long in the last, for my part, 17 years. The only other question I have is on this retention pond. At best it's going to be an attractive nuisance. Is it going to be fenced and are there going to be protective measures to keep the neighborhood kids, and maybe not neighborhood kids but kids from elsewhere, away from this retention pond? Those are the concerns I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And one question I have for you. And you need to be back at the speaker, if you don't Page 111 August 3, 2006 mind. The school bus stop, do you have any children that utilize this school bus stop? MR. LEISSE: No, all my children are in their thirties and forties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I thought you might say that but I wanted to ask the question. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Beth Davis. MS. DAVIS: My name is Beth Davis. I live at 4110 11th Avenue Southwest with my husband and three boys, ages 10, six and one. Our house is located within 500 feet of the proposed Brooks Village. We live next door to Mr. and Mrs. John Lamb and directly across the street from Mr. and Mrs. Mike Matusiak (phonetic) whose property has once been in question. I'm a certified Collier County teacher, but have instead chosen to stay home and raise my three children. I am more comfortable speaking in front of a classroom of children, not my peers and other professionals, so please excuse my nerves. Although I have not always been vocal I have attended meetings and am very aware of how things have been progressing regarding the proposed shopping center. On the occasion that I wasn't able to attend the meeting, I have seen the recorded video. It wasn't until approximately a month ago when I read an article written by Mr. Strain in the Collier Citizen that I felt compelled to speak up. I too believe there's power in numbers and that I must do my part to protect my family and help stop the insanity that has taken over Collier County. While I have my concerns regarding Brooks Village, let me begin my saying that I believe there's simply no need for a shopping center this size on the corner of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. I clocked the distance from the Publix at Vineyards to my Page 112 August 3, 2006 mailbox. It is a mere 2.5 miles. The Sweetbay north 11 th Avenue is not much further away. I realize that changing roads are inevitable, however, a much smaller neighborhood center without public access on 11 th Avenue would be sufficient. I am completely opposed to the center that the Sembler Company has proposed. More importantly, I'm opposed to the public access on 11 th Avenue. I don't want the extra traffic, which directly affects the safety of my children. I don't want the middle of the night noise from delivery trucks that is inevitable from a major grocery store such as Publix. I don't want a retention pond across the street from my house that will undoubtedly pique my three boys' curiosity. A pond that will only be a stone's throwaway from the end of my driveway. I don't want my children catching the bus from a crowded parking lot, no matter how beautiful the Sembler Company promises to make it. This location of a bus stop only gives more places for predators to hide. I'd like to now make some comments regarding the Sembler Company, if I may. However, I'd like to preface those comments by saying that I believe some wonderful suggestions were made by some of you at the last meeting, more specifically, the recommendations for the Sembler Company to listen to the wants and needs of the residents of 11 th Avenue Southwest, and for them to remove Tract 114 from their proposal. While the Sembler Company did hold neighborhood meetings, I feel they were strictly going through the motions. Their ability to work with the public lacked something to be desired. In the last two neighborhood meetings, residents who opposed their ideas were not allowed to completely speak everything they wished. They were cut off in mid-sentence, they were laughed at and ignored. In my opinion, the people representing the Sembler Company were rude and treated those of us who opposed their ideas unfairly. On the other hand, they joked and laughed with residents who Page 113 August 3, 2006 were in favor of their ideas, as if this were a laughing matter. I'm not laughing. I feel as though the Sembler Company has believed things would completely go their way from the beginning of this process and they are trying to bully the neighborhood into thinking this is a done deal. This was evident from the postcard they sent out saying the center would be opening in the fall of 2007. I do not intend to let anyone bully me or my family. Nothing is more important to me than the safety of my children. That is why I'm here today, to ask that you not approve the proposed Brooks Village shopping center. In my opinion, the Sembler Company has not followed your recommendations and therefore is endangering the safety of children and natural beauty of 11 th Avenue Southwest. If for some reason you think the Sembler Company's proposal is acceptable, I must say, my family will not see the finished product. We will be forced to move completely out of Florida where we can find what we already have on 11 th Avenue at an affordable price. And the answer to your question, Mr. Strain, I do have three children, and they do use the bus stop, with the exception of my one-year-old. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Ray, the next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Karen Leiti. MS. LEITI: Hi. My name is Karen Leiti, L-E-I-T-I. And I live on 11 th Avenue Southwest also. I believe that a residential neighborhood is supposed to be a residential neighborhood. We don't need the increased traffic. It's just going to make a mess of what we already have there. It's a -- in my opinion a beautiful neighborhood. That's why I bought it. I like it the way it is. I know that shopping centers need access and people have to Page 114 August 3, 2006 come in and out. I know that just from shopping down at Publix over by the Vineyards. I know how hard it is to get out of there at certain times of the day. And I really don't want to see that kind of traffic backup at the front -- or the beginning of my street. I was at the meeting last month, well, June 15th meeting, and Commissioner Donna Caron had said, and I'm quoting, take that outparcel out, referring to Tract 114. My neighbor Beth and I got 70 signatures out of 43 households that indicate that they want the developers to go along with Ms. Caron's recommendation to eliminate Tract 114. Leaving that alone would leave the bus stop alone. And that's important to me and that's important to all the neighbors who have children. In the spirit -- that's basically what I have to say. I would like to see them leave Tract 114 alone. Decorative lighting along the side of my street or a decorative entryway with the Brooks Village sign, that really doesn't matter to me. I didn't move to Brooks Village, I moved to 11 th Avenue Southwest. And so that's basically my feeling. I prefer that there not be any public entry or, especially, public exit from 11 th Avenue Southwest. In the interest of neighborhood compatibility, however, and in the spirit of compromise, if Tract 114 has to be included, then I definitely would like to make sure that there is no entry or exit to the public, to anybody who does not live on 11 th Avenue Southwest. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know my school bus question? MS. LEITI: Yes, yes. I have -- well, this is a yes and a no for me. I have a 17 -year-old, so she's a little too cool for the bus. However, her car is the only thing I have to punish her with. So whenever she does something that she shouldn't, I take the car and she takes the bus. So yes, I do have a child bus age, and I do not want the bus stop moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Page 115 August 3, 2006 ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: John Lamb. MR. LAMB: John Lamb, 11th Avenue resident. Thank you very much, Commissioners. I'd like to express my disagreement with the access on 11 th Avenue. I disagree with using Tract 114. I believe that the Sembler group, if they chose to, could have designed around this. Our participation with the four public meetings that they've had, had it unanimous, if not majority, comments about no access on 11th Avenue. And after four meetings, they still continue to have their plans for access on 11 th Avenue. I feel like that's a slap in the face when it comes to working with the residents. I understand that, you know, money is the motive there. They have retailers and people and commitments. But I'd like to, you know, remind them that it's this process that they have to get through to make this happen. And I don't feel like they've addressed our Issues. I think at the very last meeting that there was a potential compromise that would have allowed an entrance into only off of 11 th Avenue. The items in which beautification of 11 th Avenue, I really don't want that, because that will attract people to think that that's part of the shopping center, which will attract people to pull into 11 th Avenue. I think that there's just a lot of things wrong. In sitting here and listening to them propose and the questions that you've asked and the comments that you've asked them to do due diligence in preparing their plan, and then to be coming up short on so many items is a clear reason that, you know, this is something that they haven't even defined themselves as far as use-wise, lighting, hours, up until the very last meeting, the fourth meeting that they had, which, you know, after the last meeting was brought up about the hour usages, they still were Page 116 August 3, 2006 wanting to use up to midnight as the hours of deliveries for their clients. Only in the last meeting did someone again bring it up to them. You know, these are items and issues in which I think does not represent a cooperative developer with the owners on 11 th Avenue. In addition to that, at those meetings, when the people spoke up against it, they were cut off short, asked to sit down, laughed at, me being one of them. When we were asked to show a video of the comments of the commissioners at the last meeting, we were denied that. At the last meeting when someone had a CD of that same video and said if you don't believe what they said, I have it right here, they denied to watch it and continued to say that the things that were on the video were not true, which were your comments. And the proof was right there, but they denied access to show everybody it. I just feel like this is a developer that, you know, is supposed to be a good neighbor but just hasn't demonstrated that effort to work with us. I think we're reasonable people. You know, I think, when I moved to the Estates, I wanted an Estate home. When I look out my windows, I don't want to see a shopping center, I want to see trees. And I think that's the expectation of all the people on our street. I understand that there's people that like the access to the shopping center but don't want the traffic from the shopping center. And the only compromise that would allow that to happen is the entrance into it only, which would not disrupt the bus stop in which I have three kids who catch that bus, okay. It's very, very important to us to have that bus stop. You know, one of the things is, you know, many of the parents, including my wife, take the kids down to the bus stop to catch that bus and, you know, that's a morning ritual. That's part of the ambience of living in the Estates. I don't want to see that taken away from us. Other safety issues, you know, I'm concerned about, you know, with the retention pond and so on. There's many issues I think here Page 11 7 August 3, 2006 that could be looked at, and I'm sure that you're all aware of, have your own notes, that they just have come up short with some of these things. The bus stop with the planning. You know, it is determined, and if you call the county school board, they will determine that you cannot have a bus pull off in a turn lane, okay, a deceleration lane. It's not going to happen. So they haven't done due diligence. And this is the one reason that they haven't been able to get confirmation or anything in writing from the school board about that bus stop. And there's potential for this bus stop, if they do put those deceleration lanes in there, for it to be moved down to another street then, which makes our kids have to go to another location for this bus stop. I find that hugely alarming and I find that, you know, something that, you know, hasn't been clearly conveyed that they are basically promising this bus stop in the shopping center, that's not going to happen, you know. If it was going to happen, they would have gotten the confirmation in writing or something in writing from the school board that said it could happen, and they denied (sic) to get that. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I hope that you vote against it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Lamb. Is there a next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Beth Lamb. MRS. LAMB: Hello. I'm Beth Lamb, and I live within 500 feet of the proposed development. I also have some statements with me from some of the other neighbors who couldn't be here, and I'd like the opportunity to read them when I finish saying what I would like to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can give you a little bit of extra time. MRS. LAMB: I'm just a country girl from Ohio. I've been in Florida 34 years. When I moved here, I was taught that I was a guest Page 118 August 3, 2006 here in Florida, and that as long as I didn't impose my way on other people, I could stay here. Now, they don't teach that lesson too much anymore in Florida. But I do believe that 22 years ago when I came to Naples that this county feels the same way, and that a developer is a guest here and that they need to understand that they need permission to build here, and that they shouldn't come across with a cocky attitude like we've got the money, we can do what we want. Because we have trees in our yard, like my husband said, that we like to look at. And there's a corner entry into our properties, 11 th Avenue. And we don't want that destroyed. We want it to be what we bought when we originally moved out to Golden Gate Estates. We have some neighbors who have come up against the people who have been petitioning, myself and a few other neighbors have put out some petitions. We passed that petition to you at the last hearing, and there was some question whether or not that the signatures were valid, that they were from 11 th Avenue Southwest. There was a UPS man who drove on 11 th Avenue Southwest. He felt he'd be terribly inconvenienced if that shopping center was there and all that traffic where he couldn't get to his next delivery. He didn't put his own address, which is somewhere else in Naples, but he put it on the petition, and there was a lot of question about that. I just want to say that we've never had the intention of trying to keep our neighbors out of the shopping center. What we want to do is we want to keep the traffic off of 11 th Avenue Southwest. And if it weren't for myself and a couple of my neighbors who live within 500 feet, the other neighbors would have never even been informed that this process was going on until the signs hit the street side. So we were including them to actually get everyone's opinion and to come to some kind of compromise and agreement that there were other people who felt the way we did. Excuse me, I'm trying to make sure I'm reading everything from Page 119 August 3, 2006 my notes and I'm trying not to be redundant. First we didn't want anything there, we didn't want it to be rezoned at all. After the last hearing we acknowledged that a neighborhood center will be built. And now we have begun this process with a second petition, which I'd like to come forward and give each of you a copy of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can do that. MRS. LAMB: Thank you. And I also have a list of every address on 11 th Avenue Southwest. Mine is not included because my property frontage is actually 951, but my driveway is an easement that's been right-of-wayed on 11th Avenue. So my address isn't in here. So that would make 44 residents that Karen was talking about earlier, 44 households that have signed the petitions. And there are exactly 63 lots, if you will, on 11 th Avenue. Mine would make 64. And I have checkmarked each address that has signed the petitions. So you have numbers -- I'll give this to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll need to leave an extra copy with the court reporter as well. We've all received this. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti by raising his hand. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 120 August 3, 2006 Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, you can continue, Ms. Lamb. MRS. LAMB: Thank you. Of those 63 properties, three haven't been built on yet, and three of them we knocked on the doors, they were empty homes for sale. Some of them are rentals and some people are seasonal. So the actual exclusion of some signatures is possibly because the people weren't here to actually be polled or asked their position. It simply asks the Semblers to comply with the commissioners' recommendations from the last hearing, which we did video. And a lot of the comments -- I won't say a lot, but some of the comments didn't make the court reporting, because a lot of things were said over in the corner. And Mr. Strain, you did make a note of that and tell them they need to speak directly so it would be part of the notes. So we even have some things on our video that aren't part of the written notes. We did meet with the Semblers. The Semblers met with the neighborhood four times, that's been mentioned. And as my husband and Beth Davis said, every time someone spoke up against what was going on, we were told to sit down, we were told it was their neighborhood meeting by the Sembler Company and their representatives, and that it wasn't the Lamb meeting. When we spoke we were ridiculed and laughed at, a lot of eyes rolling and arms crossed and a lot of negativity towards people who were just trying to protect their interests. At the last meeting on July 27th, the neighborhood did come to a compromise. My husband and myself were not invited to that meeting. I did call the Sembler Company and asked them for an invitation. We actually had made reservations to go out of town, so my son came and videotaped the entire neighborhood meeting and I Page 121 August 3,2006 had that put on a DVD. So we did have that meeting. And my husband and I watched it together and we realized that the majority of the people at that meeting, they only want access into the center for residents only . No right in from 11 tho Okay. I think that that's pretty much what everyone can agree to. I think that compromise is what everyone can agree to. And as Mr. Murray said at the last commission hearing, he believed that the Sembler Company could make a nice neighborhood center. Well, I believe that Collier County transportation can make -- they're capable of providing a nice entrance for them to get into it without accessing or cutting off 11 th Avenue. They do it all over town. Everybody knows we could come in here with many, many examples. All of these exceptions are made, why not for 11 th Avenue, so that we can preserve what we have. We don't want public access and we don't want to move our bus stop. Mr. Rodriguez on the corner doesn't want sidewalks. He's the property that's directly south on 11 th Avenue, the first house on 11 tho His property frontage is also 951. He can't be here today, he's out of town. He's also Hispanic so he speaks with an interpreter. I spoke with his interpreter several times. Mr. Rodriguez does not want this traffic backed up in front of his home. He doesn't want it. I also spoke with Lynn Wendell (phonetic) and she is the supervisor at the school transportation north compound. And she said they will do whatever it takes to keep the children safe. This includes moving our bus stop to 13th Avenue. That's nearly half a mile away. Ifwe have right out only on 11th and a U-turn between 11th and 13th, the parents will have to go around the block to get to their homes twice a day. Leaving the school bus stop alone and no access for the public is the only realistic solution. Amy Taylor at the school planning board said that she spoke with Mr. Anderson and told him yesterday that their most recent bus stop shelter location will not work. They didn't Page 122 August 3, 2006 not make a commitment, they told them no bus is going to stop in an easement or a pull-off for a shopping center or any other kind of access. Now, along 11 th Avenue they were also asking Ms. Wendell if they could put the bus stop down 11 tho She told them absolutely not. She didn't say we're not going to make a commitment. Absolutely not. We don't have a cul-de-sac at the end of our street. As the developer stated at the last hearing, they won't let them put on (sic) every street on 951 which they'd have to do if they did it for us. There's nowhere to turn around. If our bus stop was moved further south to let the shopping center have this access, every model for the next block down to 13th also has a pull-off. We would not have a stop, even my property, which isn't a model, has the pull-off for the model next door. There would not be a stop until 13th. Now we're talking about -- these people are going to be down here and now they're not going to be able to get back to their homes? If they eliminate our U-turn at Green Boulevard, they're going to have to make a right. They're going to have to go over to Logan, back to Pine Ridge and back to 951 to get home with their kids after they pick them up from the bus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Lamb, I know -- I wanted to give you more time, and usually that is about 10 minutes. You're already approaching that and you haven't related to us the other statements you wanted to read for the record. So I want to make sure you schedule enough time for yourself, and I'll give you still a little bit more, but you've got to kind of start getting to the end here. MRS. LAMB: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MRS. LAMB: A couple other things. One of those flyers the Semblers sent out to what they thought was 40 residents, and they can Page 123 August 3, 2006 verify they ran short because we have 63 -- the third question on it says if the center is built, would you prefer to have direct access to the center from 11 th Avenue. If there is no access, you would need to take a right on 951, make a U-turn past Green Boulevard, then drive back to the Pine Ridge intersection, make a second U-turn, then turn into the center. That's a yes or no question, by the way. I'd also like to say that from my last time I spoke, the plan amendment by Ordinance No. 2004-71 on October 26,2004 did state that that criteria for land use at the centers, they may be utilized for single-family residential. I know that came up earlier. It has already been amended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a question, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before you would go into the other persons, I'm curious. On the petition, there's an indication that there's to be no car wash, no convenience stores or gas stations. Just what would be the reasoning, so I understand it more clearly, please, why you folks wouldn't want a car wash, a convenience store or a gas station? I think I might understand convenience store, maybe gas station, but car wash, because of -- MRS. LAMB: I believe Donna Caron just said we've got one across the street, why do we need another one at this comer. Mr. Strain also remarked the last thing we need is another convenient store on another corner in Naples. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand, but I wanted to be clear what your views are. I know about Mr. Strain's view, I think. Okay. So because of the fact that there was a car wash across the street, you figure we shouldn't have another? MRS. LAMB: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Lamb, I've got to ask that you try to be brief with the remaining time. Page 124 August 3, 2006 MRS. LAMB: Okay. I'm going to read the brief statements. One of my neighbors did write something that's a little lengthy, and I have a copy for you so I don't need to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be better, yes, thank you. Thank you. We've each received another exhibit. It would be a letter from Mr. James Rubright (phonetic). Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Murray to accept it into evidence. Is there a -- seconded by Mr. Tuff. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MRS. LAMB: Okay. These are the statements from my neighbors that filled them out yesterday before we came in. The first one is from Provincia Preet (phonetic). And she lives at 4176 11 th Avenue Southwest. Says, I'm not for what's happening on our street. I wish that you could come to an agreement soon. My husband thinks the same way, too. Short and sweet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MRS. LAMB: The second statement is from a neighbor named Denise Taggs (phonetic). The address is 4230 11th Avenue Southwest. Please leave Tract 114 alone. We have families, children. We only need a little space to raise our kids. We have concerns about Page 125 August 3, 2006 traffic, busing and business that may come into the area. Please help us. I'd just like to close in saying I'd like to agree with what Donna Caron said at the last hearing, let's give the neighborhood what they want. And we don't want access on 11 th for the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mrs. Lamb. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to understand, where do you live, like one lot south of the fellow on the comer? MRS. LAMB: My driveway is right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mrs. Lamb, you'll unfortunately have to use the microphone, so Mr. Schiffer, you'll just have to describe it to him. MRS. LAMB: Okay. My driveway is at the southwestern point of this property, and it goes in three lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MRS. LAMB: So our property -- yeah, there's three lots. We're the third lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do utilize the school bus? MRS. LAMB: I absolutely utilize the school bus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MRS. LAMB: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Rachelle Wernham. MS. LEITI: Rachelle was sitting behind me and she had to leave to pick up her son. She asked if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come up to the microphone, and that way it's recorded, what you're telling us. MS. LEITI: My name is Karen Leiti. Rachelle was sitting behind me and she had to leave to pick up her child and asked that somebody read this. Page 126 August 3, 2006 And she wrote on the top, I hereby gIve permission for the residents of 11 th Avenue to read our views. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she's registered to speak, so if you want to read her message to us, that's fine. MS. LEITI: Okay. Our names are Mark and Rachelle Wernham of 11 th Avenue Southwest, and we also speak for Gary and Trisha Oros, California residents and our neighbors at 4131 11 th Avenue Southwest. Weare all totally opposed to any commercial development at the end of 11 th Avenue, next to County Road 951, Collier Boulevard. We hear from the Sembler group how this will be an upscale development, but we believe it will only bring increased traffic, louder noise and more crime -- sorry, it's handwritten. We are told it will make our lives better with street lights and a bus stop for our children. We do not want lights. No other street in this neighborhood has streetlights. We bought our houses away from the commercial development for a reason, natural surroundings, not manmade, peace and quiet. This development, we are told, is to provide services for the people further out in the Estates. I ask you, do we really need another service center with a big grocery store in this location? We currently have Publix at Vineyards, Sweetbay at Vanderbilt, Publix at Immokalee, a Sweetbay and a Winn-Dixie in Golden Gate City, and a Super W al- Mart on Collier Boulevard. Surely if this is to provide the Estates with services, then it should be built closer to the residents it is to serve. Finally, the Sembler marketing division made a very nice presentation of the proposed development to all the surrounding streets. Serving those on the -- oh, including -- I'm sorry, including those on the east side of the County Road 951. We were asked are you in favor or against such a development? No doubt the Sembler group will tell you they had a great response in favor of the Page 127 August 3, 2006 development. I wonder what the response would have been if the question on the survey asked was would you be in favor of this development if it was at the end of your residential street. Thank you. And it's signed Mark Wernham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Margie, since it was read into the record, do we need to keep a copy of it for the record? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think you probably should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you provide that to the court reporter, to the young lady sitting right here. MS. LEITI: Do I need to make copies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You read it into the record, so a copy for her is fine. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Nickie Koch. MS. LEITI: I'm sorry. And her child does use the school bus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. And I'm sorry, for forgetting to ask. Since you were her stand-in I wasn't sure if you'd know, but you do. Thank you. MR. KOCH: Good afternoon. My name is Nickie Koch. I moved to Naples in 1957, I was in first grade. There was one red light in all of Collier County. So I witnessed a lot of development. This is one I don't like. I grew up in a house in Naples Bay, which my brother and I still own. We don't choose to live there because we like elbow room. I moved to the Estates twelve years ago and bought my house on 11 th Avenue Southwest four years ago. I moved out there for a reason. I like the tranquility. I don't like the traffic in downtown Naples. It's beautiful. Do we need a shopping center? I don't think so. There's four Publix supermarkets within 10 minutes. One 10 minutes, one eight minutes, one three minutes and one six minutes from my house. There's four other supermarkets in that same area. Two of them -- there were 10, two of them went out of business, didn't Page 128 August 3, 2006 make enough money. This is a big hole in the ground out here. They're going to have to put eight to 12 feet of fill in there to build this thing up. Where is all that water going to go when that retention fills up from a heavy rain? On both sides of us, to the north and south, there are nice model homes. What happens to those model homes, they get sold to nice families or retired couples. Leave this property alone. There's going to be other model homes get built there. This is a residential area that I moved into. I don't want to see it changed. I'm really vehemently opposed to the rezoning and adamantly opposed to anything on 11 th Avenue Southwest. That tract needs to be left alone. You guys need to go back to the drawing boards and get it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you've got to address your comments at us. MR. KOCH: Okay, sorry. I'm not a happy camper about this. It's residential. If this thing was there when I moved out there, I wouldn't have even looked at 11 th Avenue Southwest. I can't believe that we need this thing. We don't need it. There's nothing about it that we need, you know? They rezoned across the street. We got one little gas station. Put a gas station on the end. Hell, give them some competition, another convenience store, just what we need. But this is a monstrosity. Asphalt and concrete, nothing aesthetically pleasing about it. It destroys, you know, my American concept of -- I bought this house to live out my final years and retire there. I don't know where else I'd go in Naples or Collier County. It's unbelievable what's left. Everglades Boulevard where there's, you know, they're going to reflood all that, so to what I'm trapped now. I'm opposed. No shopping center. Please don't rezone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 129 August 3, 2006 Sir, one question for you. Do you have any children that utilize the bus stop? MR. KOCH: No, never been married. I'm single. I'm looking for a woman, with kids or make some kids, so, you know, that's still a possibility. So leave the bus stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least you're honest, thank you, sir. Ray, our next public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Blaise E. Bohall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I betcha his name is Blaise Bohall. MR. BOHALL: That's correct. My name is Blaise Bohall. I've been living on 11th Avenue since 1976. We do have children that do use the bus stop. I think a lot of the problems I'm looking at, at this commercial project and that people are opposed to, it's just the fact that we have commercial property on the end of our street. I think the time to be opposed to having commercial property there is long gone. This is something that's already been passed through, this commercial. I think we have to live with it. Along with commercial comes a lot of problems that we're going to have to deal with. The traffic flow, I do not want to lose my turn onto 11 th Avenue. Every other option that I'm hearing by not having this exit or this entrance off of 11 th Avenue closes off the entrance to 11 th Avenue from 951. I'm vehemently opposed to having my son -- he's 11, but in four years when this is all messed up with all the six lanes my 15-year-old having to go up to Pine Ridge Road and make a U-turn on Pine Ridge Road that's going to be six lanes and another six lanes, to turn back to get onto our street when she can just make a left-hand turn. So all these options to say let's have our entrance like further up, the only way I can see them doing that is by closing off 11 tho I'm really opposed to that. I am opposed to having traffic exiting onto 11 th Avenue onto Page 130 August 3, 2006 this. As much as I've been hearing how bad Sembler has been with not working with us, I think all the suggestions that we have made, they have tried. If you go back to your last meeting in June and look at their proposal that they had and what they've done now, I think you will see that they have made a concerted effort to change things so that we have the park area now on 11 th rather than over on Pine Ridge Road. They've moved the retention area away. I think they have worked with us. There are some issues that I was just listening to in the meeting. Something about video store. I don't know who zones this or whatever. If there's a video store, let's please restrict it to being non-adult. I know we do have an adult video store further up on 951. I don't know if our area has adult video that would be allowed in there. If they do end up with a video store, please, I would like to have it to be a non-adult video. The bus stop. I guess my biggest concern is the bus stop. I have had two -- I have two older daughters and they have -- we have utilized the bus stop. Everybody says they'd like to have the bus stop where it is. To me it is a major hazard where it is right now. Coming on down Collier Boulevard, the turn-in onto our street is very hard once you go through there if you have a semi-truck behind you going 55 miles an hour to even slow down enough to turn onto our street safely, okay. This turn lane would be great. I'm all in favor of this deceleration lane. When we do turn on, there's six cars parked right on the comer with kids running all over the place. I know they like to be there with their kids, I know this. We did, too. But every time I go to the bus stop and I watch the little kids run off the bus and the bus takes off and there's kids running everywhere and the cars behind them are like turning into them. This isn't something that -- this bus stop that everybody is saying is so great, that's something that we should strive to keep. Right now I think it's a major hazard. Page 131 August 3, 2006 I do understand these concerns with busing and the school board and traffic. I think there's so many issues here that confuse this decision that I don't think any of the residents here can really come to grips with all the decisions that have to be made by you guys to come to this final decision. The bus stop, my envisioned bus stop is something that we can park in the parking lot with a sidewalk going to the bus stop so the parents can still get in the parking lot, stay with the kids and then safely get their kids to the bus stop. Get it out of the turn lane, get it out of -- however it's got to be worked out, that's what I would like to see with the bus stop. Really, if you take out Tract 114 and try to shift this stuff around __ I'm opposed to having commercial there, too, but we're going to have to have it. If I'm going to have to have a commercial project on my corner, I want to get to it. This concept of making a left only from 11 th Avenue and not, like, block it off so people coming down 11th Avenue can't get to it going westbound on 11 th Avenue, can't turn into the store is insane. All that would do is make the people go down 11 th Avenue and make a U-turn and come back up and then turn into the store. That would be creating the problem that everybody wants to avoid having stray cars coming down the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bohall, you need to start wrapping it up. MR. BOHALL: Okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've answered my question about the bus stop, so, thank you. Ray, do you have any others? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Larry Brooks. And he's . . waIvIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we have a rebuttal -- I Page 132 August 3, 2006 guess it's not rebuttal, whatever Mr. Anderson wants to call it, I have some questions and Nick needs to come up anyway, he's got some expressions to give to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to try and talk slow. I live off Golden Gate Boulevard, and you're going to get the similar type of access management for the school system as you would off Collier Boulevard there. When we go to widen 951 south of Pine Ridge, we will put in a deceleration lane for 11 th, as we will for all streets on the west side of the road going southbound. What the buses typically do on the Boulevard I would anticipate would happen here as well, too. They will pull past the turn lane, past the street and stop shortly thereafter, say 50 feet from the road or 10 feet from the road and pull over at that point right there. They typically do not want to pull over in a turn lane. And I opine, I asked the school board to be here at these meetings, because when these questions come up they can answer them directly. But from what I've seen from the school board, they will not skip this street. They will pull past the turn lane right after there and stop to pick up the kids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Thank you. Mr. Anderson, did you have any statements you wanted to make? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I want to call Ms. Overby back up to speak to you about the neighborhood meetings. And then I have a few points to make. MS. OVERBY: Amber Overby of the Sembler Company. Ijust obviously wanted to respond to some of the things that were addressed about our meetings. We act extremely professional at our meetings. The purpose of the meetings, it serves two purposes. Number one, to articulate exactly what our plans are and to explain the reasons behind them. Page 133 August 3, 2006 And number two, to hear from the residents, to hear from all residents. So it's my job to make sure that we sort of stay on task, that everyone has the opportunity to be heard at all times. And people have approached me that, you know, the first couple of meetings they felt were ineffective. They were long, they were inefficient, and nothing was really gained out of it because everyone was sort of running around in circles. So I made sure at the last two meetings that everyone did have the opportunity to speak. So obviously I just -- I think that in terms of tone and whether or not people had their point -- you know, views heard or not, that's totally subjective. And as Mr. Anderson has explained, we've incorporated so many of the questions and concerns into our new plans that I think we have heard from the residents. And I've taken notes at every meeting. We actually had a person from R W A there specifically to take notes at the first meeting after the CCPC so that we did not miss anything and that we heard from everybody. So I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, for the record. I think Mr. Casalanguida's comments made clear that this project is not the one that is necessitating the deceleration lane, that that would be coming with the widening of 951 anyway. And if that is going to put in jeopardy the bus stop, that's going to happen regardless of whether this project goes forward or not. With regard to that plan that is there, my client will stipulate to that being the PUD master plan with the following disclaimer: Building sizes and locations are conceptual and subject to a variation of up to 25 percent. That allows the flexibility to comply with the architectural requirements and other things that will inevitably crop up during the arduous SDP process. Page 134 August 3, 2006 I point out that Tract 114 is now approximately two-thirds greenspace anyway. And I would say to you that it is better to develop these lots as one coordinated proj ect by one developer rather than wait and have it come in with different owners or different developers piecemeal for each separate tract, which would be a possibility . The delivery hours were limited at the beginning of the -- that was on the stipulation list that I ran off. Apparently it didn't register with some folks that the delivery hours would be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. And we're certainly willing to stipulate that there will be no sexually-oriented businesses. The county does have an ordinance that strictly regulates those locations. And then lastly, I would just point out that Tracts 109 through 113 and the east half of Tract 107 have been designated in the Golden Gate master plan for commercial uses since 1997. And I would simply ask you to recommend approval of this project with stipulations as you may see fit to recommend. And we thank you very much for your time and your patience. And again, we'll be -- oh, okay. These are what we want? MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. And Mr. Strain, with regard to uses in 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uses in what? MR. ANDERSON: In use listing Number 28 in the PUD where we had the miscellaneous retail groups and you asked us to hone that down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the numbers weren't real, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. The following uses, 5912 through 5921, 5941 through 5949, and 5992 through 5999, with the exception of firework sales. That would be added to the other exceptions that are already contained. Page 135 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me a second, Bruce, I want to check and see what these are. Well, 5921 is prohibited by the GMP, so I'm sure you don't want that. Are you in agreement with that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is that, Mark, for our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a liquor store. Okay, the rest of them are typical, from what I can tell, C-l through C-3 uses. Bruce, I've got a question for you. A lot of this is the issue involving Tract 114. And a lot of this is the issue of the bus stop, as it currently exists today, regardless of what may happen in the future, and who knows what that could be. I clearly strongly mentioned to you and the applicant when I met with you that the bus stop issue needed to be solidified. I know you attempted to do that, but we're no further along today than we were when we talked the other day. Basically, we had a conversation that could be real or could not be real. A solution might be to eliminate the use on Tract 114 for anything but open space. I'm talking water management, buffers and greenspace. You need to have a courtyard space, a courtyard area anyway. You have more than enough water management that would take up 114 and beyond, and you could relocate some of these buildings in manners that wouldn't put all the parking in the front of the facility anyway, as Mr. Schiffer was concerned, would put it between buildings. Is there a reason why you couldn't look at that as a solution to this issue? MR. ANDERSON: Well, while my client thinks about it, I think the testimony that Mr. Casalanguida gave you indicated that the school bus stop where it is in its present location is going to be subject to review anyway by the school district because of the decellane that would be put in regardless of this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 136 August 3,2006 MR. ANDERSON: So I don't think our use or non-use of Tract 114 really has anything to do with the school bus stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that you're putting this PUD forward on the premise that you're going to help solve the community's issue regarding the school bus by offering an alternative location that isn't realistic. So we have to take that out of the picture. But if you put this in in the meantime, we've got no commitment that says the school board will pick up their children at the south side of 11 th, and that for all intents and purposes, they could pick them up a block south. You have nothing to provide us with any solid evidence today that clarifies that issue. And that's what I implored you to do when I met with you on Monday. MR. ANDERSON: Believe me, I would have liked to have gotten a straight answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, I don't know what to tell you, Bruce. I think there's a compromise here, but I don't think that you're going far enough to get to that compromise. And that is the elimination of 114. And whatever happens at that school bus stop, then it isn't your fault, it isn't your issue. And it's for the neighborhood to take to the school board and deal with them. And by God, if Nick is right and all these accel lanes are going to change locations, I should hope the community gets together and goes to the school board and gets -- to get this resolved, along with the transportation department's issuance and removal of left turn lanes. But, you know, I'm just offering that as something you should consider. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Tell me again what you're proposing with regard to Tract 114? Couldn't even have any parking on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Open space uses, which means you're not using it for an issue that triggers the GMP requirement to open it up to 11 th Street. Page 137 August 3, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: So no one would have access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one would have access. And it would leave the bus stop situation like it is today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Go ahead, Bruce -- I mean Brad. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a B word. Bruce, are you still -- MR. ANDERSON: Are you -- so you would eliminate any access to this property from 11 th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the access from the property were to be controlled left in. But I don't see how that could be practical, because what's going to happen is the people are going to go down 11 th, realize they can't get into the shopping center unless they U -turn into someone's driveway, come back up and make the left in. So I think in the end it will probably be worse for the neighborhood than better. So at this point the -- the issues for the neighborhood, I see the only solution is to eliminate 114 as an access and available use. And the only way you can take out the access pursuant to GMP is not build on it. Open space is not building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get your question answered? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, and it's actually kind of a compromise to your compromise. So Bruce might want to hear it before he answers. Or maybe not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you get his attention, you might -- Mr. Schiffer had a comment to make to you too, Bruce. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, a compromise I thought would be is that you not have that access point until the time that the property to the south receives commercial zoning, at which time for interconnection we would actually want two-way traffic to be able to Page 138 August 3, 2006 cross over without coming onto 941. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I've been on the Golden Gate master plan for 15 years -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No way that will ever be called? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's no way we've ever liked to do things in the past. I wouldn't want to have a contingency on something like that that -- I mean, that's just encouraging more commercialization in a strip format along that area. I'm not sure that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anyway, if it never comes, it's never an issue. If it does come, then you would be able to connect to that street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you have -- obviously you and Bruce can debate that point. Myself, I am -- I certainly think that would be a mistake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because -- well, you're comfortable with the fact that will never have commercial zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable with the fact we're not going to ever -- I don't think we should be encouraging it by that kind of language. And I don't know if it even meets the criteria for additional commercial zoning, because it's not an activity center. I don't know how you'd even get there, to be honest with you. But, I mean, obviously, Brad, it's your debate with Bruce, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a long future for that road. Is that a good place to live on 951? I mean, the lots are deep and I guess you can get away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've had plenty of people here today who like living there. I mean, I still like living in Golden Gate. I certainly wish things weren't moving as rapidly as they seem to be in a lot of areas. MR. ANDERSON: You're certainly free to recommend Page 139 August 3, 2006 whatever stipulations you want with regard to use of Tract 114. It's not something that we can agree to. You may, you know, go ahead and force it on us. But I would just again emphasize that it's the county, not Sembler, that is going to require the decel lane to turn into 11th, and that if a left turn into 11 th from Collier Boulevard is eliminated, again, that's the county, not Sembler. It doesn't have anything to do with us. I feel like we're, you know, kind of getting tarred with the county's brush. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're the ones that are going to be wanting to build and develop this for a profit center, not the county. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. But if not us, it will be, you know, somebody else the next time around, and the county's still going to be doing the same things to the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Bruce. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Otherwise, we'll wrap it up. Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Oh, my client was -- I did want to put on the record one other offer that my client had made. If the bus stop does get moved, as Mr. Casalanguida said he thought it would, my client's offer to pay for the construction of the bus stop still stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. One other question, since I just thought of it. You heard me ask Nick about the phasing aspects of this project in relationship to the road system. I'm convinced, based on actions of this board in the past and the BCC, that any project going up in the future needs to complete its off-site improvements before it moves ahead with its on-site improvements. I just want you to know that. So anything that comes out of this, I certainly hope that will be part of it. The second thing is you have indicated your maximum building size is 50,000 and no single use over 60,000. Page 140 August 3, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Sixty? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no single use greater than 60, but your biggest building you told me was 46,000, so that would -- just rounding it off -- MR. ANDERSON: And I also said I wasn't committing to that 46. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the use as a shopping -- for use as a supermarket, I thought. You mean for the size? MR. ANDERSON: The largest tenant would be a grocery store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're not going to have-- MR. ANDERSON: The one that we're presently talking to has a projection of 46,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problems if there was a series of stipulations that you would be limited in a Phase 1 build-out of 60,000 square feet and not start a Phase 2 until the completion of 951 's six-Ianing? I shouldn't ask you if you agree to it or not. I'm just telling you that that's -- there's a possibility that could be corning. I don't know if you had any comments on that. If you agreed to it, it might make it simpler, but -- MR. ANDERSON: Again, like the use of Tract 114, it's not something that we can agree to, but we understand that you can certainly make that recommendation stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Bruce. Ray, that's all the issues we have? Good. We'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion on this matter. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'd like to move that -- one is that -- I guess if I can explain after. But I move we move to the Board of County Commissioners PUDZ-2006-AR-8337, Brooks Village CPUD with -- there is going to be something there. I believe that they have been as cooperative as we can expect from anybody else in the future. Page 141 August 3, 2006 I believe they've -- I can't imagine a better thing for that neighborhood, knowing what's going to be there. And I would like to see us approve that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just kind of boil it down. You're recommending -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: With a whole bunch of recommendations that he had, and you had some more notes. I'd like to hear them all before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got 15 notes, or 14. But you're recommending approval. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of approval from Commissioner Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. I have discussion, but does anybody else want to discuss before me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is the recommendation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, but with what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're getting-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: There's a couple more that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going, during discussion, to ask you if you have any you want to add. I have a list I can read off. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only to have it brought back that the issue, if it goes forward, and especially, I guess, that tract there where that well site is, not to lose sight of that. I don't know if it's a stipulation that we can make, but that would be something to include as consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that in one of my lists. Mr. Schiffer? Page 142 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I still have a concern over the maximum size of the building. And if we actually limit it, it doesn't really stop it because they have the distance between buildings as zero on their development plan. But essentially they could walk out of here, if there was an approval -- or walk out of the BCC if there was an approval, sell the property, and somebody could build a 105,000 square foot structure. So is there away, Mark, do you have a condition or something that would prevent that? I mean, the offer is made to stay within 25 percent of the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what they've said in relationship to this plan. There is a further step we could make and that is the maximum building without separation is 60,000 square feet. That ties it to their ability to put up 60,000 square feet in the first phase. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And say without a separation, let's say 30 feet or something. Because they do have a distance between buildings of none in their development plan. So if there's something there, I'd be happy with that. I think the concept of not having a sign on 11 th Avenue is a good idea, that they stay. And I think, let's pick a distance, I'll throw out 75 feet away from that comer with a sign. Because it would give the appearance that the street is part of the shopping center. Is there a way we could have the bus stop be internal to the shopping center? Is that an allowable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we could ever dictate anything to the school board. I mean, they won't even answer questions from half a dozen people so far. So I don't even -- I mean, we'd be fruitless trying to do something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then obviously Bruce made the -- there's no deviation within 25 percent. Now, the concern I have with that is I don't want that to give the impression that this thing has Page 143 August 3, 2006 to be built to that site plan if it doesn't meet the architectural standards. I don't want them to say, look, we'd love to meet these standards but they said we can't change the site plan 25 percent. So I think we have to have a caveat in that, that unless the need to comply with the LDC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a note something to that effect. I guess we can clean it up as we go down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'll do is, Brad, I'll read each one, and if anybody wants to further clean them up and clarify them so we're sure that staff understands what the intentions are and it gets to the Board of County Commissioners in a manner that we intend it to, that would be important. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I'd like to also add, Mark, that the client agreed to pay for the bus stop -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, these are stipulations to the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just let me --let Mr. Vigliotti finish. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The condition is that the client agreed to pay for the bus stop when it's relocated to the other side of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that down, too. Now, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are these stipulations to the motion that was made and seconded? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We made a motion and we seconded it. We're in discussion right now. And we're discussing the stipulations that we'd like to see on the motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And were those just stipulations that Mr. Vigliotti said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was suggesting that that be added as Page 144 August 3, 2006 a stipulation, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't done it yet, we're just going through the discussing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Accumulating them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accumulating them, yes. I've got a list that I can read and we can see where it goes. And this -- and as Mr. Anderson said -- and by the way, I want to read something from the GMP. It says, the neighborhood center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. So in that regard, the very first stipulation I would suggest is that we remove Tract 114 from any building uses. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Mr. Strain? Can you number these so, since it's my motion, I can say I'll take all of them but this or not that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, because I don't want you to take any of them out. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. So we'll call that one number one, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one is to remove Tract 114 for any uses, building uses. Number two is that the PUD will be updated with all the stipulations read into the record by the applicant and the issues involving the SIC codes and the comments that we had in discussing clarification of the PUD language. Staff will make sure that those updates are done. That's number two, Russell. Number three, the county well site will be removed from that entry location to 11 th Street. And that's -- MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, Mr. Strain, is that remove or relocate? Page 145 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, I don't care. I don't think it belongs there, and I don't think that utilities has -- the way they're going about getting these, I'm not in agreement with it anyway. So as far as I'm concerned, it's removed. MS. ZONE: Three, removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concerning the master plan, the new master plan will be the master plan that will be added into the PUD. It will be reviewed by staff for consistency with the GMP and the LDC prior to the BCC meeting. And that the master plan itself will be conceptual to the extent that the building envelopes on here can change up to 25 percent. That will be number four. Number five will be that any off-site traffic improvements will have to be completed prior to the commencement of anyon-site activity . Number six will be that there will be no single use greater than 60,000 square feet, and that the maximum building without any separation will be 30 feet -- the maximum building size of 60,000 square feet with a separation of 30 feet. You can't have two 60,000 square foot buildings butt up to another, or even a 60 and a 10. It's got to be separated by 30 feet at least. MS. ZONE: Thirty? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The hours of operation be limited for deliveries from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and from 6:00 a.m. to midnight for customers, general operations. That will be number seven. Number eight, and I'm not sure if this needs to be reiterated, but the point about the non-adult video store was very good, and make sure that that doesn't get into the system. Number nine, the developer has volunteered to pay for a bus stop wherever it may go, if it's built in conjunction with the timing of the shopping center, either Phase 1 or Phase 2. MS. ZONE: Excuse me, Commissioners. Do you want to clarify Page 146 August 3, 2006 the school bus or the CA T shelter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: School bus. If the CAT shelter comes in, the county can make its own arrangements. They're more flexible than the school board. So we shouldn't have them on top of school buses anyway. There will be a phasing on the proj ect. They'll be allowed to go forward with 60,000 square feet until the six-laning of 951 is completed, at which time they can start or commence their second phase if the market works for them on that time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me, Mark, is that a repeat of the other one you said earlier or is that another one? I thought you had number five off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, number five was considering that's how they get to the first phase, they have to complete the off-site conditions first. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Strain, a clarification on this last point about the phasing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Previous phasing stipulations that you have imposed on similarly situated applicants, I recall that the -- when it's tied to completion of a road, it's -- the C.O. is limited, not being able to even start construction. And we would just simply ask that you phrase it in that manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, that would be a good point, the C.O. would be limited on the second phase until such time that 951 was complete. And the last stipulation that I have -- and by the way, these stipulations are assuming Tract 114 does not get built upon. If Tract 114 gets built upon, that opens up the door for a couple of issues regarding the access. But let's assume that it's not at this point. The last, number 11 would be that the sign entry for the proj ect Page 147 August 3, 2006 will be at least 75 feet back from 11th Street. Now, if for some reason Tract 114, the issue is dropped, then the accessway into the project should be no more than a left accessway in by the residents of the street, and no right turn. MS. ZONE: No right turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now, those are the stipulations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have another one. And this was going back to the first time we met. The applicant agreed to make contribution to the affordable housing trust fund. But I'd like to have that as a stipulation too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, does that still stand? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it was 50 cents per square foot. And in the event the county adopts a linkage fee, that this commitment is applied to that linkage fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, did you get that language? MS. ZONE: I absolutely did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, you have 13 proposed amendments or stipulations to your motion. Do you have an obj ection to any of those? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Number one and 13. Because number one is -- I don't think it will be as good for everybody when it's done. And I'm really concerned on the last one as far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number one, for the sake of everybody, that was the removal of Tract 114 for building uses. And number 13 was the affordable housing contribution just requested by COMMISSIONER TUFF: Not that one, the one before that. Page 148 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the left turn lane only into the tract -- if Tract 114 is opened up, it would have been a left turn lane entrance only. So Mr. Tuff is objecting to those two stipulations. So basically then your motion would carry all those stipulations except for those two. Is that clear to everybody? Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. May I have a clarification on the stipulation about the left turn only? Was that -- did you say for residents only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, for 11th Street. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For people corning off 11th Street -- going east on 11 th Street. The intent was there would be a left turn entry going east on 11 th Street if 114 had to be -- was deemed to be developed. Is there any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. Mark, would you be comfortable in -- and I don't know what the width of that greenspace is -- Bruce, you might know -- that we just limit that area of it? That would cut the access. But the concern I have is if we totally take the whole side off, I'd hate to see that develop in the future without control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would be part of this PUD, they just have a different land plan. That was my envisionment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we get amendments to PUDs all the time. So what I'd like to do is actually -- if we use it as we show it there -- Bruce, do you know what the width of that greenspace is? And while they're musing, Ray, that brings up a point. We get these submittals out of scale and we can barely read them. Could they at least put a graphic scale on it so I wouldn't have to ask that Page 149 August 3, 2006 question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And while we're waiting for that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to answer his question? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I was just getting some information from Melissa. This plan was not submitted as part as the regular review. We would have required that information. This was a last-minute thing handed out by the applicant. We had no control over it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the stipulation that -- one of the ones that was accepted was that this would be subject to staff's review and refinement for consistency before it goes to the BCC. MS. ZONE: Correct. And we have to -- by LDC they would have to make it to scale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Another question, Mark, while we're talking about this. Condition, I think it was six, the separation, I'd like to make that 75 feet. Here's my logic. If you put a 50-foot building 30 feet away from another 50-foot building, you have one building. Seventy- five feet you'd be able -- you'd have parking and walkways. So if you could make that 75 feet, I'd feel better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean every building on the site would have to be separated by 75 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no -- I don't see that as a problem on the plan they have there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two buildings that would have that problem right off the bat. Look at -- count your parking spaces. You've got the problem between the biggest building and that rectangular building, and it looks like those two small buildings out on -- by the corner. Looks like they'd be closer together based on, one, two, three -- about five parking widths, maybe 60 feet wide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is we could get -- Page 150 August 3, 2006 someone could corne in and build two 50,000-foot buildings and have them pretty close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anyway, what I wanted to ask you, do you want to restate it then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, let it go through. You're right, that could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Murray, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to address myself to Commissioner Tuff. The way I understood, and Commissioner Strain will tell me I'm wrong if I'm wrong. The way I understood the stipulations, especially about one and 12, is the intent when we go forward, if our recommendation is to go forward, the intent would be to remove 114. If, however, a finding is made by the BCC that they will not take out 114, that stipulation 12 at least attempts to make it so that the left on 11 th Avenue remains available. And that I thought was a good approach to it. It's a stepping stone, so to speak, if I understand correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're correct. You're correct. Mr. Tuff, your denial of that number 12, what is it you're envisioning? If it wasn't a left turn into the property from 11 th, what is it you were trying to get in? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, it was my understanding that a person can't leave from the right. And I'm just afraid that three years from now, they say they're so stupid, what were they thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to just tell them you were on this board, Russ. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's what I'm afraid of, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll leave it in your hands. It's your motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I don't want to have that on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me -- I understand what Page 151 August 3, 2006 you're saying. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I want to make sure I understood something. I understood that the -- your point about Tract 114 was not to eliminate it from the PUD, but to limit the building or prohibit building on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't trigger that access issue that's in the PUD -- that's in the GMP. MR. ANDERSON: Well, okay. We were prepared to offer up to see if this might satisfy both parties to -- that the most southern 100 feet of Tract 114 would not have any building on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then wouldn't you still have your right turn in from 11 th Street? You're eliminating the access from 11 th? MR. ANDERSON: We'll let you make your recommendation on that access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, that's why I was asking for that. I think if you just block what you want to do, that distance that they show on that site plan, let them still have the building there, but they won't have the access there. I think the neighborhood, if there's that one way in or if people -- if there's anything that would let go up and down that street making turns is going to be a nightmare for the neighborhood. The first couple of houses up will have people in their parking lot all day long, or their driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, we need to -- what we're getting into is what we could recommend. But we have to recommend it consistent with the GMP-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we have to change the GMP. So I'm going to read you the language from the GMP. Page 152 August 3, 2006 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It has to be correct with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why I want to read you the language. For Tract 114, which is the tract we're talking about, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26: Access shall be restricted to 11 th Avenue Southwest. Also vehicular interconnection shall be provided to the adjacent properties in the Pine Ridge Road, Collier Boulevard neighborhood center. Now, in my reading of that, it's saying access shall be restricted to 11th Street Southwest. So it assumes there's going to be a need to have access on 114th Street (sic). If the need's removed by removing the vertical -- vertical buildings, would you still then be required to have access if there's nothing on 114 that would require access? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have a planner. Do you have the language in front of you, Ms. Zone, for the compo plan? MS. ZONE: No, I don't have the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it right here, if you want. You want the compo plan language? MS. ZONE: But the GMP does not say if building on there -- Commissioner Strain, can you reiterate that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm reading the bullet out of -- it's Page 35 in our Growth Management Plan, the Golden Gate portion of it. For Tract -- and it's the one I downloaded just from the county so -- for Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26, access shall be restricted to 11 th Avenue Southwest. Also vehicular interconnection shall be provided to the adjacent properties in the Pine Ridge Road Collier Boulevard neighborhood center. MS. ZONE: Right. Since it doesn't talk about development, it talks about the tract itself, that it leaves it very open. And in a planning and development review, it has -- you would see that as Tract 14 (sic) having access to the property and to 11 th Southwest Avenue. Page 153 August 3, 2006 If it was to be developed separately, if it was to be developed with the building on it, I would think the intent of the compo plan department, the commissioners would have stated that. But again, that's the planning interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at this point I can't see -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You say that that's under -- did you say Tract 114 or Tract 14? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 114. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I thought is was 114. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She means 114. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. And so -- and it's on a bullet under Tract 114? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's a bullet under the neighborhood center subdistrict in the Growth Management Plan or the Estates designation, number two. Do you want to -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I'm going to have to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't that mean, Mark, that the Growth Management Plan is restricting, which means not allowed, access? MS. ZONE: There could have been, since the Tract 114, Commissioner, was amended after the other neighborhood center, that the intent, that Tract 114 was going to be developed separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I believe it was. MS. ZONE: That they wanted to make sure that there was access there. But when you review it, and Marjorie Student being the attorney, you have to legally look at black and white what we have adopted, too. So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it says restricted to or restricted from. MS. ZONE: Well, Tract 114 is restricted, meaning onto 11th Southwest Avenue. Page 154 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone were to build on 114, the way that seems to be written, is they'd have to access onto 11th and they'd have to interconnect to the project to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's clearly written with the intention of 114 being standalone and being built upon by someone. But in this case it's part of an overall PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the important thing, it shows that it contemplated access onto 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if you recall the Growth Management Plan, we have complained about this from day one, did not get adequate notification to neighboring and adjoining properties. In fact, there was no requirement, they just put an ad in the paper. And that is the plan that radically affected people in this county more than the land development code and it wasn't even notified to properties. And this is a particular case of example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Court Reporter, we're going way beyond our lunchtime, and you're the one that's doing the hardest work here. Do you think you can hang in there a little bit or do we need to break or something? THE COURT REPORTER: No, I think the hands are numb at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I never thought we'd be this long. Otherwise, we would have taken a break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, where we left it is Russell did not accept one and he did not accept 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And has the second -- Page 155 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney added number 13. And that's where we are, I believe, at the latest venture. We're discussing the merits of one and 12. I don't know if we're getting anywhere in that discussion. So is there anything that anybody on this panel needs further clarified or emphasized? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like one and 12 clarified as to what Mr. Tuff just ended up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean? He said drop one and 12. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Drop one and 12, meaning dropping the one on 114? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said forget -- he will not include stipulation number one, which was removal of Tract 114 for building uses. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he said he would not accept the stipulation number 12, which was if Tract 114 was removed, then the only access through that tract would be a left turn lane from 11 th Street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's moot. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I agree. I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is Commissioner Tuff unbudging on that? Are you unbudging? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to support the stipulations as they're offered, because I think that it makes it a stepping stone to achieving the result the community wants, while I think it serves the developer by providing opportunity rather than no opportunity . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Student, did you have anything you wanted to add to our conversation before we concluded, based on Page 156 August 3, 2006 what you're reading? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: First of all, I think we don't have anybody from compo plan in here, but in cases like this, it's helpful to have someone from the department to really explain the intent. But it looks like to me that it says for Tract 114. So if nothing happens on Tract 114 and it just remains undeveloped, but it could still be part of the PUD, then I think we don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if it's used for open space purposes? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think that that would be a problem then. I know there's some discussion, and maybe we can sort it out before the BCC meeting, but there's some discussion amongst the planning staff that this may mean just if 114 would be developed as a separate parcel. And that could be too. But it's certainly something we could sort out before the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would have to be done for sure, because I can see there's a split vote corning. Mr. Tuff, we're at a point where I think we can vote. I want to weigh in on that. I'm simply not going to be supporting of you because I don't think those two stipulations need to be removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Russell. Russell, would you be more comfortable if it's only the 100 feet that remains? And essentially, the way to word it is impervious, that means there's no driveway, that means there's nothing. The scary thing about Mark's is that that's essentially a quarter of the site. The intent of this means we would block access to 11 tho We feel -- whatever the master plan says, we feel it's not necessary. And because there's -- it's combined at once and we have other access. And that it's going to stay as open space, which prevents or provides a much more rural look to the neighbors when they go down it. Page 157 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: I could be comfortable with that, if we could say that in a way that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no idea what it is you're trying to say now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it is, Mark, it's the same thing you said for one, except you said tract one, the whole tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm saying the southern 100 feet of the tract remains undeveloped. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many feet long is the tract? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The depth of it? I mean, this is four tracts, essentially. Forget the guy in the back for a second. So 114 is essentially the lower quarter of this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your questions -- your issue, though, if the southern 100 feet remains undeveloped, that means there's no entrance there; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that be okay? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that still leaves the bus stop, that still leaves the road the way it is. That would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That leaves the neighbors without -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Mr. Tuffhas indicated -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That leaves the neighbors without people wandering around, turning in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go back to the stipulations then. Stipulation number one would then change. Instead of the removal of Tract 14 (sic) for all building uses, it would stipulate that the removal of the southern 100 feet of Tract 14 will not be developed for any use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than -- I mean, I would Page 158 August 3, 2006 just say would not have any pervious -- or non-pervious use, and that would lock out roads, parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With any non-pervious use, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if you want to add the other one back in, in case we lose that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, what I would suggest then is that in case the BCC doesn't agree with that first stipulation as amended by Mr. Schiffer, that we still leave in the fact that if they have -- if they insist on an entrance there, which seems to be against the majority of the residents, that the entrance would still only be a left turn in. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's the part I have the trouble with. Because I think they need to get back out again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you agree to Mr. Schiffer's, you're not even going to be getting on that road to begin with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how can you agree to one without the other? I'm just thinking that's an odd situation. You agree to Mr. Schiffer's stipulation, there's no entrance off of 11 tho If the BCC does not agree to his stipulation, we're suggesting to the BCC then, okay, if you're going to insist that this be an entrance, make it a left in only. That's like a back-up position. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a fallback, right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, we can only suggest one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not the way we're wording it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a moot point if one prevails. If one doesn't prevail -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other thing, we could let Mr. Tuff -- we could just eliminate that number 12 and just go with it, and if the BCC doesn't like it, we can hope that the residents and the BCC Page 159 August 3, 2006 work out a compromise, if one is needed. Maybe they'll agree with it 100 feet to the south, gives the developer everything he needs and it protects the neighborhood for the bus stop, which is critical, and the traffic on 111 th, which is critical -- or just 11 th, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I personally think -- if I may, I personally think that Commissioner Schiffer's idea, I would hope and think that the BCC might go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's hope. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Strain, so we're strict -- taking the accessway out of the stipulation, and then the 50 cents to the affordable housing becomes number 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: And then number one has been remodified? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has been modified that we're removing any development of a non-pervious use in the south 100 feet of Tract 114. MS. ZONE: The 100 foot of south -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, south 100 feet of Tract 114. That creates a 100- foot buffer that can't be penetrated. And then if the BCC doesn't see their way through on that, then hopefully the residents will be able to express themselves in the manner that it needs to be. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I just want you to vote -- I know you'll vote however you will. I just wanted to read again what we had offered up as far as the southern 100 feet, was no building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we changed it. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to stick with what we-- MR. ANDERSON: I didn't want there to be the impression that that was something that we had offered up. Page 160 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully staff will listen to us. MS. ZONE: Non-pervious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay, with that, I'd like to call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion as stipulated by Mr. Tuff, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Is anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And with that, I think we all could take a lunch break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could I ask one thing about this while everybody's is still here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better hurry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Melissa? MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I would like to see is could you send a copy of the revised site plan to the planning commissioners prior -- a week prior to the commission meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everyone, we're still in session, please take your comments outside. MS. ZONE: My policy is to always make sure that not just the site plan, that if any changes that have been recommended by the board and voted on, that I send it to all of the commissioners for final approval. So you'll not only see the site plan, but you will also see the modifications of the PUD document with your stipulations involved. Page 161 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would the board mind, and the court reporter, if we took a 45-minute lunch break instead of an hour? So we'll be back here at 2:35. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are still -- resuming in session for the beginning. We have two meetings today, the first one being our regular Planning Commission meeting. We finished up with the scheduled public hearings. We have no old business noted. Under new business there was a notation that Randy Cohen had requested be added. I don't know any more about it than what's written here. I don't know if any more needs to be said, but I'll read it for the record. And then I'm sure if there's any questions, don't ask them. Require official approval -- approval to hear EAR based adoption amendments at pre scheduled CCPC hearings for October 5th and October 19th, 2006. This item is currently listed as zoning departments CCBC -- CCPC, slash, BCC 2006 calendar. So I guess what he's trying to ask is these two dates he wants us clear our schedule for those and confirm that we can be available for those. Does anybody have any concerns about those dates, October 5th and October 19? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October 5th is our regular meeting, and October 19th is our regular meeting. Which means we'd not only have any of the petitions that are due on the 5th and the 19th, but we'd also have EAR based adoption amendments. We have just received the ORC report bye-mail, and I started to read it, and it sounded like nothing but problems from what I started to read. So for us to go back through this whole document at those two meetings and do our regular meeting, that's inconsistent with the way we asked staff to schedule Page 162 August 3, 2006 our meetings in the past. So I'd recommend we look at the 12th and 26th of October which is the Thursdays in between our regular meeting Thursdays. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a problem if we then meet -- we would meet every Thursday in October then based on that schedule? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What are those dates, 12 and 26? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelfth and twenty-sixth in lieu of requested fifth and nineteenth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask a question about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, you can't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I read the ORC report and, first of all, I think you're right. There are some problems there. But the sad thing is that a lot of the stuff we saw was stuff we talked about. So what we'll have, we'll -- I mean, I wouldn't mind these guys -- us getting with them even sooner than that. I mean, is that the date they're going to send the thing back or how much time do they or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, first of all, staff's got to respond to the ORC report request. That response is -- based on the amount of data I've seen, it's going to take some extensive work. In fact, as Don Scott said after he read it, there might be a question as to why anybody's working for transportation or something to that effect indicating it was pretty onerous. So they're certainly going to need the next two months to get it ready. I can't see them getting it ready Page 163 August 3, 2006 sooner than this date. Once they get it, I certainly will request the staff that we get our copies as early as possible to review. But, I mean, if you're thinking they can do it sooner, I'm not sure that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually what I'm thinking, maybe it would have been wise if we reviewed it before they sent it in, I mean the original report because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was at the discretion of the BCC. It goes from us to the board. The board said this is what they want and they sent it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think the board said -- I don't think the board took out what they're missing that we added during our hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But, I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anyway, I mean, I'm glad the state checks it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's a complete review and rewrite if we want to look at it that way. And I intend to read over it from scratch all over again so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we'll look at every Thursday in October then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The 12th is bad for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the only day you couldn't make it. Do we have a quorum? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The rest of us and Ms. Caron's usually available and Mr. Adelstein is. We'll still have a quorum for the rest of the day. Okay. The last -- the other thing on new business, Ray, this is going to involve you because you're the last standing person here. Some of the LDC amendments had made it aware to me that we could use some more information. And we should be actively involved in Page 164 August 3, 2006 information that affects the way we understand the code. We have a book of official interpretations. Are they being collected somewhere? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Joe Schmitt asked me to respond to this because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I told him I might, yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And he is in favor of having copies sent to you and interpretations made so you're aware of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's only part of it, though. Right now there's been a lot existing interpretations. Are they collected somewhere? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we have copIes of those collections? MR. BELLOWS: I would believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's put it this way. I don't think you can say no. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. They're public -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would like copies of those interpretations. And then once they're copied to us, any new interpretations I would like to have them received and sent to us as soon as they are sent out to the public which is the person asking for them. Now, these interpretations are things that will tell us how staff is perceiving the intent of this LDC, a lot of which we try to relay during these meetings and these amendments. And I would expressly ask that each commissioner review these when they receive them. And if you are concerned about it -- one of them or if you have a question about one of them, ask to have it put on the agenda and we'll discuss it because that's what we ought to be doing. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, one question I have is even bigger -- take it further. The public, I think, should have access Page 165 August 3, 2006 to these. I mean, a lot of code agencies, all our building codes, most agencies that have been -- interpretation's been made, it's available to the public. And the main reason is is so that the public knows -- if there's a question about a, you know, piece of code, they know what an interpretation would be made towards that. The fact that they're buried doesn't make sense. And it also gives the impression that you have to buy understanding of the code which is a really bad . . ImpressIon. MR. BELLOWS: The interpretations there -- there's an appeal process. There's also an ad that's placed notifying of the interpretation. They are not buried there. They're a public document that anybody can corne and view. And we do make them -- they're all just disseminated to all the various county agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they on the Internet permanently so -- because I couldn't find them? MR. BELLOWS: I'll check that. I don't know about the Internet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and where they really should be is if a chapter or a section code was interpreted -- I think somewhere either it's a hyperlink from Municode or something -- we should go to that. Because anybody who's dealing with a section of code should know if an interpretation's been made on that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray, I'm going to ask Sharon on the next agenda that she add this to the old business as a permanent item. I will be asking every meeting, Have there been any interpretations? And I know these are public meetings and we're all obligated to tell us what's going on. So, please, if there are some, make sure we get them. I would appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: It'll be the first thing I do when I get back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Public comment. The room's full. I don't know what to do. Discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? Page 166 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one more with Ray. Ray, you gave me a copy of a text publication that contained interpretations. Are those the interpretations you're referencing? There was a book actually that you had. MR. BELLOWS: I think it carne from one of my staff persons. I did not see the actual information he sent you, so I can't comment, no. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I can bring it and show it to you, but it was some publication. And I'm wondering if that's what you're talking about. MR. BELLOWS: I have no idea. Until I see it, I can't tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I'll be following up on our 17th meeting, so I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The SIC code book that you -- SIC codes book that you had this morning-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you said you got that from the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a publication you purchased or the county provide that to the planning commissioners? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both. I have two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the county would provide a document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county gave me one and I purchased the other. Yes. There's -- the only problem is I don't know if you want to see the money spent on that at this point. It would really depend on when the county's going to convert over to the modern system which is NEICS -- however you say it -- NEICS system. And that's even a bigger book with more information. But better than either one of those by far is the website or NEICS. And I Page 167 August 3, 2006 can e-mail you that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- what that does, it provides a bridge and a conversion discussion to how it converts to SIC so you can see the trail of how the new book which is done by the Census Bureau matches up with the SIC code which is done by OSHA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll send you -- I'll send all of you the link and you'll have it. And it's kind of cool. You bring it up and you can search by word or you can search by numeric, and it'll give you all the information you want. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is terrific. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and, Ray, could you do something? Could you have -- first of all, it would be nice if the computer department could actually get this one to work. But could you have them add the -- the SIC code at least while we're using it, website to our shortcuts? That's so when all the commissioners corne on-line, if we had a question in meeting, we could go to that website and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it? Then hearing that we'll adjourn that first meeting. ADJOURNING THE REGULAR MEETING AND CONTINUING THE LDC MEETING FROM AUGUST 1~ 2006 And, now, we'll talk about opening up the second meeting which will be the continuation of the LDC Amendment Cycle 1 which started -- I don't know. If you want me to say the date, you're going to have to remind me what date it was. Okay. We're continuing the meeting that we announced to be continued on Tuesday. And I don't know how much we'll have because since the Tuesday meeting, it seems there's been a lot of appointments and we may not get to a full Page 168 August 3, 2006 day here, but we'll keep going no later than six o'clock, but possibly we'll be done earlier. MS. FABACHER: I hope so. For the -- yeah. For the record Catherine Fabacher, zoning and land development review LDC coordinator. Mr. Chair, if it's all right, I have some staff here. I'd like to proceed in the order in which staff needs to be leaving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a great idea. MS. FABACHER: All right. The first item that we would like to discuss or see if there are any questions on appears on page 34 of your summary sheet. And it's in page 232 of your packet. And it is entitled Section 10.02.13 PUD procedures. And Ray's available to take any questions or to discuss what the changes will be to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, what page is -- I'm still looking for -- MS. F ABACHER: It's on page 2 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: XXX-- MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. XXX IV. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, IV. Okay. And then which one will it be? MS. FABACHER: The one at the top, Commissioner, on page 232. It says R. Bellows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two thirty-two. Uh-huh. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I tell you, if you just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'll find it. MS. FABACHER: -- why don't you just turn to page 232. I think you'll have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Well, I wanted to check it off that we did it, but -- MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on triple X IV? Page 169 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's not the way it corresponds to page 232. MS. FABACHER: Do you see Ray Bellows amendment on there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not on -- not on triple X IV. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: Well, it should be on the last one or two sheets of the summary, one of the last two summary sheets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those-- MS. FABACHER: Are we looking through the brown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here it is. It's on X-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the very last sheet. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is. Ray, I don't know if we need -- you want to give me an explanation, but not too lengthy and then we can ask questions. MR. BELLOWS: That would be fine. Before we get into that, I was asked just to get a clarification from the previous meeting where we were talking about the new business, require official approval to hear EAR-based adoption. We have the staff here and I just want to make sure we got the dates right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can we close that meeting, but I can tell you we basically disagreed with the recommendation for the first and third Thursday of the month because we already have scheduled meetings those two days. And we've asked staff in the past not to double book us like that. So what we did is we scheduled your two meetings for the second and fourth Thursday of that month. So, in essence, we meet every single Thursday of October. I think the 12th was the first one and the other one was the 24th. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. Thank you. Page 1 70 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The purpose of this PUD or amendment -- LDC amendment is to eliminate the requirement for a PUD document to be adopted with the zoning ordinance. The concerns are that when we have a PUD document adopted with the ordinance of approval, it may contain redundant information. It also has historically contained information that was conflicting with other parts of the LDC. What we felt is with the Land Development Code the way it's progressed and evolved over the years is that that is the document that pertains -- pertains to all the land development regulations. And that anything adopted through a zoning action should be deviations from the Land Development Code, not just contain redundant conditions that are already contained in some other previous code. This would also prevent staff and the various boards from approving something that's conflicting with the intent of the LDC without specifically calling it out as a deviation. The way I have it set up is much of the information currently supplied in the PUD document would be required to be part of an application process. So we'll get all the same information, traffic studies, environmental studies and all the like. But what we'll adopt is an ordinance that basically obtains the development standards, the permitted uses, developer commitments and deviations from the Land Development Code. It will be just an ordinance containing those things. It won't contain any other information that's already contained in the LDC. And that would reduce the number of pages that will be sent to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. You'll be basically getting an ordinance containing the deviations. And -- and there will be a master plan and all the other exhibits that are associated with the PUD document would still be part of the approval of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions of Rayon this matter? Page 171 August 3, 2006 Mr. -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. Ray, is this all new wording or just the underlined? And, you know, and I'm sorry. I didn't get a chance to review it because the index has it at -- I have notations that I didn't have it in my book, but it's -- MR. BELLOWS: Strike through and underline. The underline is new language. The struck through is eliminated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the thing we've been waiting for for a long time; right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, I have an issue that I just thought of and I haven't researched it myself. Maybe you have thought of it. Planning board reviews, rezones and development code, GNPs, other issues involving land development, but I've not heard us reviewing, per se, ordinances before. Can we still recommend on ordinances to the BCC or do we have to recommend on rezones or in the form of a PUD or some other zoning action? Do they -- did the rules of -- rules of engagement with the BCC and us provide for us to make recommendations on ordinances? MR. KLATZKOW: You're making the recommendation on whether or not to rezone. Whether or not that's in the form of a PUD document or an application or a proposed ordinance, I don't think that changes that central fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record too I would say you're -- you're looking at the application. And what would be submitted to you is the application. When you set up a PUD document, you have basically the application that would contain the EIS. You'd still get the EIS or a traffic study to review also. So it's that application that you're hearing, not just an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as questions go, are you going to call it a PUD document any longer? Page 172 August 3, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to call it? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's a PUD ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you refer to a PUD application throughout this change. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to change that language to refer to it as a -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, what's submitted prior to approval is a PUD application. Once it's approved, it becomes a PUD ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the format of it, what will it look like to us? So we still would get all the language -- MR. BELLOWS: They're similar to what you're -- you're getting now, but it won't be a document that's adopted with an ordinance. Right now you have a PUD document that's attached as an exhibit to an ordinance that's approved. That ordinance references a PUD document and its exhibits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the actual number of the ordinance when we were to look it up on the website, it'd corne up under a new one. And the actual terms of the PUD would be part of that written text of the ordinance? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's no longer double documents, one referring to another? MR. BELLOWS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. So that would sure help an abbreviated system. MR. BELLOWS: It's another way of doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I like it. That's a good idea. I couldn't get that out of what you'd sent, but I understand it better now. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will the staff's reports resemble Page 173 August 3, 2006 what it currently resembles? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing will change in that regard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, Ray, if somebody were to look up what the rules were for a project, would they first go to that ordinance and see what was deviated from the code at that time? MR. BELLOWS: It would work the same way as it does now except you won't have to thumb through an entire PUD document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: You just thumb through the adopted ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you'd have to find an example of the Land Development Code at that time? MR. BELLOWS: No, not necessarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MR. BELLOWS: And that's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is difficult to do down there by the way. So, in other words, I really think there should be a major -- I think there should have been in the past -- the major focus on keeping each version of the LDC. Because it's going to be more important now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have quite a few of those if you ever-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you probably have the best library. You -- I tell you what, the legal department doesn't have a good library. MR. BELLOWS: That issue's the same whether it's an adopted ordinance only or adopted ordinance with the PUD document. It's how the Board of County Commissioners' staff treats required -- required development standards to be addressed either at the time of zoning approval which staff frowns on because that does make it difficult if they only commit a file for a site plan, say, three years later Page 174 August 3, 2006 and the code changes. Normally we would like to see the language say approved subject, say, the landscape requirements at the time of site development plan approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you do have to find that version of the document at that time? MR. BELLOWS: That would be the current LDC at the time of final -- final site development plan approval. So you don't have to go back to, say, to a 19 -- or 2006 ordinance. If you approved a PUD this year -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it floats except -- MR. BELLOWS: Make the approval subject to the-- (Multiple voices.) MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. You'd make the approval subject to the Land Development Code at the time of site development plan approval. So if it does change, you don't -- staff or nobody else would have to go back to the 2006 ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Mr. Murray, you had a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think just -- I think it was answered, but I'm not -- I'm not perfectly sure. Somewhere in the document there would be a phrase something like based on or subj ect to that's in your -- in your application? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would go forward into the ordinance then? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that would make sense. MR. BELLOWS: If you approved, subject to the development standards and the Land Development Code wouldn't normally have to be put in there because it's already in there. But if you want to lock it down to the LDC conditions at this time -- Page 175 August 3,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you need to. MR. BELLOWS: -- then you would have to specify the date. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think everybody will probably, won't they, because that would be very dangerous to float ahead. MR. BELLOWS: It's -- staff is -- has approved them both ways, but I would say the policy should be that you want them at the most current standards because that's what the county commission -- if you adopt an LDC amendment, those are the standards that the county commission wants. And so you would hopefully just because a PUD was approved earlier, you'd want them still to be consistent with the current LDC requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, before the next meeting, could you put together like a fake little chassis application showing us kind of what this would look like so we could see it before -- MR. BELLOWS: I'd be happy to. I'm in the process of developing the applications based on this amended language. And I'd be happy to make you copies of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this particular issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Well, we got one down. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Brad's not done yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I got tricked on that one. I have some here that-- MR. BELLOWS: I didn't think it would be that easy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have -- no. It's not for this one. I don't have some of these in my book, like, that was one of Page 176 August 3, 2006 them. Because the pages weren't the same as they're noted. So is there a page 115? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't know. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, there isn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just for example Ray's thing was page 245 so -- MR. BELLOWS: Two thirty-two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I went to look, well, my book says 245. So I go looking for it and it's not there. So I thought it was not there. But is there a two -- is there a 115? MS. FABACHER: I had tried to read out the last few page -- pagination errors at Tuesday's meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I didn't get them. There's -- there is no 115 then? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it on this particular issue? If not, let's move -- if it is, let's move on to the next one. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The next one we'd like to do is Sharon Dantini with code enforcement. And I have this on your summary sheet page 33 XXX III, and it's on page 195 of your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the -- hello. MS. DANTINI: Hello, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you? MS. DANTINI: Good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Sharon Dantini and I'm the planning coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to pull this a little closer to you. MS. DANTINI: Thank you. The stop work order is an enforcement tool that's currently in place under the LDC. And for those very rare occasions when a respondent decides or chooses not to Page 1 77 August 3, 2006 comply with the stop work order, we are just -- we are asking that we have a different process or an addition to the process in administrative process. As it currently stands we would have to go through the court process for a court injunction. And as you-all know, this is a very lengthy, costly matter to both the person involved, the county and the public. We'd like to suggest with this amendment that we be provided an administrative tool for these few instances that would allow for the issuance of a citation in lieu of the court injunction. Keeping in line with our goal of voluntary compliance and as the intent with most administrative processes, men are experienced that the issuance of a citation will assist in bringing a quicker result to these situations. Quicker resolution would benefit the public most significantly -- significantly by ending the violation and the damage caused by it. Quicker resolution will benefit the respondent as when the violations are of an environmental nature according to the LDC, many of these are most likely also in violation of state and federal guidelines also. They run the risk of stiffer fines being imposed by the state and federal enforcement entities for as long as the violation exists. The language -- the language that we've included in that you see before you was taken from our citation ordinance. And that's 97.35 as codified in Chapter 2 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. It also mirrors Chapter 162 of our Florida statutes. So we appreciate your -- your time at looking at this ordinance. We would ask for any input that you have concerning our draft. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It sounds like a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh oh. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm thinking in terms of, like, the legal -- a legal land clearing like we were talking about earlier this morning, something of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a question for you. Page 178 August 3, 2006 MS. DANTINI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recently there was an incident and I think it was on Goodlette Road with the Wilderness -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Country Club. And on that one the code enforcement officer issued -- issued a citation or something and the people kept doing the work. The BCC has I believe since found that they had a -- they had a right to keep doing the work because this was a nonIssue. Now, that apparently was an error by the code enforcement officer in making that determination. If this goes into effect, wouldn't that error only be compounded by seriousness that couldn't maybe need to be relieved by the Board of County Commissioners? MS. DANTINI: Well, in our processes right now, as in all administrative function, there's a way for a person to contest the information. Anyone can contest a citation that's issued through them through our special master hearing process. So really there is an entity in place to be able to hear that process. We would hope that our staff is issuing these in a correct manner. And most of the time, they do call in just to make sure that their citations are correct. But, again, there -- there is a process in place for any kind of contestment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: But the other -- in addition to that, that was a concern of mine too, but the verbal part of that has -- I have a problem with that. And somebody say, I told them this. And maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I know there's been cases where things aren't always done as some deem they are appropriate. And I think this would lead -- when you can just have a verbal and say, I've done this. Hey, that's a little scary for me to empower anybody to have. Unless I read it wrong, it says, I just need to tell them and they have to follow it. And the guy will say , Well, maybe he has a hardhat on, he Page 1 79 August 3, 2006 had equipment banging and he didn't hear a word he said too. MS. DANTINI: Well, that -- that information is already actually __ I believe the information you're talking about is already in the code regarding the stop work orders. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, it is. I guess maybe I have a problem with that too. MS. DANTINI: Okay. Again, we're -- we're just-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. MS. DANTINI: -- we're just here to ask for the portion about the citation. If -- if you deem it necessary to change the other language, certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure that we want to go forward with more wrong language before we change the other language. But Mr. Klatzkow had something to contribute. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm a little concerned because the very last line states, As provided for in the administrative code. And we've never really put together the administrative code. That was something that we planned on doing a couple of years ago that just didn't happen. So that I think I'd be more comfortable if we just put a period after the word -- the phrase "separate civil infraction" and left it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to Wilderness, wasn't that heard by a special master and then that was enforced and then the parties had to go to the Board of County Commissioners to get a hearing? Isn't that true. MS. DANTINI: I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That particular -- well, I -- I think I have a recollection that that's the process that they went through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't, but anyway. Page 180 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- so I'm -- I'm pretty sure I'm right. I can't say absolutely. But given that's the case, these -- these remedies would already be put in place and the person would already be subject to all kinds of costs and fees. And it's considerable. I think the idea is probably not bad. I'm not sure that there are enough safeguards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I don't see the difference between the four -- the present citation and the proposed new one. Aren't they both for $500? MS. DANTINI: Well, actually, the current stop work order, the only way that we have the ability to enforce that if they choose not to move forward with it, is through the board injunction. So fines can be assessed on a daily basis once that is done. If they don't comply with it then, of course, it has to go back to court for that particular issue. But as far as the $500 fine, again, this is the same language that is dealing with all of our citation issues. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, in the beginning of this -- I know it's not underlined, but what you're doing has an impact on some of the other parts of the paragraph. It says up on -- I think it's the first full sentence on the second page, Upon notice from the county manager designee that any action or work is occurring contrary to the provisions of this code, and it constitutes a threat to life -- now, that's -- that's serious -- or to public or private property. Now, it says a threat to life. Then it says or to public or private property. Now, that would mean anything. Anything. I could construe you walking on that floor as a threat to that carpet. I mean, I'm just wondering if we need to qualify where this more severe penalty and provision would apply. Maybe if it's a threat to life or to the safety of the public, that may be a condition. But to leave it as Page 181 August 3, 2006 broad as it is and then add tighter implications to it, I'm not very comfortable with that. So I think someone needs to look at that language and try to narrow it down. If -- if a new language applies, then something ought to be provided to us to show us what it applies to as an example and how. Because I'm just not following it. And then the third sentence from the bottom that is new language it says, A civil penalty of less than a maximum civil penalty may apply, may, if the person who has committed the civil infraction does not contest the citation. Mr. Klatzkow, that to me sounds like, wow, you know, you cut a __ I don't know . You're more or less telling someone if you don't agree with us, we're going to go after you. If you do agree with us, we may let you go. Can you do that? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think what it's doing ultimately is giving the ultimate trier of fact discretion to give a substantially reduced fine if the violator has cooperated on -- rather than just a straight $500 a day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're assuming, then, that someone not -- you're assuming. You may then be telling someone it's cheaper for you to cooperate than to fight this even though you're right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think you've got it backwards, Mark. It's not saying that if they don't cooperate, that they're going to get a worse fine. It gives discretion to lower the fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to who? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If -- if I -- if I can add to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to agree with you, Mark. I see that a nolo contendre meaning no contest. How many times have we read in the paper or heard on TV where it became so onerous to fight something that you just pay the fine and go ahead. Well, that gives in my mind an illegitimate exercise of power to someone in the field who can effectively lay something on you and, Page 182 August 3, 2006 Hey, you know, pay the fine and you won't have to get nailed on this. I'm not sure that that achieves what you want to achieve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not convinced reading this that it's necessary based on the testimony you've already supplied here today that it's already covered in other codes. So why are we going forward with something unless you -- I think if you could provide us with something that shows why this is needed above and beyond what's already in our codes or our law of ordinances I should say? Why do you need this? MS. DANTINI: Well -- well, again, it's a less timely and less costly is what we -- we do feel. We feel that that's a very big factor for all of us, not just county but the public and also the respondent. Again, it's -- it's a tool. It's an administrative tool. And as I mentioned, those are intended to be less timely, less costly to the person involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to have two hearings on this. Do you think you could corne back? MS. DANTINI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you do corne back, provide to us an explanation of how the public benefits. And I don't mean because it's going to reduce code enforcement's efforts to get things challenged or take them to court. I mean, how does the public that you're challenging benefit by it? Because those are the people that are really the ones that are being intimidated and have the hardest time fighting something. So how are they being helped by this? That's kind of what I'd like to know. MS. DANTINI: All right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Also what kind of -- what are the most common uses of stop work orders? What are they usually stopping? Page 183 August 3, 2006 MS. DANTINI: Well, they're -- they're actually two departments that use the stop work orders according to the LDC: the building department and the -- the Florida building code. Code enforcement issues them for building issues such as this if they have not posted a permit or, quite honestly, most often environmental -- environmental issues which are usually a threat or a -- to an endangered species, a protected species, protected lands. Those are the types of issues that a stop work order would be issued for. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The thing that worries me, you know, if you're -- if they're filling in a wetland you know, in a few days a few dump truckloads of dirt, you know, and you've already done the damage. It's too late to reverse it. Or if you've cut down, you know, an area that's supposed to be protected and cleared, the land, it's too late by that point and so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, I mean, that's fine if that's where this applies. I -- I would agree with Paul, but I want to make sure it's specific that's where it applies. There are some conditions that this could be utilized for that we may not understand. It could be more detrimental. And that's what I'm trying to ferret out. And if you could __ if you could provide language that becomes more specific to its application, I think it would help my understanding of it. Mr. Vigliotti, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said that it's a costly process and time-consuming process to get an injunction. MS. DANTINI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How long does it take and what courts are related to it? MS. DANTINI: Well, it can be anywhere -- of course, if a person continues to choose not adhere to the court injunction, it can go on for months and months and months. Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My question was: How long does it take to get the injunction, the first injunction and what courts Page 184 August 3, 2006 are related to that first injunction -- MS. DANTINI: You know, I -- I don't have an exact on that. I would guess that because we're dealing with court time, though, you have to make sure that you can get on the docket. If it's a health/safety issue or an environmental issue, they may be able to put it on a little bit sooner. But we're at the court's mercy basically for those types of issues and depending upon their dockets. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are we talking days? Weeks? MS. DANTINI: I would say that probably -- more than likely it's going to be at least a week to two weeks before we could get on that court docket. But I do want to verify that for you. I don't want to just pull that figure out of the air and make it a definite. I would like -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to know more if I can. MS. DANTINI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a follow-up? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did, but I'm -- I'm not going to CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, we're not saying no to it. We just need some clarification. So if you could provide the -- some examples and maybe limitations on to what items this would be used for, it would certainly help us understand it. And I think an example that I would have liked to have seen this applicable to for is that one we heard this morning on the boat dock. Where these two lots where mangroves were apparently cleared and filled with no building permit. And now the guy's corning in looking for a building permit and no one's questioning how he got the property to where it is today, which is -- obviously by the aerial was not appropriate. So those are good examples. And those are the kinds of things that we could understand and we'd be better off. Mr. Schiffer, did you have anything extra? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just -- just a thought. In that line there a threat to life or it's corning really from what Paul said, Page 185 August 3, 2006 but could you put not repairable damage. In other words, if you catch somebody on public property, then you got to nab them quick and you got to stop them quick. So if he's doing something that could never be replaced or repaired, then that's a threat. MS. DANTINI: Sure. We -- we have -- we actually have language now in the citation ordinance that deals with threat to health and safety, irreparable, irreversible harm. So if we inserted that language in that particular -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yeah. MS. DANTINI: -- area, I think it sounds like it might cover-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's a good idea. That would take a look at that for the final round. MS. DANTINI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, do you have something else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I have to go forward with this question. As an example, I mean, hopefully it's not an absurd example, but some guy out in the sticks out there in the Estates wants to build a tree house and doesn't realize he should get a permit. And he goes and he starts the tree house. The code enforcement gives him a stop work order with the potential for this. Is that plausible? Is that reasonable? Now, I happen to know about a $18,000 accumulated cost on a guy that built a tree house and so does that apply? MS. DANTINI: I will -- I will tell you that we are going to try to use common sense when issuing a stop work order. And -- and I know that we're not touching tree houses at this time. I -- I believe that did happen in the past, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eighteen thousand dollars' worth. MS. DANTINI: Yeah. And that is an issue that, of course, you know is there to haunt us, I guess. But we are not at this time issuing any stop work orders for that type of a situation. Page 186 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I apologize for my ignorance here. But I thought I heard that you said you already have those things in place and your wording for it. And so then are we going to put them into this? And I'm thinking that are we making more volumes and -- you know, to me it seems like we should be trying to get rid of stuff. And if they've -- you've already got that in place, that I -- I thought I heard you say that. MS. DANTINI: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Then why are we adding -- adding more? I guess I don't understand. MS. DANTINI: Well, actually, it is in Ordinance 97.35 as codified in Chapter 2 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. You know, again, it's something that someone would have to go to another source to read it. And if you-all would feel better having that included in here, I certainly can add it. Again, it is duplication, though, because it is out there for regarding our citation issuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're doing is expressing some things, we may need to understand it better. And then it would be up to you to corne back with what you think is a way to clarify it for us. MS. DANTINI: I would be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then, once we understand it better, it would probably be simpler to get through. MS. DANTINI: Sure. I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. DANTINI: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Strain, our last author is going to be Joyce Ernst with zoning and land development review. And if you Page 187 August 3, 2006 just look on your next page, page 197 , Joyce is going to be addressing the changes to the specific requirements for minor after-the-fact encroachment. MS. ERNST: Okay. Now, for the record, I'm Joyce Ernst from zoning and land development review. And this whole section is put in the code for basically when a contractor or homeowner builds and they make an error. And that's typically the 5 percent. And -- and then in the code already there also is provisions for administrative variances. Or when the code changes for structures that were built many years ago where there was no spot surveys required that we find today don't meet setbacks and for those type encroachments, those are the ones that are permitted to apply for the variance for the 25 percent of the required setback. Now, if you'll notice in the old -- the old language that it -- that they strike through, that it's already in the code for these types of administrative variances. However, there was an interpretation made by the county attorney that the language there did not include accessory structures. It only addressed principle structures for the 25 percent administrative variance. And so what we're doing at this time is we're going to -- we're clarifying that. Because the intent of the code was always to allow this to apply for both principle and accessory structures, not just principle structures. So it's just being reworded. So it really spells it out and makes it very clear that they can apply for a variance under -- you know, under the circumstances that are dealing -- delineated in the code for principle and accessory structures. Now, also added was some language that was omitted when the LDC was codified. And that we've included with this section too. And that addresses legal nonconforming structures that were built and someone wants to put a minor addition to that at the same setback. And so they're allowed to apply for an administrative variance. And if they meet the criteria then, you know, we can grant them that. And, as Page 188 August 3, 2006 I say, that was omitted from the old LDC. And that is under No. C. You can see it's -- we've actually, I think, included everything that was in that administrative section of our code. Does anyone have any questions regarding that? Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. So, Joyce, one thing you state that this is only to change omitted language, but you're actually rewording the existing too; correct? MS. ERNST: It will result -- the wording is all changed to make it -- to really make it clear that it applies to accessory as well as principle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One thing that confused me when I read this thing is essentially most of the wording is the same. MS. ERNST: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, copy clip. I think we've got four paragraphs here. Isn't there a simpler way to show that so it's easy to see? And also one thing I don't like about it is you describe a process that essentially gives you the -- the 6 inches or the 5 percent not to exceed 6. And then each paragraph has this additional allowance. I'm not so much against the wording. I'm just against the way it's processed here. In other words, there's a lot of repetitive stuff that I think we could rewrite in better code language that shows what's allowed, what the exceptions are. And it's much clearer because, I mean, the difference between A, B, and C and is hardly any except, you know, I mean, it just seemed it was really cumbersome to read this kind of code like this. MS. ERNST: Uh-huh. Well, see A, Band C, they all apply to different circumstances and that's why they're separated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the thing. They are different circumstances -- MS. ERNST: Right. Page 189 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but they have the same solution. So, in other words, like, A is a circumstance and the solution is -- we'll call it, it's a solution. B is a circumstance with the same solution as A. C is a circumstance with the same solution as A and B. So, in other words, why are we setting up these categories when we should just state A, B, C and then tell everybody to do the solution. MS. ERNST: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my thought. MS. ERNST: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then in the wording have you also -- the solution, I think, has buried into it where you look at all of them, it starts that an additional allowance is made which brings in 25 percent for essentially single-family residential structures when maybe that should be a separate paragraph. Because, again, it's a solution to all the available ones. So I think it's buried in places. Or maybe the outcome's really just make a commercial version and a residential version. I know that in watching some of the after-the-facts variances, that the commissioners and even the county attorney are getting confused over wording that may have been intended for commercial and other that was intended for residential and got them all confused. The other question here it says that the manager as designee may administratively approve it. When would he not be able to? I've heard Joe Schmitt give a lot of testimony saying, How can I not. When would he not administratively approve it? If he meets these conditions, wouldn't he have to approve it if it's in the code like this? MS. ERNST: Typically we do. If they meet all the criteria or conditions that we request, we typically -- we wouldn't want to say we have to approve it. I guess it would still give us a little flexibility in the event that there's something that we choose not to approve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but -- but that kind of concerns me a law -- Page 190 August 3, 2006 MS. ERNST: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if Joe doesn't like guys with pony tails? Am I going to have trouble with somebody with a different haircut? Might not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you getting personal there or what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark and I, we couldn't get it, but -- let's go to C a second. There's things in there. The first one essentially is a building that the person -- there's a problem with it. And it wasn't done by the person that bought it. I mean, so essentially if you're, like, a grandmother that has a bad porch for 50 years, you wouldn't be able to get this; correct? MS. ERNST: Now, what number are you looking at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at C-l. MS. ERNST: Oh, C-l? Okay. That's where no building permit record can be produced? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ERNST: And a lot of that is because the county records are not that great and there's a lot of times that -- or at least they're basically for buildings that someone buys the property and they find they have an encroachment. And we try to give them a way of making it a legal structure. And they have to comply with all that criteria. We've only used that maybe once or twice. It hasn't been used very often. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ERNST: And this is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Listen to what you just said. The county records are -- are so bad that -- so the person's going through this exercise because of the county records. That doesn't seem fair. In other words, I guess my one big point is rather than be picayune throughout the whole thing is that isn't there a concept of grandfathering this -- grandfathering stuff in like that? Isn't that what we really need to be doing rather than -- Page 191 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. MS. ERNST: Well, I don't think we have a provision, I don't know, to grandfather something in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you're saying -- I mean, if someone builds a house and, you know, maybe on the plans and it's signed off. It's okay . You can have the steps corne down. And the next thing you know code enforcement's there. And the next thing you know they're reporting there's no permit on this. I mean, the guy's been paying taxes on it for -- he can prove when it carne into existence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- are you talking about Russ's incident? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm talking about a lot of people in this town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but this just sounds like a mirror image of what Russell just went through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russell's a veteran of this war. That's for sure. In other words, can't we corne up with something that isn't as -- I mean, because that really isn't a problem. I mean, sometimes these things happen to people behaving properly. Sometimes they don't. We've had variances and you've seen me take the stance that I'm really suspicious as to, you know, are these people as naive as they think they are, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, did you want to contribute? MR. KLATZKOW: I am preparing an ordinance for the board's review in September that will cover these situations and hopefully eliminate the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we review that during this draft process? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind e-mailing that to -- to Page 192 August 3, 2006 us? MR. KLATZKOW: We have one bye-mail to you, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would -- some of our experiences of our one particular board member, I think that would be a really good thing to look at. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This will not be part of the LDC cycle. It's going into the regular code of laws and ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I'm glad that's being addressed. That's excellent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But would it make any of this unnecessary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher. MS. F ABACHER: My understanding is this is to help out people who want to kind of clear their title and they've bought a house that was built in 1935. And, obviously, nobody really had great records back then. But be that as it may, this is a way -- they are nonconforming structures. So that under our code if over 50 percent of that structure's damaged, then it has to be brought into complete compliance with the current code now. This is a way of giving a little bit of latitude for us to help people make these structures nonconforming. Not a great amount. And it's in situations where it's really not their fault. It addresses, you know, A, B, C and D. Just different situations how this happened to occur. C happens to be the issue where that they don't have any old records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Joyce, isn't there a concept of legal nonconforming? In other words, if you build a house before the code and somebody comes along years later and says your setbacks don't meet the code, I mean, that's a legal nonconforming use. MS. ERNST: That would be a legal nonconforming use, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what rights do they have if Page 193 August 3, 2006 this -- MS. ERNST: The way our code reads if it gets destroyed by more than 50 percent, it has to meet the current code. MR. KLATZKOW: You'd have to rebuild to current code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this would then -- MS. ERNST: Now this really I don't think would address something like that. MS. FABACHER: Well, it would be nonconforming based on this administrative act. MS. ERNST: Well, I think maybe it depends on how -- how much it didn't meet code. Like we have -- we have so many changes in our codes from setback purposes, that in that situation I guess it may. I -- I only -- I'm trying to remember what situations have corne up that we've addressed. I don't think that situation has ever corne up where we had to address a home that was built that maybe complied with setbacks when it was built. They wanted to -- you know, it got destroyed. They wanted to rebuild it. And they had to meet current codes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me give you -- let's say that we built a high-rise building back in the old C-4 days of 100 feet. It's now 75 feet. Isn't that a legal nonconforming building or what is that building? MS. ERNST: It's legal nonconforming, but I believe even then they have to -- if it got destroyed I believe -- you know, I don't think there's anything in our code that allows them to build it, you know, to how -- to the extent it was before. I think our code -- well, I think I'm mistaken though under a nonconforming section which is another whole section of the code. There is allowances to rebuild to the current -- I think -- I think it says density, height, but it still has to meet the current setbacks, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's, again, and maybe I'm not saying it right. The problem is that people own buildings that Page 194 August 3,2006 are built with good intent. Everybody feels they're done well. MS. ERNST: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There are some cavalier people, but this isn't for them. And then the code changes so they have to constantly keep up with it through -- you know, through this process? I mean, it seems strange. There's two conditions that are happening. One is we're changing the rules which makes them nonconforming. MS. ERNST: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two, we're losing the records which it much more fun to play with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To get to your point, why don't you, before the next hearing on this, work some language that addresses Mr. Schiffer's concern that says considering the nonconforming issues of an existing facility comparable to the way the code may change. I mean -- MS. ERNST: Now, you're talking about replacing nonconforming structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was just dealing within the framework of this. MS. ERNST: Because I think that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was told the reason we're doing this is so that we can replace them. MS. ERNST: And right now all the -- you know, right now the people can get a variance for 25 percent of a single-family home, a duplex or a mobile home under certain circumstances. I mean, that's in the code. All we're really adding was that it included an accessory structure. Now, I understand if you wanted us to rewrite it so it's -- we kind of group it together a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I tell you what, I'll take a shot at that and send it to you. MS. ERNST: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If -- if it bothers me, let me try Page 195 August 3, 2006 to cure it for myself. There was also another thing in here that if a person -- sorry, Bob. This is the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think this is a good -- because if a contractor is building something and a house drifts four inches out of the setback, we don't want to paralyze the world. We want to go through this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't for a house. This is for an accessory structure now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, and house. Building and she's adding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The code already allows you to do this for principle -- MS. ERNST: This part of the code already addresses principle structures. We just want to make it very clear it just not applies to principle structures, but it also we can apply it to accessory structures as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the addition ofC? MS. ERNST: Not C. It's probably D. D is the section that -- I'm sorry I misquoted that -- was omitted from the code. And that has to do with putting a minor addition to legal nonconforming structures at the same setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a -- in here somewhere where it stated that if the owner wasn't aware of a nonconformity, he could get the 25 percent of it even in new construction; right? So if the contractor, the architect, let's even bring in the building department, they all made mistakes, but the owner didn't. He's eligible for that; right? MS. ERNST: Well, I don't think that this -- because it just says this allowance applies to principle and accessory structures provided the following criteria are met. I think it has to be an addition or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I read that. Page 196 August 3, 2006 MS. ERNST: -- an accessory structure. The encroachment portion of the structure was -- okay. I'm trying to remember where I read that. The encroachment structure's either an addition of living area to a principle or accessory -- accessory structure of at least 200 square feet. So it wouldn't apply to a whole house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That was it. And this is my last question so Bob can go jump. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Uh-huh. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who's the site development review director? Shouldn't it be county manager or his designee? MS. ERNST: Yeah. That probably needs to be changed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You guys can jump in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm just going to have some fun. That's all. On page 197 I'm going to be Commissioner Kolflat for a moment. I see that you have up in change it says A TF. I assume that's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And then under reason you have CAO. I assume that's chief accounting officer. Could you -- could you tell me what those acronyms are? What those initials -- what they represent. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You never gave me a chance. MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher for the record. ATF, after the fact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, how simple. Okay. And CAO. MR. KLATZKOW: County Attorneys' Office, I believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: County Attorneys' Office. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another simple one once you know it. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just taking a guess. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it could have been Page 197 August 3, 2006 something different? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. I had those on my list too, but the point is be sure to get them on the index in page 1 and 2, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, we might want to reserve the ninth just for abbreviations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And a follow-up the next day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Joyce? MS. FABACHER: I want to just make -- clear something up. When something is legally nonconforming that means that it was created legally at another time when it was legal as opposed to a regular nonconforming which was created illegally whenever it was created so, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do they have -- do they have the same rights? MS. FABACHER: They have the same-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In a in a destruction situation? I mean, we live in a world where we get destroyed. (Multiple voices.) MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. We live in a world where we have to be careful because we do have damage to our buildings. MS. FABACHER: Well, I was just going to suggest that before the next meeting, we might want to review the nonconformity section in the code. It's Section 90301 in the existing code just to understand what happens with nonconformities and how that device works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Thank you. Page 198 August 3, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joyce, I think you're off the hook at this point. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, that's all I have except for material to pass out for the eighth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let's -- we got other things. Let's go to triple I, definitions, lot width. Catherine Fabacher, she's here today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the page number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5. Is there a reason that you're not prepared to discuss this, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Well, yes. Because the DSAC, LDR subcommittee and the full DSAC requested that we provide illustrations of cul-de-sacs and a measurement because some people may not understand what a cord is. And they also wanted another illustration to depict how this would be measured, the lot width. So we didn't feel that the definition was complete to present to you until graphics had finished completing those illustrations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- are you withdrawing this? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Then let's just go through the comments we have today and you can add those to whatever you're producing. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This may help out. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to get as much of this done today and not waste any time because I want to get done with this on the eighth so we can move into the seventeenth and get going on the twenty-third. So with that this is the lot width one on page 5. Is there any discussion you want to provide to us on this, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Well, you might recall that -- I don't know if Page 199 August 3, 2006 it was the last cycle or the one previous to that, we had attempted to restore the lot width definition. And then we had simply copied at that time what had been in the old code. And then there was a lot of debate on how to improve it, a lot of discussion. And staff was asked to corne back three or four times to corne up with a definition that -- that the Planning Commission could live with. So at one point it just got so late in the cycle that we pulled it and now we've brought it back this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on this one? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I honestly don't get this yet. So let's just walk through it. The horizontal distance between the side lot lines, so let's assume -- make our life easy. It's a square site. So that's the distance between the two side site lines. All right? I mean the two side lot lines. MS. FABACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We really should be trying to do this with a drawing. Measured from the front building setback line. That's -- pretend the setback's 25 feet. You go back 25 feet into the lot and you draw a line between the two side setbacks, let's assume parallel to the front building line. And then it says, to a distance of 80 percent of the lot depth. So now we're going 80 percent deep into the lot and we're drawing a line from that which would be parallel with the sidelines if you follow that instruction. MS. FABACHER: No. I think you go 80 feet back from-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty percent, but wouldn't you -- MS. FABACHER: You take a second measurement from the front setback line. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Eighty percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says 80 percent. Page 200 August 3,2006 (Multiple speakers.) MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, I think, I'd like to see those sketches too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would too. This is a one-page issue. I want to contribute whatever comments we have so that when we get it back we're not going to reinvent the wheel in our comments is all. You've got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, let me --let me get the author's intent. What you're saying is you measure the distance between the sidelines at the front building line. I like that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the lot could be irregular. So somebody will do pie-shaped lots if you don't -- then you're saying go back again and measure it 80 percent back. MS. F ABACHER: From the -- from the front property line -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the front property line. MS. F ABACHER: -- on the setback. Eighty percent into the -- THE COURT REPORTER: One at time, please. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty percent of the lot depth. That -- that would mean that. You're right. And then you take the average of those? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what's missing then. MS. FABACHER: Probably so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We've got to do cul-de-sacs. The minimum width on a cul-de-sac lot line shall be measured by drawing a straight line which links the points at which Page 201 August 3,2006 the side property line intersects the front property line of the -- of the curb. That would, in fact, be the cord of the curb; correct? Then drawing a straight line parallel to it to the required front setback line. That may be confusing, but in other words -- MS. FABACHER: Well, what you're going to do is you're going to take the middle of the cord which is the curvilinear part of the front of the lot line as curvilinear. You're going to corne straight through that, through the middle of the property line to create this line. And then you will go, you know, parallel to that, 180 degrees parallel to that, to kind of give you -- and then you corne to the setback line. So instead of reproducing the curve of the yard 25 feet back, if that's the setback, instead of reproducing that curve, you're going to create a straight line there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that becomes your width? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, at that point at the building setback line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say it back and then maybe I can help you with the words. Is it taking the cord of the property line -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, no matter how you describe it, it ends up being the cord of the front property line and then drawing the line perpendicular to that -- MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to -- and is that the distance of the setback? MS. FABACHER: Well, it wouldn't be exactly. It's kind of perpendicular to the cord, but it's kind of parallel to the side lot lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, people are changing __ communities are changing their setback, their ability to do this. But with the computer, we can offset things which you really didn't do well manually. So why wouldn't you describe it or if you want -- Page 202 August 3, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: Well, because I think that it's easier to measure a straight line than to try and measure a cord -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. FABACHER: -- to determine the width. Instead of measuring the curved line, you'll get a straight line to measure from, but I think you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see here I don't think you can draw a straight line parallel to the cord which would be -- you know, I think let's move on. But let's you and I sit down at least during a break today and see if we can do this with graphics. I don't get it and it doesn't make sense to me. And I think the last thing in the world you want is a problem with this. The City of Naples, I watched a nasty variance go down where they're measuring setbacks off of cords and houses are too close to a cul-de-sac. So we want to be careful there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping that your input today could be incorporated into whatever graphics you were talking about so when you corne back to us it could be clarified to address Mr. Schiffer's concerns. I had one issue on it and that is the address -- how do you address flag lots with this? Flag lots are a reality out there. So if you haven't thought of that in regards to this definition -- I don't think you had -- you may want to consider a flag lot as another issue you have to take a look at. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MS. FABACHER: There are some further definitions which I can bring at the next meeting that discuss frontage and to address kind of those issues of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted you to hear our concerns -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that you could corne to the next Page 203 August 3, 2006 meeting with your diagrams in a manner that would be more complete so we could get it resolved then. MS. FABACHER: All righty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MS. FABACHER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one would be double x. It would be page 123 in our book. And I know what you're going to say, Catherine. You're going to say that Mr. McDougall (phonetic) isn't here. He was here. So why wasn't he told to stay and discuss something if this board wanted him? MS. FABACHER: When he was sent a letter and he was notified that it would be on the eighth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we on Tuesday suggested we hear some of these today. Why couldn't he discuss this with us today? Did he have a reason or did anybody ask him to? MS. FABACHER: No one had asked him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's odd. We went ahead and scheduled Patrick for today and nobody -- and he specifically was told he was as well. MS. FABACHER: No. We-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page double X VI 26 there's one there for fences and walls that has your name on it. Are you able to discuss that today? MS. F ABACHER: No, I'm not. I was given direction by the DSAC that it was unclear and that the language needed to be straightened, and I'm working with staff to -- to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you withdrawing it? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will discuss it. DSAC doesn't dictate what we review. I'd like to get that one past us too. If you have refinement that changes the meaning of it, then you can incorporate our comments into that, then that just expedites the Page 204 August 3, 2006 process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One sixty-three. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You said 163? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MS. FABACHER: Okay. For some background on my understanding of this, there's some situations where usually accessory structures abut residential areas. And these are non -- like a golf course maintenance shed would be. So that said that this issue was not addressed in the code. There was no requirement for them to provide __ I mean, obviously, there are requirements for -- to put a fence between commercial and residential, but there's some cases where you have -- it's not strictly a commercial use like a golf course. It's just a nonresidential use. And it abuts a residential property. Okay? So this was to try and cover that hole for the case where there's no requirements to cause somebody to -- to screen a -- or fence a maintenance facility or, you know, workshop for -- or any -- and I think they call them ancillary plants or something to a church which is really not a residential use but would abut -- you know, it can be permitted in residential areas. So there was kind of this category of more than uses so much as structures that are -- were falling through the crack. And -- and people were complaining because they were not required to screen this from view of the residents. And that was the -- the reason that staff requested that this be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So page 163, 164, 165, 166, the only change we'd really be discussing is the one sentence added that's No.6 on page 165? MS. FABACHER: Yes. That -- that is correct, sir. I -- staffhad attempted to provide for you all the text and restrictions in here so that you could just see the context in which the change was being added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I appreciate that. I want to Page 205 August 3, 2006 make sure we're focussing on the -- MS. FABACHER: Yeah. No. It's simply that. And Mr. Muldere (phonetic) -- Mulhere had -- had actually -- is very familiar with the code having worked here and been, I forget, was he a planning director or zoning director? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was something. I don't know what. MS. FABACHER: You can say that again. Just a joke. Anyway, when we met at the DSAC, he advised me that this was perhaps not the best place in the code to put it. But since then, he's been out of town so I haven't been able to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. He's on vacation? MS. FABACHER: -- get with him at subsequent meetings to determine where he thought. Now, I met with other staff. And they had other suggestions. If you looked at E, the applicability of E is commercial and industrial districts. And we were thinking of maybe having that applicability include or designate ancillary structures up there. And then as you see the language in No.2 would cover it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any comments? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. I -- I assume that a parsonage on a campus, a religious campus, call it that for lack of better knowledge, I can -- I can imagine you wouldn't put a fence between the residential -- that parsonage and the church? MS. FABACHER: I don't think that's covered, but-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but I just want to be clear that that's not as extreme as that. So we're talking about regular residential. MS. FABACHER: Right. Not the same property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's just considered -- MS. FABACHER: Not the-- (Multiple voices.) THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. Page 206 August 3, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Considered to be part of one campus. I'm sorry for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer that. Mr. Murray, I think this is only -- the way this is included, it only affects the residential zoning districts noted under page 164 in the bottom. I'm not sure if it were a parish or a church be within a residential -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wouldn't that be the conditional use? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Conditional use for the residential? MS. FABACHER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I was concerned. I just didn't want -- I know it seems a little bit far-fetched, but just offhand just to be sure that was considered. MS. F ABACHER: So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get your question answered? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think this is only to do with the materials used in the fence between commercial and residential. That's what we're changing today; right? Only that that's underlined; correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I have a problem restricting the use of some materials. So according to this, we can use a masonry wall, and I think you would really want to note that that masonry wall is stuccoed. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't want a masonry wall. You'd want a stuccoed masonry wall. Page 207 August 3, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You'd want a split-faced block or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could. Yeah, you could. You'd -- so then say a decorative masonry wall, you know, or stuccoed. I mean, the way this is written is that bare concrete block that you don't want. The only concrete that's allowed is prefabricated concrete walls. And if somebody wanted to pour it in place, I wouldn't punish them for that. So what's wrong with a concrete-- MS. FABACHER: I'd have to be honest, Commissioner, I just copied from two below the existing text for commercial and industrial, but we can -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why do you add this? Because below kind of -- MS. FABACHER: Well, below applies to commercial and industrial districts whereas -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it states whenever a nonresidential development is contiguous to a residential district, and that's the exact same wording as above. So what you're saying -- I mean, I'm reading residential saying that if there's a commercial, you can expect from them this wall. When below it says if you're a commercial and you're against residential, you have to do this wall so... MS. F ABACHER: Right. But it doesn't say if you're a conditional use that is not commercial or industrial such as a church or a golf course, it's not -- that is not addressed, that category of structure. And that's what staff's attempting to do here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, should we try to fix what's below, then, also or what do you guys think? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- what's below seems to be written properly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to have bare concrete -- bare masonry, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean as far as its application. Page 208 August 3, 2006 As far as bare masonry, do we know if we have an architectural standard there -- MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm thinking-- (Multiple voices.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I notice I used to do the same thing and these girls get real mad at me so we've got to do it one at a time. Is there an architectural standard that applies to commercial/industrial that does not allow bare masonry in walls that we know? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There could be. MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher for the record. I am not familiar with all of the architectural standards; but I do know that in certain overlays and districts, they do prohibit certain types of fences and certain types of materials. I mean, I'd have to look through all of the design standards, say, in activity centers. I just really couldn't answer that without totally reviewing the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: But, I mean, the materials are limited under design standards in many, many, many types of zoning districts. I'm just off the top of my head not familiar with which ones that would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, after hearing Brad's concerns, which are good, and we are entering new language for a new implementation and different zoning district and commercial and industrial, and if we can clean this up to make it more specific to the materials especially in the sense of more of a residential zoning area any way, why don't we clean this one up while we're at. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Fine. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that might be a good thing. And I notice you use the word "contiguous," yet I notice throughout these LDC amendments, we've been making an attempt to use the words "adjacent" where they definitely apply and "abutting" where the others don't apply. For consistency since those are defined terms, can we use Page 209 August 3, 2006 one of those here? MS. FABACHER: Yes, because contiguous is not -- okay. Adjacent would allow -- would mean that it could be across the street CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that where I'm getting at. Do you mean -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. If that's -- if that's your desire where we meant -- (Multiple voices.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to let me finish my sentence MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because she can't write twice. Did you mean that if a maintenance facility for a golf course was on the property line between the maintenance facility and, say, a residential tract on one side and a golf course on another, that is abutting. Contiguous would mean it's across the street from it. I mean -- yeah, adjacent would mean it's across the street from it. So do you mean adjacent or do you mean abutting? MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher for the record. I think the way the code is not too clear on those definitions, but the way I'm kind of interpreting it that adjacent could be abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought that we cleared that up through this LDC cycle or we were trying to. MS. FABACHER: Well, we tried to do that at the same time we tried to do the lot width and that all got pulled because we never could corne up with satisfactory product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought I had read it. And I thought that was something we were clarifying. That's why Michael Sawyer -- Michael Sawyer was here. We focused on the use of the right words. And he agreed that his adj acent needed to be abutting because that's what he was intending. And I'm simply trying to find Page 210 August 3, 2006 out that you through the word "contiguous" meant the same thing as one of those words. MS. FABACHER: See, I think you're exactly right. Abutting would be a better choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you ought to look at that when you corne back with this for a second reading. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. I think the triggering device for this particular sentence was the LaPlaya issue that we looked at -- the LaPlaya maintenance yard sometime ago. And in there a final decision was to go along with vegetation and not have a concrete wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And now why are we corning back and saying we want a concrete wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I have a different recollection although I certainly respect your recollection. I thought what was -- was being offered that the persons wanted to have more in the way of landscaping and didn't want a wall. And that the owner was happy to provide an opaque vegetation wall as it were. That was my recollection of that event. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But this says, "shall have a wall." It does not say may have a wall -- concrete wall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that, but I'm just referring to your recollection of the -- that event. And I think that I was just trying to add to your -- to your recollection. That was all. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, and the other comment I have on the end of that sentence, it says, "or a fence." And we had quite a bit of discussion on the inadvisability of a chain link to be considered in a case like that. Page 211 August 3, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There, again, if I may respond to you. The fence we had qualified at that time, there would be no chain link. But the fence we said was a prefab concrete, a form that looks like an interwoven thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what Mr. Kolflat's saying is the way this is written it simply says "or fence." COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob. And if it says "or fence" the way it is, the fact that we could do that in the last issue was because they had to corne before us. Other people who are reading this may not be corning before us so they would have the option to do more fence. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may respond. Except that remember Carolina Bolera being very clear that fence now is described as not being chain link and so forth. And I thought that by the intent here it looked as though they were very clear either a true wall or a fence. Is that what the intent was? That would be my understanding. MS. FABACHER: I don't -- Catherine Fabacher for the record. I don't recall Carolina's discussion. I didn't hear it. But I do know that they do review mostly commercial products. I wouldn't want to prohibit a chain link fence in a residential possibly area, but whatever is your direction on this. I mean, we don't prohibit homeowners from putting chain link fences around their yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. I don't know if there's any concern there at that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I-- MS. FABACHER: We can -- we can try and corne back and look at that and bring you some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other issues on this one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to finish by saying that I'm a little confused now because while I respect what you've said Page 212 August 3, 2006 and I understand what you said and perhaps out in the estates and so forth, but I do know that quite clear in my other civic activities that the idea of a fence, especially chain link, was not desired in the East Naples, South Naples communities. In an industrial application it may be fine. We have no objection. So I was told that no fence now means that it was a cast or whatever prefab bed concrete fence that was now defined. So I just wanted for -- for my understanding. Now, I'm confused because we can look at the word "fence" and see two different meanings now so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, when I read this I saw there was no bolded words in the sentence. If fence is defined, would you just simply provide us with a definition for our next reading of this so I can get to the bottom line? MS. FABACHER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is my question on that. Catherine, is it -- is there three things here, a masonry wall, a prefabricated concrete wall and a fence? Are those the three things or is it two things? MS. FABACHER: Or -- well, and/or fence that could be -- they could be different kinds of fences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. So, in other words, so I have a choice of a masonry wall -- MS. FABACHER: The way this is written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prefabricated -- prefabricated concrete or a fence. Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I mean, it's a wall or it's a fence. I mean, I've seen concrete fences prefab. Are you calling those walls, those little panels that slip into -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a fence. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'll try and get clarification from other Page 213 August 3, 2006 staff on this for you for the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I hope we can have the next meeting on this is, what, the eighth then? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Based on the fact that all the rest of the issues we have yet to discuss have to have other people here who are not here, I'm assuming, Catherine, you don't have anymore? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the eighth the item that seems to have the most people lined up for is the Bayshore Gateway. Could we start in the morning with that? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you notify the people -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- involved so they know? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, we'll continue this meeting until the 8:30 in the morning on August 8th in this room. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. For the record, Catherine Fabacher. We don't necessarily have to continue it. You can announce another meeting because we have -- Jeff will correct me if I'm wrong -- we are advertising for the eighth. We have advertised for eighth, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just leave it like -- unless we've got to, let's just continue it. If you guys want to advertise, more power to you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We're done for today. Page 214 August 3, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 215