CCPC Minutes 04/19/2007 R
April 19, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
April 19, 2007
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
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Robert Murray
Brad Schiffer
Russell Tuff
Robert Vigliotti
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Don Scott, Transportation Planning
Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007, 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.
l. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3, ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5, APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1,2007, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 5, 2007, (GMP SPECIAL SESSION)
6, BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 13,2007, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 27,2007, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8, ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A, Petition: BD-2006-AR- 10900, Hall-Mardt LLC and JARDMR Enterprises, LLC, represented by Jeff
Rogers, of Turrell and Associates, Inc., requesting a 12-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot
limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.I to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 32 feet into the
waterway and accommodating two vessels. The subject property is located at 267 3rd Street West, Little
Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat, Block G, Lot 5, Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, CONTINUED FROM 04/05/07 AND RE-ADVERTISED FOR 4/19/07 (Coordinator:
Ashley Blair)
B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-II034, Naples Bridge Center, Inc., represented by Joss Nageon de Lestang, P.E., of
Gulfshore Engineering, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use of Estates (E) zoning district pursuant to Table 2,
Section 2,04.03 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 2,5~ acre Estate zoned site was originally
approved under Provisional Use Resolution 80-128 on July 8, 1980 for a social organization consisting of a
2610 square foot building and a parking lot of 70 parking spaces and subsequently expanded under
Conditional Use Resolution 94-424 on June 14, 1994, for a social organization consisting of a 3,500 square
foot building and a parking lot of 83 parking spaces. The proposal is for an expansion to penn it an additional
3,500 square feet of floor area and an additional 50 parking spaces. The subject property is located at 5865
Golden Gate Parkway, in Golden Gate Estates Unit 30, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
1
C. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8900, Paul and Ruth Williams, represented by Rich Yovanovicb, Esquire, of
Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use (CU) per LDC Section 2.04.03 for a
horse stable facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 3,52 acres, is
located at 256 Rose Apple Lane, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
(Coordinator: Carolina Valera)
D. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-I0916, Grand Inn of Naples, Inc., represented by Michael R, Fernandez, AICP,
of Planning Development Inc., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) for the Pine Ridge Mixed Use Center PUD to add 24,000 square feet
of commercial use, add General Office as a pennitted use, eliminate Restaurant as a permitted use, and to
change the development standards. The subject property, consisting of 4.02~ acres is located at 1100 Pine
Ridge Road, in Section 15, Township 49, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera)
E, Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379, Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for project to be known as Boxwood RPUD. The
subject property consisting of 29.69 acres, with a maximum of 238 residential dwelling units of which 30
percent of the total number of units will be for Affordable-Workforce Housing, is located at 14290 - 14300
Collier Boulevard, Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Mike DeRuntz)
F, Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7422, Larry Abbo, as vice president of Prime Homes at Portofino Falls,
Ltd., represented by David R. Underhill, Jr. of Banks Engineering and Robert D. Pritt of Roetzel & Andress,
L.P.A.; and William L. Hoover, as president of Catalina Land Group Inc" both of which are represented by
David R. Underhill, Jr., of Banks Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson, P.A" are requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning districts to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, to add 20.26~ acres
and 80 dwelling units to the Wolf Creek RPUD for a total of 167.96~ acres and 671 dwelling units, which
may be single- or multi-family dwellings, and amend the PUD document and associated Master Plan. The
applicant also proposes to reduce the maximum height of multi-family structures from 42 feet and 3 stories to
38 feet and 2 stories; and eliminate nursing homes, private schools, adult living facilities and churches as
allowable conditional uses. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road,
approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
9, OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion to clarify how staff detennines when maximum size limits for each type of sign has been met, as
required by Section 5.06.03 of the LDC. (Melissa Zone and Diana Compagnone)
10. NEW BUSINESS
11, PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12, DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
04/19/07 eepe AgendalRB/sp
2
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you -- back on. Thank you.
We will now resume the meeting that was continued at 8:30 this
morning. And it is the regular Collier County Planning Commission
meeting.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
We left off at the addenda to the agenda. And just for the sake of
the public or those who may not have been here when we revised the
agenda earlier, Items D and E were continued to May 3rd. D was the
Grand Inn of Naples, now to be known as the Pine Ridge mixed used
center PUD. And E was the Home Dynamics of Naples, the Boxwood
RPUD, Those two items will be heard on May 3rd instead of today.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
And continuing with our regular agenda, we have planning
commission absences. And I think the next meeting is May 3rd. Is
anybody planning on not being here?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have a quorum.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 1, 2007 - REGULAR
SESSION; MARCH 5, 2007 - GMP SPECIAL SESSION
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes. We received
Page 2
April 19, 2007
two packets in our -- two minute packages, One is March of 2007,
That's the first one. Is there a recommendation of approval?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
All in favor, signify by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The second one was March 5th. It was our GMP special session.
Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray,
All in favor, signify by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 3
April 19, 2007
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries,
Item #6
BCC REPORT AND RECAPS FOR MARCH 13, 2007 - REGULAR
SESSION: MARCH 27, 2007 - REGULAR SESSION
Ray, the next item is the BCC reports and recaps,
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on April 10th, the board heard the
petition for Windstar PUD amendment. That petition was continued
to be heard after December 1 st of '07. This will allow residents to get
back and attend the meeting when it's rescheduled at that time,
There was a street name change that was approved for the
Philharmonic Center. That was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners 5-0.
And then two petitions were approved on the summary agenda.
That was the Faith Landing rezone and the Liebig CPUD,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray.
Just for our knowledge, since May 3rd had two continuances
from today, how big of an agenda do we have on May 3rd? Do you
have any idea?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that calendar in front of me, but I
can send you all an e-mail and let you know,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would appreciate that. Thank
you,
Page 4
April 19, 2007
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
The chairman's report. I have one request of staff. There was
another issue occurring in this recent agenda where an item had to be
continued, and it was number D. And as some of you may have
recognized, there was not a strike-through version of the PUD. And
we have repeatedly asked that we can have such strike-through
versions, And it's a common issue, It's not a problem in the sense that
if it got caught on time, it would be great. But here we have another
continuance, which both causes, you know, problems for the public if
they were planning to attend and actually the applicant and their
experts and everybody else that was planning to attend.
Ray, when we have a preap. meeting, there's a checkofflist used
by staff for preap. with the applicant. It basically lets the applicant
know what they have to provide and also what was provided, And we
get a copy of those usually in our packet.
And I'm not looking for that kind of detail, but is there some way
that on the cover of each packet that we receive from now on there
could be a checkoff list indicating that someone checked to make sure
we have the strike-through version, the staff report, the TIS, the
environmental impact statement, the EAC, and Margie Student's -- or
county attorney's review, so that those items could be checked off?
And if they're all checked off and an individual just signs it on the
bottom as a staff member saying they checked them off and it's on the
cover of each packet, then we know that it was looked at, it was
reviewed and we've got everything there in case we have to question
anybody.
Is that a logical thing that could be put into play? Or is it
something -- I know you may have to confer with Joe Schmitt, and
that's fine. But what do you think of that?
Page 5
April 19, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: Well, we do use a checklist. The staff that
puts together packets has a checklist they work with the planner on to
ensure that all the items are there, so the checklist is already prepared
and already being used.
In this particular case the planner felt that the strike-through and
underlined was there when it wasn't. And it was an error by not
checking thoroughly.
The staff person who's putting the packets together checked the
checklist and saw that it was marked that it was there, and so that's
what happened.
But we'll do a better job at that. And I can include the checklist,
it's already prepared, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just would like to know that someone
did a final check. And I understood that Margie in a lot of cases has
told us she hasn't gotten time to get to the information to you guys
before it comes to us and she has to do it here at this meeting (sic). It
would be nice if there was some system so that legal got into the loop
before it actually got distributed and we wouldn't have to have these
last-minute word changes when it got here,
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mr. Strain, if! may, we're working
-- staff is getting stuff to us much further in advance, But I will tell
you what happened. Sometimes these documents have been reviewed
by me and then the applicant hasn't always agreed to the changes or
gotten the changes back by the time your packet goes out. And that's
how that's happening. Because -- and we're trying to keep more
control over the documents to make the changes ourselves.
But in some cases the applicants want to see them and agree to
them. And -- or in fact want to do them themselves. And that's not
what's coming back in time in your packet, even though they've
already been reviewed by me before they come here.
So we'll work harder to make sure that you get the correct
materials in your packet.
Page 6
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I -- this wasn't brought
up as a form of a complaint. It was simply as a way that maybe we
could make the process better so that the record is clear going in and
we haven't got it annotated so much with things, but --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why can't they do that, what
you suggest?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray said they're going to.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Oh, okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're all set. That will get us back
on stream.
Item #8A
PETITION: BD-2006-AR-I0900
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, the first item for today's
agenda is Petition BD-2006-AR-I0900. This was continued from
April 5th, 2007, And it's for a boat dock extension at Little Hickory
Shores,
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this amendment, please
rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the
planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I may have talked to Rocky
about this, but it's been so long, because it's has been continued, I just
don't remember if we had or what we spoke about. But I'm just saying
that to be safe.
Are there any others?
Page 7
April 19, 2007
MR. SCOFIELD: I don't remember.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't either, Rocky.
Okay, with that, as soon as -- before we go into the presentation,
we've been handed a Hall Dock and Lift Proposed Aerial Overlay. I'm
assuming that the applicant wants this submitted as evidence.
Is there a motion to accept it into evidence?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Schiffer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Mr. Me,
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye,
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, it's all yours.
MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners, For the record,
my name is Jeff Rogers, representing Kent Hall, the client. I'm with
Turrell & Associates.
We're here today requesting a boat dock extension from the
allowed 20 feet, for a 12-foot extension into the waterway.
That is, as you can see there in that aerial that Rocky just passed
Page 8
April 19, 2007
out, approximately 175 wide from mean high to mean high, The
navigable waterway is approximately 100 feet wide, as the
measurement that's shown there.
Setbacks with this are limited due to the boat dock lots, and we
are also congruent with the surrounding neighbors, Actually, we have
minimized our total protrusion, due to the fact that we have permits on
hand to do some permitting on -- or dredging on-site in order to supply
sufficient depths for the boat docks and the boat lifts, and our client to
get the boats up and down at low tide without protruding any more
and making the waterway that's already limited skinnier.
Like I said, we've received state and federal permits for this. And
with this, we're requesting a 12-foot extension from the allowed 20,
And I'd like to answer any questions that you would have in
regards to this.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there a new public hearing
notice on this?
MR. ROGERS: I believe there was.
MS, BLAIR: Ashley Blair for the record, senior planner,
department of zoning, land development review.
We did readvertise for this date.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a concern the last time and
I continue to have a concern. And I believe I can say with certainty
that use of the boat docks for other than recreational purposes and not
commercial purposes, that it's not intended for commercial purposes.
And I just want to be clear. We have two LLC's, I believe it is,
MR. ROGERS: Yes,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now you're going to do
some dredging, you're going to make this really fit. And those folks
Page 9
April 19, 2007
live elsewhere, do they not?
MR. ROGERS: They do. I know they have places here locally,
but they also are, you know, out-of-towners.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, Well, we often hear,
well, that's up to code enforcement. But I'm thinking that there ought
to be some way that we can be reasonably sure,
Is this a new practice that LLC's are the biggy for people to avoid
liability and that's what we're going to be seeing? Have you seen new
applications like this?
MR. ROGERS: When there's more than one owner, yes, it seems
to be -- you know, that's the way that they're handling it, making
LLC's for the properties, But with one single-family owner, there's
usually obviously no LLC's involved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you're reasonably sure, as
has been portrayed to you, that this is intended for recreational
purposes only?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then the other issue that
I had was that looking at the width of this relative to the next door
neighbor's lift. And anybody knows about boating and wind
understands the implications. I recognize the liability rests with the
persons who occupy the spaces, but there's a certain degree I think of
responsibility we have. And I can -- I'm just looking at that and
wondering, do you -- you took the job on, so you believe it's safe,
MR. ROGERS: Yes. And with this, you know, the lots, they're
zero lot lines. And our protrusion from the dock to the east of us, if
you take that dock that looks like a blue boat cover on it to the fringe
line across the waterway, it's approximately 100 feet wide of
navigable waters,
And, you know, for the most part all the manmade canals
surrounding this area are 100 feet or less wide. And boats can
navigate through with -- there's sufficient water depths from the
Page 10
April 19, 2007
mangrove fringe line to our dock. And two boats can pass through
there without a problem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't really have that
much of a concern for that as much as I do for the fact that we're
squeezing, what I perceive as squeezing, two lifts on a space that
probably should only have one. I do not wish to deny anybody their
rightful use, but I just am concerned with how tight that really is and
what it is that we're allowing if we go forward with this for the future.
I'm not a soothsayer, I can't see the future, so I don't know if we're
going to have accidents, but I do know that accidents do happen when
proximity is a problem.
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield, with Turrell &
Associates,
I understand what you're saying, but these are -- obviously you
know this area. It's designated boat dock lots, This thing went through
the zoning. There's zero lot lines just so this could happen, what
you're seeing today, just so there could be two boats placed on these
lots and they squeeze it right out to the property line. That's how they
all are.
If you look at the aerial I handed out to you, look on the south
side of Third Street there. Docks are all lined up next to each other.
Hasn't been a problem. Obviously accidents can happen any time, If
people know how to operate boats, it's not a big deal. Of course a lot
of people don't. But that's -- we can't police that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I don't
wish to bring unnecessary stricture. I just was concerned with --
seems awful dam close. And these are for what 25 and 22 foot, if I
recall.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right, these are for 25-foot boats. Yeah, we're
protruding out 32,
We had to -- the only way we could do this project was to get
dredging permits. It was -- you could -- there's only a foot of water
Page 11
April 19, 2007
when you walk out at low tide 25 feet. So we had to get dredging all
the way to the shoreline in order to get the boats up,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That other diagram you had, could you
put that back on?
MR. ROGERS: Is that the right one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's the right one.
Those squares with the x's in them I'm assuming are the boat
lifts?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The comers on the outside of those x's,
the little round circles, aren't those pilings?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifa boat was inside that square, could it
blow past those pilings and hit the neighbor?
MR. ROGERS: No,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your docks, both of them that
you seem to have, are further in towards shore than the dock to the
right; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, it goes--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one to the left as well, right?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your protrusions are probably not
any greater than either one of your neighbors. In fact, with your lift
you're less than your neighbors.
MR. ROGERS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,
Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any staff report?
MS. BLAIR: Hi, Again, Ashley Blair.
I believe the issues that we discussed last time have been
Page 12
April 19, 2007
resolved as far as the affidavits which were provided in your packet
and the readvertising,
This petition meets all five primary criteria and all of the six
secondary criteria; therefore, staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any there any questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ashley, what I did is I
reread the riparian report you gave. But these lines don't make any
sense compared to that. I mean, I'm going to support the application
really for the reasons Mark said, but do you think in the future we
could have -- first of all, the waterway width isn't the issue here,
because the water is so narrow -- or so shallow on the other side,
Could we have them show the things that are required for the
riparian, like the thread of the waterway? Or in this case even the
thread of the channel I think would be data that we could base it off
of.
I mean, not for this application, I'm just talking in the future.
Because this thing probably protrudes further than 25 feet into the
channel, but it's not protruding into the waterway, Even the waterway
on the side across from this is very shallow for a long distance. I
mean, again, if it wasn't for Mark's comments that the two on the side
are doing a worse job than this one anyway, I'd be jumping a little
harder on this, but -- so in the future could you make sure that they do
show the thread of the waterway and the thread of the channel?
MS. BLAIR: Sure, I'll look for that. And the applicant that does
most of these is saying that they will provide that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a requirement of the LDC.
MS. BLAIR: Not that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the applicant would have to do so on
a voluntary basis until we modify the LDC, if it's ever warranted.
Page 13
April 19, 2007
MS. BLAIR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me add, I mean,
the requirement to show riparian lines is a requirement.
MS. BLAIR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to obtain a riparian line
you need the thread of the channel, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I'm not complaining about the
request. I just want to make sure that we understand it's a voluntary
application of the part of the applicant. Because I don't know if we can
demand it pursuant to the requirements of the LDC. And that's the
only thing I was bringing it up for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me debate it a second,
We have to show property lines. The riparian line is part of the
property line. So -- and we have to measure setbacks from it. So how
would we possibly review these without that to happen?
MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield, for the record.
We don't have a problem with that, showing how we do it.
Just one comment on this particular area. The -- a lot of these
docks were built a long time ago. And they were just built in there.
So they may not conform to the actual way that riparian lines should
be.
So on some of these cases -- this one happened to work out, but
as you can see, the one next to it may be tilted over a little bit to the
west. So on some of these they're going to have to be fit within the
parameters of people on either side as this area gets built out.
So this is a -- you know, this is a particular case right here. But
as you see more of these lots get built out, some of the people aren't
going to have as much riparian rights as others that were built quite
some time ago, But we don't have a problem with showing the thread
of the channel and how the riparian rights intersect.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions?
Comments?
Page 14
April 19, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Ray, do you have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and
entertain a motion,
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion, if! can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve
DB-2006-AR-I0900, subject to staff recommendations,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti.
Is there any discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comment is that I am glad to
see that some parties have gotten together to form a partnership so
there can be more than one boat utilized here. And the purpose of that
comment is simply that we have boat slips all over this county, that's
provided by the county, that are overwhelmed. I have a hard time
even getting my little back water boat in.
The fact that people can join together and utilize an access
without having to buy a million dollar house on the water I think is a
plus to the taxpayers of this county. Because it helps others get to
those boat slips now that these people have a place to keep their boat.
So I strongly support this and encourage it.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye,
Page 15
April 19, 2007
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye,
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you for your patience with the continuance. I know it
took a long time to get here.
Item #8B
PETITION: CU-2006-AR-II034
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next petition is
CU-2006-AR-II034. It's the Naples Bridge Center.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter,
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
planning commission?
Hearing none, petitioner would like to make their presentation.
MR. deLESTANG: Good morning, Commissioners Joss de
Lestang with Gulfshore Engineering, representing the bridge club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may need to spell your name once
for the court reporter, that way she'll have it correct for the whole
document.
MR, deLESTANG: I know. Joss, J-O-S-S. Nageon de Lestang,
spelled N-A-G-E-O-N space D-E space L-E-S-T-A-N-G.
Page 16
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that French?
MR. deLEST ANG: Yes, it is, And I've been dragging it around
for years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to be your next prime
minister?
MR. deLEST ANG: I don't know yet. But I think Sarkozy
probably will be,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so too.
MR, deLEST ANG: To get back to this focus.
The application we have today on behalf of the Bridge Club
membership is a relatively simple request as far as requests go. We
have an existing facility which has served the residents of Collier
County for -- the bridge players of Collier County for many years, A
shocking number of years, actually.
The initial conditional use for this was 1980, And most of us
were probably not around in 1980. I know I did not come to Collier
County until '87.
Anyway, over the course of the time they've had the facility,
there's been two conditional uses: The first initial one in '80 and the
other one in '94,
And essentially we are talking about the same facilities, same
piece of ground,
And what is happening now is that the membership would like to
expand the facilities to better serve the folks they have, They don't
really have enough parking, they feel, and also the building, the single
building they have on the site limits what they can do with as far as
games and as far as how they use their time and how they distribute
the players.
What they want to propose at this time is expanding the facility
by 3,500 square feet to make it a 7,000 square foot facility, As well as
the parking will increase by 49 spaces.
Now, this plan -- we have a plan showing this, and it's right here
Page 17
April 19, 2007
on the board, And I'm happy to point out anything, if anybody wants
specifics on it. It's pretty self-explanatory.
The way this is going to be done is the logical way of expanding
to the north, which is the undeveloped part of the lot. But as part of
this exercise, we also left out a significant area for native vegetation
preserve, which is essentially the top north half of the site. And we
also allowed for a realistically-sized water management plan which
would serve the whole entire new facility.
The building itself, the expansion would be at the existing
building as is shown on here. And it essentially would be used in
conjunction with the existing building and allow, as I said previously,
the membership to be able to use the building more effectively.
The way the bridge players operate in there is they have one big
room only, So it's impossible to have more than one game or one
group of persons at a time playing.
And this is significant, because they would like to be able to
stagger the games, you know, or have -- and they also have
opportunities where they have people come who want to -- who have a
class, say they have a class going with bridge club classes. And this
would allow them to have a little more latitude and flexibility with the
scheduling.
And also, the back, the parking, the additional parking would
help the overflow that they require right now.
The membership currently is about -- slightly over 600 members,
and this number has fluctuated over the years, And this represents a
good number, which is not exactly -- this whole effort is not exactly
intended as an expansion of the membership, it's just more to serve the
present facilities and the present membership a little better.
As you can tell from this plan, we've also included generous
buffers around the property. We have buffers, obviously the native
vegetation preserve which represents a tenth of the site which has been
set aside will be used as a buffer to the north. And we have 15-foot
Page 18
April 19, 2007
buffers for landscaping on the east and west, as well as a Type B
buffer along Golden Gate Parkway.
Now, Golden Gate Parkway, obviously the new -- the good and
the bad of this, I mean, the membership lost some -- a portion of their
lot with the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway, But the good of it is
that they -- as a result of the expansion and improvements on the
roadway, they acquired a decellane, as well as a decellane onto the
eastbound and westbound. This is for the folks who are going -- who
are making U-turns and coming back in,
So that really helps them, and really has sort of allowed this
expansion to be possible, Because as of right now they do not have a
traffic problem with the facilities that they have.
Now, the membership of the club has reminded me that as part of
your deliberations, you folks may want to remember that the Bridge
Club has a cross-section of members across a whole social spectrum
of Collier County. It's really the kind of facility that really should be
supported by the county. It's used by just about everybody.
As you can tell from the longevity of this place, and it's been
relatively trouble free, and there's nothing in our proposal that would
change this, The membership isn't undergoing a radical change.
There's nothing -- it's just what they want to point out is that this is
very important, has both active and retired members. It promotes a
healthy social interaction with no discrimination to race or social
status.
It's a relatively low impact for the county. We've got neighbors
who are happy, I don't think we have neighbors here from the Bridge
Club. Ifwe do, we've already talked to everybody, Everybody's been
pleased that this would happen. They have no -- I think we addressed
a few minor comments, which is quite a feat, really, considering that
they've been there that long. And so obviously these are being good
neighbors,
And also, we want to point out that this conditional use that we
Page 19
April 19, 2007
are seeking is no different than what is really already approved for
many sites on that street. On Golden Gate Parkway we have four, five
churches, one across the street -- two across the street. I believe we
have three -- two or three on the same side of the street. We have a
child care facility immediately across Golden Gate Parkway, which is
also a conditional use,
So what we are asking is not really an unusual request. It's been
granted to other folks as well.
And I might point out that this use is consistent with the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan because of the fact that this facility has been in
existence for so long,
If you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Monsieur de
Lestang.
I've looked at the parking, and you've indicated in your statement
you don't have enough parking. And just using a very basic format of
going from the original square footage and the number of parking
spots and using it proportionally as we advance over the years, it
seemed to me that we should have 166 parking spaces predicated on
those things.
Now, that may be subject to something you can tell me. But it
also makes me, not concerned but interested to know, you say that the
essential intent is not to enhance membership. But each time that your
organization has come back, it's because your membership has grown
and you needed more space. And I don't have an objection to your
growth,
But based on the numbers, if you're going to have a second
building there, or is that going to be two distinct buildings?
MR. de LESTANG: No, I believe they want to make one
building.
Page 20
April 19, 2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Raze the first one and put
another one up. That comes into the 1,200 range for people. So I
think we need to understand what the implications are there.
And their issue of the food, Do you intend to have social
opportunities there, such as dances or any kind of organi -- because I
did note, as you mentioned, probably this was in the item, people were
complaining about some food left over from a barbeque and things of
that nature, So--
MR. de LEST ANG: I think this would be incidental. I don't
believe -- I think the Bridge Club is a bridge club, and I think they
really use the space for that. They have tables and they use it as a
bridge club, That's it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note that you're also I think an
officer of the club, are you not?
MR. de LESTANG: No, I'm not an officer of the club, but I've
visited the place.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in any event, so you're
saying to us that it's going to be used exclusively for or nearly
exclusively for bridge purposes?
MR. de LEST ANG: Yeah, that is the intent. I mean, in past -- if
you judge by the past, what has happened in the past is that the place
is used as a bridge club, It is a hall basically, with tables, and they use
it as a bridge club.
And anything they have, maybe they have some snacks that
people prepare so they can have during the time they're playing
bridge, but I don't believe that there's any intent to turn it into a social
club with dances or anything like that. I think that would be very far
removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But sir, your intent is to use it in
conformity to the conditional use you're asking for here today,
MR. de LEST ANG: Correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, the -- would you like to
Page 21
April 19, 2007
comment on the issue that I raised about the parking spaces?
Especially since you indicated you don't have enough parking spaces,
How is that worked out with the numbers?
MR. de LESTANG: Well, we are -- we have sufficient parking
spaces consistent with the LDC requirements, I should say that right
off the bat.
What they are finding in practice is that they would like to have a
few more spaces because, you know, they use all the ones they have
right now,
And so if we are able to -- in other words, this was two-tiered.
Initially when we came and talked to the membership, they just
wanted to get a few more parking spaces, you know,
And the view of this is that they should -- if they are requesting
something, they should request what they think works best for them.
And I think that the parking right now, the expansion would serve the
existing membership a little bit better by giving them some additional
parking for overflow in the times they need it.
I don't really think -- I don't really think that they need the
amount of parking that you are indicating, which is the double
amount. I don't think it works quite that way with the expansion.
As I've explained before, the real use of having that additional
3,500 hundred square foot would be able to partition these rooms so
they could have staggered games. And so when one set of players is
coming in, the other ones would be leaving, It would actually allow
them to have a little more flexibility with how they arrange their
games.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. Lacking that
particular knowledge about partitions, it's a doubling of your overall
space, and it would certainly beg the question, I would hope.
And I was not commenting about doubling parking, because the
requested is 132. And the simplistic way I went about it, just to
conduct the answer, was 166.
Page 22
April 19, 2007
So I guess I'll withdraw from that, then, if that's in compliance
with the LDC.
MR. de LEST ANG: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine for me. Okay, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just want to make sure that it
is your intention to have 132 parking spaces.
MR. de LESTANG: That's currently -- that's what we have on
the plan that's shown right here, Yes, it is. And this plan is a very
realistic plan. It is not an SDP, as you know. We're not at that level.
But we have been bound by so many criteria from all sides that
effectively I can't envision corning up for an SDP and having a site
plan that deviates in any significant way from what I see here. That's
why they really have to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolf1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On occasion I've mentioned Ely
Culbertson, My wife complains that I'm out of date. Is she correct?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. deLESTANG: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is she correct that Ely
Culbertson is out of date?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, we can't have comments from
the audience, because they can't be recorded.
MR. de LESTANG: I'm afraid I don't know the particulars. I
wish I could answer your question. It sounds like some people do,
though.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You're no more knowledgeable
of bridge than I am.
MR. de LESTANG: Well, I don't play bridge, but I know a lot of
people who do.
And in fact it's such an important thing that people actually travel
Page 23
April 19, 2007
to -- base their travels and their holidays based on where they can play
bridge, They have cruise ships set up for bridge players. I mean, I'm
always impressed at how important this is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, thank you, sir.
Staff report?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner for zoning and land development review.
And the applicant's report of the Naples Bridge Center is accurate
and true, And staff recommends approval of this conditional use. It is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code. And we do have four conditions of approval that
I'd like to share with you this morning.
The first one is -- and this is the continuance from a previous
condition of approval that the Naples Bridge Center shall only be used
for bridge center playing activities,
The second one is that the dumpster shall be located a minimum
40 feet from any of the neighboring property lines.
The third one is that the Naples Bridge Center lighting shall be
consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Policy 5.1,1, which
is that there shall be no light pollution shining onto the adjacent
properties.
And the fourth one is, is that at the time of SDP, this particular
site plan shall be in compliance with the American Disabilities Act
requirements.
With that, are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, just first on that last
one, is there any way they could avoid doing that? I mean, is that --
there's no reason to put that in there,
Page 24
April 19, 2007
MS. GUNDLACH: The ADA requirements?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, actually, while it was going through
the process of review for this conditional use, transportation picked up
on the fact that it was not compliant with handicap access to the
building and from the building. And so it's an issue that can be
addressed at a later time, which would be the SDP.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm saying is, the next
time they come in for any review with the county, they'd have to put
that access from the public way. There's no way they could not, I
don't think.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it may not be necessary to
put it in there,
The second thing is do we have a copy of the articles of
incorporation attached to this somewhere, or could you have that?
What you're limiting the uses to is what's in their articles of
incorporation,
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, yeah. Actually, that was part of
either the 1994 conditional use or the 1980 provisional use, and that is
in your packet. And it will be listed under their conditions of
approval.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It first shows up in the Eighties.
But I think we should include that, because we don't have access to
that otherwise.
The other question is, back to your former career as landscape.
The design originally right now has a landscape buffer running down
the center of the parking lot. Are you okay with the new layout?
In other words, it's -- the new layout has four cars across, the old
one had three rows of cars with a nice buffer down the center. And I
think at existing it still does.
MS. GUNDLACH: I think the best response I can give to that is,
Page 25
April 19, 2007
is they can do it because our Land Development Code allows it. So I
can't require that they don't do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, there were six recommendations
in the staff report. And you had mentioned you have four.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, the first two weren't particularly
unique to this project. The first two recommendations are typical of
all of our conditional uses, And the first one is basically that if the site
plan changes significantly, they would have to resubmit.
And the second one just simply says that if you expand it, the
conditional use, you would have to reapply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So you're only limiting your
recommendations to the last four; is that correct?
MS, GUNDLACH: No, no. Our conditions of approval include
all six items.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you didn't have it as a conditional
approval for number one, could they do it?
MR, BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I believe there's enough language in the Land Development Code
that would have made them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know where I'm going, Ray. We're
back to the redundancy again,
And number two, same thing. I mean, if those -- if they've got to
expand it, they're going to have to come back anyway. So why do we
need to restate it here?
I think Brad's point was very good. We have federal laws that
require number five, You're going to review them anyway, so why
restate it here? Why don't we get down to the succinct details that are
needed for the application and do away with the ones that maybe are
redundant.
So does that work for everybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does.
Page 26
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would mean recommendations
three, four and six would be ones that would be more appropriate
probably as an individual application,
Any other questions of the staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just follow back. What are the
uses that are allowed in the Naples Bridge Center articles of
incorporation? Obviously bridge is.
MS, GUNDLACH: It means that they can't lease it out to other
organizations,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless they -- but doesn't it say
that they're locked into the uses that are in their articles of
incorporation, right? And we assume it's bridge. In other words, for
example --
MS, GUNDLACH: Yeah, I'm not really familiar with their
articles of incorporation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet we make it a
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we could instead of -- and Brad's
on a good point, instead of saying they shall not lease the facilities
which are subject to this conditional use to other organizations for a
purpose different than what this conditional use is being authorized
for. Why do we even reference their articles of incorporation? They
could change them down the road or who knows what.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, I mean, there's a
social club. It starts out being authorized as a social club in the first
resolution. But, I mean, for example, could the chess club rent it?
MS. GUNDLACH: According to this condition, no,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's only bridge.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shouldn't we be tying it--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do we know that, though?
The articles of incorporation could be saying -- you could say, you
Page 27
April 19, 2007
know, bridge, chess, penuchle, I mean, cribbage; you could say
everything,
Anyway, unless we really see that, I'd rather not refer to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And then Brad, the language I
suggested, does that fill the need?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said for what this
conditional use is for. What is it for, purely bridge?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the conditional use, as Fred
stated in the beginning, it's not -- there isn't conditional uses for --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's essentially for a
social club --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- limited to these uses in these
articles of incorporation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you have a conditional use
that we're limiting to a social club, is that limitation not enough or
you're thinking it should be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the fraternal order
of something could move in there also, and it may not be what the
neighbors had in mind,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, you got any ideas on
this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess the issue would be, since my
understanding that this is a large hall, could they rent it out, let's say,
to a high school for the prom dance, okay?
If that's something you would not want to do, then maybe the
language should be that they shouldn't rent -- it just can't be leased. It's
for their purposes only. And that eliminates the issue, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy -- and I guess Joss might be the
person to answer this, does anybody know if they rely on the leasing
of this hall to benefit their income stream needed for their financial
positioning?
Page 28
April 19, 2007
Because ifthat's a critical issue to them, it's something we may
want to consider.
MS, GUNDLACH: We could ask them.
MR. de LESTANG: For the record, Joss de Lestang.
I've just consulted with members of the club. To their knowledge,
the bridge club has never been leased out to any other organization,
And in view of the time that we're talking about, I think this should
put some weight on this effort.
I can speak from personal experience about this. Maybe it's
anecdotal, but I think it's still valid. It's difficult to get all the
members to agree on anything. It would be extremely difficult to get
the members to agree to lease this to a different person, to a different
group of people without having some kind of unanimous say in it. I
think that this is very unlikely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have an objection, as their
agent here today, if we change one of the recommendations to read
that the Naples Bridge Center, Inc. shall not lease the facilities which
are the subject of this conditional use?
MR. de LESTANG: Right. I think that if this is what you want
to insert in, I don't -- I hate to limit their uses in the future or anything
like that if that were to occur, but I don't see why it would be a
problem,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question, Mark, on the
same thing. What if they decided there is -- and I can't find it right
now -- somewhere they -- if they do want to close the bridge club,
they promise that they would sell the assets and donate it to charity,
MCould you sell it to some other club that's interested in gaming, like
the chess club or maybe like the Play Station Society of America,
which may be different.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
It would be subject it to this conditional use that limits it to the
Page 29
April 19, 2007
bridge use, so it would have to be another bridge club,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So bridge is really
locked in here?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're going to change the use we'd
want them to come back in for a conditional use anyway so the
neighborhood could participate in it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this building is only allowed
to play bridge in?
MR. BELLOWS: As the stipulation's written, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: What if they played whist?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They better do it behind closed doors,
that's all I can say.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'm not sure this is a good direction
we're going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the conditional use that
we're extending basically sets the rules they've lived by for all these
years. And unless there's objection from them or the neighborhood, I
don't know why we need to keep beating this one to death.
Any other comments or any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing.
Entertain a motion.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, thank you, I move that
CU-2006-AR-II034 be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron,
Is there any discussion?
Page 30
April 19, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, 1'11 call for the vote. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye,
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye,
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I need conditional use forms,
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you,
The next one, as soon as we gather up our petitions, take a
minute to sign those and send them to Ms, Caron.
Item #8C
PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8900
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item today is petition
CU-2005-AR-8900. It's Paul and Ruth Williams for a horse stable
facility.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this applicant, please rise
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures
Page 3 1
April 19, 2007
on the part of the planning commission?
I had a discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich, I didn't know if it was
-- and I think Wayne Arnold about this. There wasn't really a lot to
discuss, so it was a short discussion,
Okay, with that, the applicant may make a presentation,
MS, WILLIAMS: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a senior planner with Q, Grady
Minor and Associates in Bonita Springs.
I'm here with Rich Y ovanovich from Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson today. We are representing Paul and Ruth Williams, owners
of 256 Rose Apple Lane.
This property is 3.52 acres located in the urban residential fringe
subdistrict on the Collier County future land use map. The site is
zoned rural agricultural and it's completely surrounded by that zoning
district.
Weare here to pursue a conditional use to bring an existing
long-time stabling facility into compliance with today's code.
The use was legally begun before the code had a limitation on the
number of acres required for that use. And in the interest of bringing
that into legal conformity, we are pursuing the conditional use today,
One item that I'd like to note, if you take a look at the zoning
map, you can see that the adjacent property to the east has been
approved for the exact same conditional use we are requesting today.
Properties surrounding this site are developed with various
agricultural uses from greenhouse type growing operations to the
horse stabling facility neighboring the site.
There's some undeveloped lands. Essentially -- I have an aerial
on the board as well, You can see that this is a very rural area. And
we feel that this use blends with the neighborhood and is very
consistent with the other uses there.
The four conditional use criteria are consistency with the GMP.
Collier County staff has considered this to be consistent with the
Page 32
April 19, 2007
Growth Management Plan, Ingress and egress to the site has been
found to be adequate by staff. We agree with that. We feel the layout
has been in this form for many years and it works on the site.
Effect to neighbors: The owners of this property have actually
quite a bit of support from their neighbors. It is a use that fits with this
neighborhood. Any impacts, would there be any, would be there now,
because everything is proposed to remain as it exists today. And it has
peacefully coexisted with the neighbors for many years.
And as I spoke about before, we do feel that this is a compatible
use to the zoning district.
The required neighborhood information meeting was held. Two
people did attend to express their support of this conditional use.
We thank staff for their recommendation of approval. We agree
with the two conditions that are there in that recommendation, and we
thank you for your consideration,
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, this is not an
enforcement issue at all, correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: These are people that just
realized they've been doing something forever, probably would be
grandfathered in, yet now they just in good conscience want to make
sure that they can sleep better at night by going through this process?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct. This is a voluntary effort,
They are legally nonconforming because they predated that code
change, but they are trying to bring it into compliance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So their only advantage would
be if it was damaged in a storm they could rebuild it without going
through this process --
MS, WILLIAMS: I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- doing it ahead of time. Okay,
Page 33
April 19,2007
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Heidi. And staff
abandoned you, it looked like, unless they thought since you are
former staff you can just take care of this for them.
Do you find -- as a staff member, do you think this is okay?
MS, WILLIAMS: I agree with it, yes,
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows,
I'm filling in for Carolina Valera, who is in Philadelphia at the
national AP A conference. I reviewed this with her before she left,
Heidi did do an excellent job of presenting the facts. And I'm
looking over their staff recommendations, and I see that there's
probably the same comments as the previous one, and we can
probably eliminate both of those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And by the way, before -- when
we finish with this, we're going to go back and revisit the previous one
in regards to that issue, because I don't think we clarified that in our
motion. I just want to make sure staff understood what our intentions
were.
So back to this one, though. The staff recommendations, you're
saying basically numbers one and number two don't really need to be
there, so there wouldn't be any staff recommendations, it'd be just a
straight shot.
MR. BELLOWS: Right. The code requires it in the first one
anyways. And the other one is more of a comment, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Excellent staff report, Ray,
Short and to the point.
Are there any questions of the staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, are there any
public speakers?
Page 34
April 19, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm ready to make a motion,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you want to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. I move that we
forward Petition CU-2005-AR-8900, Rose Apple Stables with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer made a motion
to approve, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye,
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Conditional use forms, please,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that, Ray, was with the caveat as
we discussed at the recommendations of staff, there were none, it was
a straight shot.
I want to go back and revisit for clarification the prior motion
because I failed to clarify our position in regards to the staff
Page 35
April 19, 2007
recommendations,
I just want to make sure that Ray understands that I believe this
commission's intention on that vote was that the recommendations for
staff would be as corrected pursuant to our discussion.
Is anybody on the planning commission in disagreement with
that position?
(No response,)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just want to reaffirm it for the
record, Thank you, Ray.
There is another conditional use form in the packet that we have
to sign and get to Ms, Caron. I was told it was in the packets. Ms,
Caron's assured me it's in the packet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is in the packet.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: She assured you.
Item #8F
PETITION: PUDZA-2005-AR-7422
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will move to the
next and final petition for today. It's Petition PUDZA-2005-AR-7422.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the
planning commission? I think Mr. Y ovanovich and I may have
brushed on this when we were talking about the other one, only to the
point is that you're coming back in again?
And he's here.
So with that, we will move into presentation by the applicant.
MR. PRITT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm with the law firm of
Page 36
April19,2007
Roetzel and Andress.
As you can see, we have several people here in the -- who are
with me today. We have Ed Abbo, who is the vice president and one
of the principals with Prime Horne Builders, And also Linda Sokolov.
Most of you know Rich Y ovanovich, he's also an agent for the
petitioners. And William Hoover. And of course David Underhill
from Banks Engineering.
I know you all have the staff report, so I'll not go through the --
all the details of the staff report in detail, but there are just a couple of
things that we would like to point out.
I'm very glad to see that this is a favorable staff report and that
we agree with the staff report and the conditions that are contained in
it.
Just for your benefit and for anybody who might be watching
this, the -- this is an application for an amendment, actually, of an
existing PUD that is the Wolf Creek PUD. It's a request to rezone
20.26 acres from rural agricultural and planned unit development to
residential planned unit developed district, RPUD.
This would result in an increase to the existing PUD to a total of
167.96 acres and 671 units of density.
This would be single-family and multi-family.
The location is at the northwest comer -- well, it's just past -- it's
west of the northwest comer of Collier Boulevard, That's 951, north
of Vanderbilt Beach Road,
And can I move over here? Am Ion? Okay, thank you.
Just moving over to the visualizer, the outline of the existing
PUD is here. And it's kind of dark, or blue. It actually goes -- I'll go
from west to east. It goes along this line. It goes upward, goes to the
north, and then further east, and then further north, then back west.
Then there's an out area here, kind of a notch at the north end. And it
goes back north, heads west, and then southeast and back down here.
With the exception currently -- with the exception of this parcel
Page 37
April 19, 2007
here. And that's in red. I'm not sure that's corning out that well on this
map, I'll try the other map here in a minute.
But right in here is the 20-acre parcel that we propose to add to
the existing PUD, And I'm going to give you another -- thank you,
Kay.
I'll tell you what, let me try this one first and then see if it -- if
that helps. Probably not that much, but I'll use Kay's.
Anyhow, this is the kind of the donut hole in the middle of the
existing PUD. And we'd like to add those 20 acres to the PUD.
Let me try the staffs, Trying to get a color that comes out.
There. It was better, of course. Is it upside down? Thank you,
Okay, so you can see here we have a -- I'll move back -- we have
an existing PUD. Right straight almost in the middle of the whole
thing is a parcel that was not part of it, and we're just trying to bring
that parcel in. And we would like to have the density accordingly.
As far as the density is concerned, the resulting density would be
3.99 units per acre, which is within the four units per acre allowed.
And if you look at the staff report, you can see on Page 2 of 7 the
surrounding communities. We have Palermo Cove on the north. And
that would be here. And that's 131 acres, a residential project, four
units per acre, with a zoning designation ofRPUD, And Scenic
Woods, which was recently rezoned to RMF-6, REM-4,
On the east is Sonoma Oaks. Sonoma Oaks is four units per acre,
That's 37-and-a-half acres mixed use project. The residential portion
is four units per acre.
Carolina Village is 4.03.
Island Walk, which is the large one on the west. That's Island
Walk there, and that's existing. That's build-out. That's 705 plus or
minus acres, Mixed use project. The residential portion was approved
at a density of 3 .04 units per acre.
Weare not asking for any density bonuses. We're within the
maximum that is allowed.
Page 38
April 19, 2007
The uses that are being proposed are the same uses as were there
before, The density is the same and the units per acre of the density is
substantially the same, or just about the same.
And as far as the environmental is concerned, the matter went
through the EAC in March and received a positive response, There's a
condition on that that we agree with. And other than that, we agree
with the staff report and the recommendations.
We do have a -- we do have people here that can answer any
questions that you may have, Hopefully they can answer any
questions you may have concerning the details of the project itself.
Essentially what Mr, Abbo's firm wishes to do, Prime Home Builders,
again, I'm not sure if you're that familiar with Prime Homes. They're
very active in Lee County now and becoming very active down here,
And the types of units they build or proposing to build here would be
two stories, They are -- instead of three stories, they're agreeing or
asking to go down to a two-story limitation at a lower 1eve138 feet.
And the types of units they build, multi-family units that they
build, are in the fairly moderate price range. These are not multi
million dollar units. These are probably in the 300's as far as the units
are concerned.
As the staff report correctly says, there was a neighborhood
meeting. The -- we think that everything was and is pretty positive,
Everything that's being built is being -- proposed to be built is going to
be very compatible with the rest of the Wolf Creek PUD.
Apart from just the logic of filling in a hole there, the -- having
this as part of the project -- or part of the PUD will make for more
coordinated development throughout. And it just is the logical thing
to do.
Without beating that to death too much, I'll just kind of go on and
indicate to you that this is very compatible and it will allow for
coordinated development efforts out in an area that's being developed
otherwise, and will make a lot of traffic patterns a lot easier to deal
Page 39
April 19, 2007
with, as well as the development.
I'll be glad to try to answer any questions that you have. Again,
I'm not going to go through the entire analysis in the staff report unless
you ask. But we think that the environmental review has been positive
and is positive on Page 4 of 7. And transportation review is positive,
as positive as transportation reviews can be. And that as far as the
planning review, planning and zoning review is concerned, we agree
with the findings of compatibility. And each and every one of the
published criteria seemed to be met and we agree with that.
With that, if you have any specific questions, I'll be glad to either
try to answer them or have one of our experts do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein, then
Commissioner Midney.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a bit of a problem.
Your neighborhood information meeting I understand was on July
12th, 2005?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Which is 21 months ago. It's
my understanding now that these are supposed to go on each year and
for a year. And that in fact, the purpose of this is so that if the owners
in the property or the people who are in the property have a right to
know what's going on and have a right to know whether they can do
this or do that.
You have two situations here in which there are two
owner/developers working on it, and again this situation where a
neighborhood information meeting is going to be proper. It is to be
proper within that first year.
What I understood now that by now that had happened. And I
can't understand why this is up at this particular time with that
particular meeting phase. I'm not trying to put anybody out, but we're
trying to realize that these meetings (sic) is to protect the people who
are going to live in the property. We don't need it 21 months from
Page 40
April 19, 2007
now, because basically this is already done and they don't have any
idea of what their rights could be. There is no other meeting. I think
there should have been or should be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein doesn't believe there was
-- the timing of the neighborhood information meeting was
appropriate. Can someone address that issue?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich.
We had the required neighborhood information meeting and then
we got bogged down into some staff review.
We went voluntarily and held another information meeting with
the leadership of Island Walk. So we've had a more recent --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And when was that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Certainly within the last 12 months.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it was not -- the code didn't require
that, but we did have another information meeting with the residents
ofIsland Walk to explain the project. So we did --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thanks. Because I think you
also realize that this situation with that type of capacity is wrong.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not having any. We did that because
they are -- and there still is vacant land all around us, but as far as the
affected neighborhood, we did meet with them again.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was that second meeting
notified? Was there a notice on the second meeting?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Kolflat, that's not required under the
code, but we did talk to the leadership of Island Walk and met with
who they wanted us to meet with to discuss the project.
The original meeting obviously met the code requirements. But
the subsequent meeting, there was no requirement that we advertise it
Page 41
April 19, 2007
in the paper or post a sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I know this is not required for
an neighborhood information meeting --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your mic a little closer,
Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I say no notice is required for a
neighborhood information meeting?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, again, the code required that we have
a neighborhood information meeting, which we did 21 months ago.
All the requirements were met for that neighborhood information
meeting. The code doesn't require that you have a more current one.
We voluntarily had a more current meeting with the leadership of
Island Walk, since that was the community that's immediately
adjacent to the project. That voluntary meeting we did not put an ad
in the paper and did not mail out notice.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, I'd just like to add in
regards to Mr. Adelstein's comment, we are currently in the process of
amending the LDC to have a mandatory follow-up meeting after --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Within one year.
MR. BELLOWS: After 12 months the petition is still active
from the time the neighborhood information meeting is held, the
second one is required, and the same notice procedures would be
required. And that will be coming to you in the next round of LDC
amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, this is the third time I've
heard that we're getting it done. We're talking about four years away.
And we're still talking about we're trying to get it done.
The purpose of this is to help the people. I can't conceive of why
we're not doing it. I'm not -- and if they had to do it, they would have
Page 42
April 19, 2007
done it properly. They're that type of group.
But the answer is the people who needed the help didn't get any.
And I think it's time that the county got around to saying from now on
it will be one year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what -- they're doing that. We're
going to get an LDC amendment to address that this year, I believe.
MR. BELLOWS: And furthermore, I'd just like to point out that
staff has been instructed if the request had been significantly altered
from the time the neighborhood information meeting was held, we
would have made them hold another one. But since it was not a
significant change during that review time period, the only thing we
can do is have them recommend that they hold another one, which
they did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Sir, what is this project
planning to do to address the affordable housing needs of this county?
MR. PRITT: We do not have a provision for affordable housing
in this application. As I indicated to you, the price points that we have
are fairly close to what we believe the price points are going to be for
certain aspects of affordable housing.
We're not asking for any increases in density over and above the
normal density, the density that's allowed. We think that the
marketplace is going to put this pretty close to -- and I don't know
what the marketplace -- I don't know what the affordable housing
numbers -- how -- whether or not they're going to fluctuate with the
market. But the market is taking care of a good bit of that concern,
and the price points -- the market that they are in is very close to what
we perceive to be the thresholds.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you going to make any
voluntary donation to the affordable housing trust fund?
MR. PRITT: We did not -- we have not made a provision for
Page 43
April 19, 2007
doing that. That's something that I'd have to take up with my client.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you go to table one on
your PUD, which is the residential development standards? And do
you have a problem -- under multi-family for the distance between
structures, could you make that just greater than 20 feet? I'm just
trying to save you a building code problem. And the 15 feet, I think
that might be smarter to be greater than 20 feet also.
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, what page are you on?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's Page 10.
MR. PRITT: I'm looking at the marked copy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table one. Multi-family, down
towards the bottom of the table. And again, you can use the greater
than symbol. It could be 20 feet, one millimeter, but it just saves you
a building code issue that is becoming a problem. You don't have to
do that, but I would --
MR. PRITT: Do we have -- or at least, will that work? That's
what it means.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, 20 feet's a problem.
Twenty feet one millimeter is not a problem in one area. You don't
have to do it, I'm just -- it's an advice more than a request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer is an architect, and he runs
into these little problems every time a job is designed, so he's trying to
advise you ahead of time, you might want to --
MR. PRITT: I certainly understand that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is
that while it's not listed, is the fiber optics building an essential
service? And why is it isolated to have a minimum of 1,000 square
feet? It's in the minimum floor area.
MR. PRITT: It's in the current PUD, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is an entry in your table on the
Page 44
April 19, 2007
table page than says 1,000 square feet for fiber optics building. And I
think the question is why do you have that in here? What's that got to
do with the multi-family use?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm assuming it's an
essential service to be allowed in this chart anyway.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll address that. That actually should be
deleted. If you will recall, there was an additional five or 10 acres that
was within the PUD submittal. We were also acquiring -- is it
Comcast? We were acquiring a Comcast parcel; that's one of the
notches that Bob took you through. That fell out of contract. So we
deleted that property from the PUD application, but didn't catch that in
the table. So that should come out of the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is staff making notes of these so
we haven't got to stipulate every single one of these corrections,
because this table has -- there's going to be probably quite more
discussion.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, Kay and I both making these notes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question concerning
the requirements for native vegetation preservation. According to the
current PUD, you have to have 32.32 acres; am I correct? I'd like to
tell you what page it is in this PUD; however, all pages are listed as
19 so--
,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the table that we just spoke about,
couple of paragraphs up, the table is new Item B, former Item D. It
says, natural habitat preserve area requirements. So it's probably the
next page after the table.
Formally the minimum was 27.44, and the current is 32.51,
according to the document that we've been issued. Who knows if it's
Page 45
April 19, 2007
the right one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, there are several
different.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you reading from where it says
revised 3/31/07 at the bottom?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My reading was from the strike-through
version. And I'm just looking at the non-strike-through version, and
they're both here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 11.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it would be Page 11 of the
non-strike-through version. Up on the top it says the minimum of
32.51 acres, and I think that was the question. The former document
required 27.44 acres.
MR. PRITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know who -- is the writer of this
document here today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Strike-through, or the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there seems to be a little bit of
confusion on how these -- to get to our answers here today, and I'm
just curious if the author's here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, let me get to my question
here, then maybe --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the old document says 27 some
odd, all right. And because we're adding 20 additional acres, we're
now up to 32. But staff report on Page 4 says 32.32 acres, but it really
should be 32.51; is that correct? That's on Page 11 of your PUD. The
new PUD. I just want to --
MS. DESELEM: If I may jump in. For the record, Kay
Deselem.
Page 46
April 19, 2007
I don't prepare the strike-through underlined. That's submitted by
the applicant. Staff and the applicant work hand-in-hand to prepare
the actual PUD document. And that's where you're talking about there
is a difference between 32.51 and 32.32 in the natural habitat preserve
area?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MS. DESELEM: And I'm not exactly certain at this point which
is the correct one, but I will verify that and make sure that the PUD
document that goes to the board has the correct number.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, let's go with 32.51.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, we don't need to defer that to the
board. It simply can -- I think it's pretty easy. 32.51's in the PUD.
That's the most restrictive of the two. And I don't know why we
wouldn't want to just fall back on that one.
And I'm a little dismayed that no one here seems to understand
their own PUD, and that when I asked the question who the author
was, they all pointed to you and you're not, so --
MS. DESELEM: Well, I -- they start with it and they provide it
to staff to review. Staff reviews it hand-in-hand with the applicant, the
actual PUD document, because it becomes attached to the county's
ordinance -- quote, unquote, the county's ordinance. But we do work
together, and hopefully we get most of the glitches taken care of. So
ifthere's blame to be passed, I guess I would take that. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not blame, Kay, it's clarification.
Because there's a lot more questions coming up on this document that
are going to need to be answered by someone who knows the
document.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we prepared the
strike-throughs. I didn't read the -- I thought there was an
inconsistency between the strike-through and the clean. What it was,
it was an inconsistent between the staff report and the strike-through.
The strike-through was correct. We prepared that number, 32.51. So
Page 47
April 19, 2007
the strike-through and the clean version of the PUD both say 32.51.
The staff report says 32.32.
So the answer is we're familiar with the PUD document, both the
clean and the strike-through. I didn't realize there was an
inconsistency between the staff report and the PUD. The PUD is
correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Your strike-through says 3.2.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The one I have says 25.1.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, maybe I've just got
the 87th strike-through or something. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the record, 32.51 is the
number that we will be going with here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I'm trying to go to.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead. You can start on the
table and then we'll go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Pritt, I guess you're not the
author, but you'll end up dealing with it.
You said that you'd reduce this from three stories to two stories,
and that seemed to be a benefit to the people in the project next door.
And do you know what the change was when you went from three
stories to two stories? It was only four feet?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were those people made aware that
when you dropped from three to two stories you're only dropping four
feet?
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, I didn't handle those meeting.
MS. SOKOLOW: Hi. Linda Sokolov, Prime Home Builders.
Yes, when we met with Island Walk, we gave them renderings of
all of our product types so they could see what we would be building
next to them.
Page 48
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because I had found a discussion
in your old PUD that there was a setback requirement for any
three-story buildings from the Island Walk people. And it was voided
out by going to two stories, although they didn't gain anything except
four feet reduction in height. And I'm just wondering if that was
explained to them. And if you say it was, I will accept that. I just
thought that was pretty interesting that they didn't have the same
concern.
On your table -- and I am going to be using the strike-out version
of the table -- your two-family and duplex had a side yard separation
of zero and 12 feet. Now it's zero and six foot, or both. Six feet and
zero, and 7.5 feet or both 7.5. And I'm trying to understand what that
means. Are you saying you can have a six footprint separation
between buildings or you're still at the 12 feet?
MR. PRITT: I think this is a Mr. Hoover issue.
MS. SOKOLOV: The six feet is for the single family. And for
the multi-family, it's seven and a half to 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under two-family and duplex it
says zero and six feet for your one-story side yard setback, or six feet
for both. So if you go zero on one side -- because the prior document
said zero and 12 feet. So you're reducing your setbacks per building
by 50 percent?
MR. PRITT: Yeah. Zero six or above six feet, right. Yes. And
that's for the two-family and duplex.
MS. SOKOLOV: Right, but there's no product time with a
two- family or duplex. I'm not sure which portion it would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, zero and six we've
approved before. I just wanted to understand what you were doing.
You have a note that says, lake setbacks are measured from the
control elevation established for the lake.
I'm concerned that since you have a 20- foot lake setback, you
also have a lake maintenance easement that has to be 20 feet. Now,
Page 49
April 19, 2007
that usually is a line on a plat. Sometimes that line will vary from the
control elevation, depending on the accuracy of the cut of that lake.
The language we usually see is that the setbacks are -- the setbacks are
measured from the maintenance easement, or to -- some language to
the effect that there will be no building in the maintenance easement.
And I just want to make sure that by the control elevation we're
not having buildings go into that maintenance easement. Is there any
-- you guys thought of that at all or --
MR. UNDERHILL: Well-- Dave Underhill with Banks
Engineering.
Your codes preclude putting buildings in easements. And
including when you get an approval from the county at the SDP level
or anything else, there's a note and a condition that you're required to
place on your drawings that says that any approval you get doesn't
make it okay to put structures in easements of record.
So whether it -- I mean, that provision is covered by all the
county rules enforced by your staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you're aware of it. I just
wanted to make sure your intent wasn't trying to get closer to that that
would intrude on that easement.
The crossed out version used to have an open space requirement,
a minimum of 60 percent open space as described by Land
Development Code.
Ray, was that crossed out because it's redundant?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Under your utility section, 5.7, you're reserving some area for a
40 by 40 foot well easement. Are those being utilized -- is that area
being credited against your impact fees? Well, we have a new
ordinance, or new law in the legislature that requires compensation for
takings of -- or whatever, I'm not sure the specifics of the law. But I'm
just wondering if this is going to require you to obtain impact fee
Page 50
April 19, 2007
credits from the utilities for that set-aside.
MS. SOKOLOV: I don't think we took that into consideration
when planning for this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you take it in consideration when
you had to set aside a park area within your property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Since some of it is on Mr. Hoover's
property. Did we take it into consideration? Sure. Are we allowed to
get impact fee credits for either one of those two? No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Parks and recreation is requiring
you to put a community playground there, and I think that's a fine
thing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's become standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I'm assuming that they must
have told you then that that playground will be calculated into their
park needs in their AUIR, so they're not going to double dip to the
taxpayers and say they don't have enough park space and they need
more. I just wanted to make that comment. Hopefully someone's
listening who's paying attention to this meeting.
On the last page of your PUD, you talk about three items. I
wanted to make sure they're not deviations. Item G, all principal
structures shall have a minimum setback of 25 feet from the boundary
any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall
have a minimum of 10- foot setback.
Is that any different than what the code requires? I see a lot of
head-shaking, so I guess --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The engineer is shaking his head no, that
that's not a deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you need it there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, you know, I know this is an
explanation, not an excuse. This has been in the system for a while.
Environmental staff now knows that we're supposed to delete
redundant information. This one's finishing up the process under the
Page 51
April 19, 2007
old stuff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just made a comment about a prior
paragraph that was deleted for redundancy, as acknowledged by Ray.
I was just wondering why we couldn't delete G as well. Do you see a
-- would that bother you guys?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have an objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any objection to
deleting G, H and I? They're all -- one says you have to have state,
federal permits, which I'm sure you've got to have. The other one says
you're going to take out exotic plants, which you've got to do anyway,
so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have an objection to that. I'm
assuming Bob doesn't either.
MR. PRITT: No, we have no objection to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last thing I have to talk
about is transportation. And Bill, did you do the TIS, or -- yes, well,
prepared by William L. Hoover.
MR. HOOVER: A long time ago. I think it was done a couple
years ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this one was signed on 3/21/05.
And in it you seem to acknowledge that this project is going to have
an increased impact on two road lengths that are currently operating at
a level of service F. 951 from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee,
and Vanderbilt Beach Road from 951 to Livingston. I can read the
paragraph, if you'd like.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. On Vanderbilt Beach Road, what links
were they?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's under construction from
Collier Boulevard/951 to Livingston.
MR. HOOVER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's still two lanes. They're working
on going to six.
Page 52
April 19, 2007
MR. HOOVER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 951, which is Collier, from--
actually, it's from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road.
MR. HOOVER: That sounds correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your report acknowledged they're both
operating at level of service F. And that they won't be operating at an
acceptable level until they're completed.
Do you have any objection, or does the applicant have any
objection, to limiting the permitting for these additional units? I know
that you have a project that has certain elements already in the system,
but these additional units are not in the system. And I'm asking that
would you limit the additional units permitting until those road
segments are completed?
MR. PRITT: Collier/951 is coming along pretty well.
Vanderbilt Beach is a little bit slow. Let me just check with my client
on that. We have had a discussion on that, but I just want to make
sure that -- before I say that we would not have a problem with that,
that we don't, okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think it affects -- well, the 20
-- I think it affects the 20 acres, so it would be 80 acres of that 20 until
those roads were completed.
MR. PRITT: We do have some concerns about the pace of
Vanderbilt Road, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's my concern. Well, I'm
asking you the question, sir, so --
MR. PRITT: Thank you. That's a very good question, how's
that? Hang on a second.
Does anybody know the estimated time for that road to be
completed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you ask Nick, he'll tell you
something. But whether that means a lot right now, I'm not sure.
MR. PRITT: And is it that company that did the Pelican Landing
Page 53
April 19, 2007
roadway, U.S. 41 and Bonita Springs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
MR. PRITT: That gives me some comfort.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
It's anticipated in the second quarter, 2008.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second quarter, 2008. Is that for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Substantial completion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other one is going to be at 951?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say early 2009, at Collier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Those best guess efforts are
beneficial.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, your question, does that have to do
with when we -- the time for getting the COs, if we could -- we don't
want to have to wait until then to start, but we'd like to be able to start.
And we understand if we can't get the COs until the second quarter of
2008 we could live with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, it's for issuance ofa building
permit. Construction traffic on that road in which I drive every day I
can tell you is not pleasant. And construction traffic on 951 for people
like Mr. Midney and others coming in is not pleasant. And whether
it's construction or homes -- and sometimes construction's probably
more intense than the homes are.
MR. PRITT: So the bottom line is we could not begin
construction until -- what about site planning and site work?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm focusing on building permits.
MR. PRITT: If that's the case, we can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You would agree to that?
MR. PRITT: -- live with that.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the building permits would be held
on the additional 20- acre parcel until such time that those two road
Page 54
April 19, 2007
segments were completed.
MR. PRITT: Yes.
Yes, the 80 units for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no, we're talking the 20 acres of
that. We're not talking 80 units in the PUD, because there's numerous
people there that own that PUD. We're talking this 20 acres that's
under application here today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is the 80 units?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 20 acres your here today
about.
MR. PRITT: Right. And that's all that this applies to, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. PRITT: Okay, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Ms.
Student?
MR. PRITT: I thought Rich was going to hurt me coming over
my shoulder.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I would just like clarification
between the environmental conditions, specifically paragraph five and
9-F, again with preserve acreage. And my copy, it's got the 32.32, and
it doesn't match up with the 32.51 in 3.4(B)(1) that I believe we talked
about. And I'd just like clarification. Is that also supposed to be
32.51 ?
And it talks about a remaining required preserve area of 1.52
acres. I'm not sure if that really is 1.51, since -- I don't know if that
number is off, too. So I'd like some clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, what document are you
reading from?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm reading from a clean document
with a revision date of 3/30/07.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have so many documents on
this one.
Page 55
April 19, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to the question is -- I spoke
to Kay. The correct number throughout the PUD should be 32.51.
Somehow when she did the clean document, the 32.32 got in there.
She's aware of that. We caught it and that will be corrected.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't
something else we were talking about. That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just wanted to follow through
with -- the second part of your question then is answered by the one
point --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it still could be 1.52. That
could still be correct. You just have the preserve area that they had
before this --
COMMISSIONER CARON: We need to get an answer.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- less than that. So I don't know if
1.52 was correct or if it should be 1.51.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone want to address the question
of Marjorie Student?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It could be either, because it just
depends on what the base -- the amount was before this addition. So
1.52 may very well be correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll look at the EAC staff report and
come back with that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll you're going to come back and
we're done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, you're going to have a staff
report. But if you'll give us a moment to look at the EAC staff report
so we can help Kay and make sure we all are on the same page --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will be fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- without trying to figure out the math
number right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Page 56
April 19, 2007
Are there any other questions of the applicant before we hear
from staff?
(No response.)
MR. PRITT: As you can see, this is a collaborative effort, two
property owners trying to put something together that makes sense.
And hopefully we can get all these questions answered and get
everybody on the same page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to tell you, this cooperative
effort's been one of the most confusing, I give you granted for that.
MR. PRITT: It's a lot easier if you have one nice big square
parcel and only one principal to deal with. But it's been a tremendous
amount of cooperation to get here. And we'll just make sure this gets
straightened out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, are you prepared to provide a staff
report at this time?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again, for the record, Kay
Deselem; I'm a principal planner with the department of zoning and
land development review, in community development and
environmental services.
And I do apologize for the confusion on the numbers on the
preserve. Apparently we're taking some things from the EAC staff
report, and from that it changes in the PUD document. The EAC staff
report shows a 32.32 acre, but yet they reviewed this PUD and I don't
know why there is a discrepancy.
But as I stated earlier, I will get to the bottom of it and make sure
that the numbers that go to the board are the correct numbers. I'll get
with the applicant and environmental staff to make sure we're on the
same page.
And going back to the staff report, I won't belabor the issues,
because you have had a lengthy presentation, and you know what the
Page 57
April 19,2007
petitioner is requesting and you know what the surrounding zoning
and land uses are.
There is an extensive Growth Management Plan consistency
review that goes over not only the FLUE but several policies
specifically noted that they're in. Talks about the transportation
element. And then it goes on with an analysis of the environmental
review and again hits on transportation review and goes into the
. .
ZOnIng reVIew.
Staff, believing that this project is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan in all aspects, both the coastal construction element,
the FLUE and the transportation element.
And we have the petitioner seeking one deviation from a sign
requirement. This is addressed in his staff report. And as noted in the
staff report, this same deviation was requested and approved for
Carolina Village, which is adjacent to this tract.
Staff believes that the applicant has provided sufficient
information that we can support this petition and this particular
deviation specifically.
And we have included the Environmental Advisory Council
recommendation and we are recommending that this particular
petition be recommended for approval and we will make the changes
to the PUD document noted with the additional language to be
removed that is determined to be redundant; that being those portions
of the environmental section. And as I stated, I will clarify the
environmental numbers as well.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
Page 58
April 19, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any last comments by the
applicant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just to try to clarify the numbers. The
EIS that was prepared says that the required native vegetation is 32.32.
The PUD master plan says it's 32.32. So that apparently is the correct
number, not the 32.51. So how that happened, I don't know, because
it's inconsistent with the PUD document.
So what we would request is that it be 32.32 subject to
verification by environmental staff to make sure we have the right
number. And hopefully that will clarify that issue. Because we have
to meet the 25 percent number anyway. I don't think the PUD
necessarily should even get into that fine a point, but it's how we do
things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any comments from anybody on
that?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This transportation issue
bothered me. Did you -- were you satisfied, Mark, on that explanation
as far as the road level of service?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And the reason -- we have an
existing PUD that has certain density already allocated to it that has
rights based on what they already have. But when they agreed to not
require -- not get building permits until the roads were completed for
the new density, that certainly meets I think the best we could do in
regards to that issue.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments,
questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern I have with the
permits is that we're going to get a new building code coming out
Page 59
April 19, 2007
that's scheduled for October, '08. So that could really screw these
guys up. The last version really messed up multi-housing with
sprinklers. So what would happen -- I mean, obviously they can go
and apply for a permit and it can sit on the counter, but there's things
in the building code that would cause that to expire automatically over
180 days, there's two 90 days. I mean, how do we allow them to go in
under our code now and then if a road gets delayed doesn't throw them
out of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you saying that any building
changes in the future would be detrimental to the public welfare? I
mean, because if you are then why would we -- why should we worry
about something beneficial to the public and changes the building
permit technique and operations over time if it's helpful? I don't
understand what you're --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but it's not just good
intent. It's sometimes clumsy coding, clumsy wording, too. I mean, I
can answer your question that of course not.
But the concern I have is that is there a way we can put into this
that they can go in for their permits, they can get their plan review,
they can get their approvals, but they will not expire?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, all I'm trying to say is they cannot
have the -- the building permit should not be issued. They've agreed it
wouldn't be issued until the completion of those two road segments.
And I think for the protection of the public that's first and foremost.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second level of protection for the public
is if there are any code changes, I can't imagine our legislature putting
code changes in effect that aren't there to protect the public. So even if
they get caught up in new code changes, that again is a better
protection, not a worse protection for the public.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a hard point to argue. It's
not the legislator that's writing the codes. But the concern is that
Page 60
April 19, 2007
things are different. It's not a matter of safety, one's safer than the
other one. Each new addition of the code is not necessarily safer, it's
just different in the way we do things. The base codes are going to be
the same. This one won't be as big a jump as the last one, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to -- I don't see the
need to change it in regards to the timing of the building permit. I
think if they are -- as close as it is, by the time you get design, go
through the building review, the SDPs, it's going to be close to the
time these roads are done anyway. I'm not sure we're gaining much
by the debate on the issues, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only fear I have is they
could lose -- you know, they're going to go to another code. And if
that road's a little later based on when the permit will expire, they'll
have to revise it to the new code then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's development.
Any other comments, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, did you have anything to add?
MR. PRITT: No, I had nothing else. We thank you for your
consideration. We apologize for any discrepancies that we have in the
different drafts.
It's been very interesting going to the new process of -- just
editorially I'll say going to the new process of drafting these PUDs.
And frankly, I like it. I'm not sure I like how we did it this time, but I
think it's a very good process, and I think it's going to work out very
well in the long run.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion. Don't all jump at once.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to
approve with the conditions -- Ray, I believe you kept track of all the
Page 61
April 19, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- changes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion to recommend
approval by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion.
For discussion, there were some stipulations that we talked about.
I'd like to run them by the motion maker and the second.
Number one, I think you touched on it, that the changes as we
discussed to the PUD would be implemented.
Number two, that we'd be subject -- it would be subject to staff
recommendations, including the recommendation for approval of the
deviation.
Number three, they would limit the issuance of building permits
for the new units involved on the 20 acres that are part of this
application until the completion of the Collier Boulevard between
Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road, and Vanderbilt Beach
Road between Collier Boulevard and Livingston Road.
And four, that the -- that they will provide a verification of the
preserve area through environmental staff prior to this getting to the
Board of County Commissioners in regards to the discrepancy of the
acreages involved.
Those are the notes I made. Does anybody have anything that
they want to add for that before we go into --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As far as the road, it will be
substantial completion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Usable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that an easy milestone to
define, or is it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All our contracts have a substantial
Page 62
Apri119,2007
completion clause to it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm fine with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker and the second
accept those conditions?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made, stipulations
been added. They've been accepted.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-1, Mr. Midney
opposmg.
Okay, thank you all.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question of staff.
Item #9
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get into old business.
Page 63
April 19, 2007
The first thing on old business is another item, so then we'll get
into yours.
And Ray, this one is a discussion to clarify how staff determines
when the maximum size limits for each type of sign has been met, as
required by Section 5.06.03. And this was a discussion brought up by
Mr. Kolflat to Melissa Zone and Diane -- I can't even say her last
name -- last meeting.
Everybody forgot about it, didn't --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, she was supposed to be here. And she
promised me she'd be here. She has a power point she prepared.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Well, looks like we'll continue
that item till our next meeting then. So please, could you ask staff to
add it to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I prepared a little write-up on a
memo with a question I had had with the staff. Am I entitled to
circulate that amongst the other commission members, or do you want
to wait till we have the hearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it -- if it's something that's
lengthy, something to read in advance of the other meeting, it might
be helpful then. But as long as you leave a copy with the court
reporter, I think that's the only thing we need to be concerned about.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a copy for everyone here
today, if you want me to distribute it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, any objection from you?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, as long as the court reporter
has a copy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Feel free to distribute it, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Send it down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Adelstein, you had something
you wanted to discuss?
Page 64
April 19, 2007
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't see all the people
sitting in the back right now. But I'll give it to them anyhow.
Gentlemen, are we going to be able to find out when this
neighborhood information meeting thing is going to be over and we'll
be able to actually put it into position where we can do some good?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, I think they said it's in
the LDC amendment. Are you looking for a date for those
amendments to come forward then?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm looking for -- we had that
date two years ago it was supposed to be up. This has been going on
for four years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: I personally sponsored the language that's in
this cycle. I don't recall us making a commitment prior to this cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either.
MR. SCHMITT: That was in the last cycle.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It was in the last cycle.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, it was in the last cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the court reporter, that
wasn't on the record, so Ray's going to be responding.
MR. BELLOWS: Evidently this petition was submitted prior to
the LDC amendment that I guess was adopted in the last cycle. And
therefore they weren't required to meet that condition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they did anyway.
MR. BELLOWS: They did anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Mr.
Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It means, though, that at the
next meeting when this comes up, are we going to be able to say it's a
one-year --
MR. BELLOWS: That is in effect now.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's all I wanted to
Page 65
April 19, 2007
make sure of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray.
Are there any other old business?
(No response.)
Item #10
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there any new
business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public comment; it doesn't seem
like that's going to be relevant right now.
And that's -- is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff had his hand up first, he
motioned to adjournment.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is adjourned.
Thank you, Cherie', thank you Kady. And we will see you all in
two weeks.
Page 66
April 19, 2007
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :54 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 67
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
C ONTY. MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
;sTNAME-FIRST NAME-MI.oDLE NAME . U\i NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
5L\~\~f-€~' 6\:"'8{) - W1H. ,.\ c.OLLI~(WIJ)'t \Jc.).u"'\~)(, (O\.-\u~SSIOlv
:AILlNG ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMmEE ON
'520 i.)6~ PllJr; i.b~t' WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
ITY COUNTY o CITY . COUNTY o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
tv 1\ I'Lee,> tZ1J\~\\)I+ NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
LOLq~ to'Ani
_ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS:
v\~i -~ 200 ) o ELECTIVE .. APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or eiected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members 01 advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
In whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A p.,son holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local oHicer also is prohibited from knowingly voting or. a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained): to the special private gain or loss of a relative: or.
:0 the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes 01 this law, a "relative" includes only the office(s father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this forrnwith the person responsible for recording the min-
utes 01 the meeting, who should incorporate the form in ihe minutes.
"
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
....;;
AI. Jgh you must abstain Irom voting in the situations described -above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. 'However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you Dr at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
You must complete and file this form (belore making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the mioutes. (Continued on other side)
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
:-,1
1
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
f.l ",,,,, '^, ".r-f.t.~
".1\.4;1.... ,').....11:).\-.. 1.,"-
, hereby disclose that on
~ 11',-...1 ,-'('('1
VI"} I. .' ~""'v,.~ .
'-'
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
'< inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
{)f)i,\1Z l)i-'vi~N\Ir: S (::i~ /JM'<8U~L
, by
, which
(b) Ttie measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
t' l'\ ~ \-)\ K.0\~!GJf\\~ (Ol)G ..:J.)/v Sv01).0)- Fof_ ~t ~\\'\'U<\ MJ:'
Date Filed
M~"I(. ~ 7..sr)1
.~ l---/
\
Signatur
'\\
"
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317. A FAILURE\TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSUhc
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MOR~ OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM BB - REV. 1198
"
- PAGE 2