CCPC Minutes 11/15/2007 R
November 15, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, November 15,2007
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
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15,2007, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORlDA:
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 WRlTTEN OR GRAPHIC MA TERlALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRlOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRlTTEN MA TERlALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRlOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARlNG. ALL MATERlAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 4,2007, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - OCTOBER 23-24, 2007, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARlNGS
A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10376, Radio Road Joint Venture, represented by Michael R. Fernandez of
Planning Development Incorporated, is requesting a rezone from Industrial (I) zoning district to the
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Lane Park CPUD to allow
development of a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. The subject property, consisting of
5.27 acres, is located at the northwest corner of Radio Road (CR 856) and Livingston Road (CR 881), in
Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem )
CONTINUED FROM 9/20/07
B. Petition: VA-2007-AR-12005, Eugene and Nancy Zilavy, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire,
of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., request a 4.8-foot rear yard setback Variance for a swimming
pool and an 8.5 foot rear yard setback Variance for a pool screen enclosure. The subject property is located
at 480 Flamingo Avenue, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Subdivision, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss)
1
C. Petition: VA-2007-AR-12129, James and Ruth Kalvin, represented by Antonio Faga, requesting an after-
the-fact square-footage Variance and a separation Variance for an existing guesthouse in the Estates
Zoning District. The 2.52-acre property is located at 5801 Cedar Tree Lane, in Section 20, Township 49
South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss)
D. Petition: CU-2007-AR-11977, Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control Rescue District, represented by Robert
L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use allowed ofthe Estates (E) zoning district
pursuant to Section 2.01.03.G.l.e. of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 6.5" acre (E) zoned site is
proposed for a Safety Service Facility that will be a Fire Station and Administration Building not to
exceed 17,642 square feet. The subject site is located on 6.5 acres in the north east corner of Desoto
Boulevard North and the proposed 22nd Avenue N.E" Golden Gate Estates Unit 72, Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
E. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-10422, Myers Enterprises of Naples, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of
Davidson Engineering., requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) Zoning District to the Commercial (C-4)
Zoning District for a 1.83" acre project to be known as Naples Mazda. The property is located at the
Southwest Corner of Airport Road and J & C Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) COMPANION ITEM TO GMP ITEM CPSS-
2007-1. CONTINUED FROM 1111107
F. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11121, Chestnut Ridge, LLC, represented by William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover
Planning & Development, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, are requesting a
rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Zoning District for
a project to be known as the Chestnut Place MPUD to allow a maximum of 24,000 square feet of
conunercial floor area for retail and/or office uses and a maximum of 6,000 square feet of institutional floor
area for a church and day care use. The subject property, consisting of 6.01" acres, is located at the
Southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, within a Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict of Golden Gate Estates. (Coordinator: Willie Brown)
G. Adoption hearings for 2005 cycle of GMP amendments:
" CP-2005-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden
Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD (GGAMP/FLUM) and MaD Series, to expand "Wilson
Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center", to allow medicaV medical related uses and
professional office uses, for property located at the Southeast comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and I" Street
SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7" acres. (Coordinator: Tom
Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner]
" CP-2005-6, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden
Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD (GGAMPIFLUM) and Map Series. to create the "Golden Gate
Parkway Institutional Subdistrict", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence
Center and the Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on
the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically Tracts 43, 50, 59. and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates,
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3" acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca,
AICP, Principal Planner]
" CP-2005-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use
MaD (FLUM) and MaD Series. to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for
property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to
allow up to 70,000 square feet of lower order retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at
the northwest corner oflmmokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of 8" acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner]
2
" CP-2005-13, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land
Use MaD (FLUM) and MaD Series, to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict" for
property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church-sponsored institutional and residential uses, and
allow non-church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, offering 150 of up to 296
affordable-workforce and market rate housing units to persons involved in providing essential services in
Collier County, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR-95 I), one-half mile north of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, consisting of 69" acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner]
" CPSP-2005-14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use MaD (FLUM) and North Belle Meade
Overlav Map. Dart of the Future Land Use MaD Series. to re-designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 20 properties located within Section 34,
Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 13 and
29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 5 I South, Range 27 East,
consisting of i:283 acres total. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager!
" CPSP-2005-15, Petition requesting an amendment to the Transportation Element (TE). to add new Policies
3.5 and 3.6, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor
Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and
acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors.
[Coordinator: Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director]
" CPSP-2005-16, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map series map titled Collier
County Wellhead Protection Areas. Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks,
AICP, GMP Planning Managerl
" CP-2006-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
(GGAMP). to modifY the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational
Criteria provision, to allow a church as a special exception to locational criteria, for property located on the
south side ofImmokalee Road and ,,300' east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, consisting of2.6" acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner]
H. Comprehensive Planning Department 2007 Small Scale Amendment:
" CPSS-2007-1. Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, requesting a Small Scale Amendment to the Future
Land Use Element's Future Land Use Map and inset Map Activity Center #13 to change the designation of
9.95 " acres from an Urban Industrial District to an Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict (#13); for property located in Section II, Township 49 South, Range 25 East.
[Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner]
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
1I1l5/07CCPC Agenda/RB/sp/mk
3
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome to the
November 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
By the way, good morning, Cherie'. I didn't see you sneak in.
Will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolf1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And we are at 100 percent, since
we have one board member missing.
Item #3
Page 2
November 15,2007
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and our first item to discuss is the
agenda. It will be an interesting discussion.
For all those people who may be here for anything that comes
under item G, which is the adoption hearing for the 2005 Cycle GMP
Amendments, this includes the amendments in Golden Gate area and
all areas that are talked about -- there's one for North Belle Meade,
there's a transportation element, there's some map series changes,
Golden Gate Area Master Plan suggestions -- those items, all of them
under G will not be heard today.
Now, there is a Golden Gate -- a couple Golden Gate issues that
will be heard today that are under regular PUD petitions, but the
adoption hearing items under G will not be heard today and will be --
and in fact we'll ask right now for a continuance. And I believe it was
to the 26th at 1 :OO?
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And David, unless you had
something else you wanted to add to it, I'll just ask for a vote on the
continuance. Do I have a motion --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to continue?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron,
seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to point out, so you understand, we
only have half this room. We'll have the front half. The walls will be
up, but it will still be enough room certainly for the public to attend
and it will be televised.
Page 3
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. SCHMITT: Just make sure you understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that works real fine, there's nothing
wrong with that at all.
Okay, Mr. Kolf1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This is November 26th, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: November 26th, the Monday after
Thanksgiving, will be when we will continue the adoption hearing to
at I :00 in the afternoon in this room.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Now, there's another item on the agenda. It's Item H. It's the
Comprehensive Planning Department 2007 Small-Scale Plan
Amendment that is a companion item to Item E on our regular agenda,
which is the Myers Enterprises of Naples, LLC.
In discussions with staff, it became clear that we need to move
that item ahead of E so that we're hearing them in the proper order for
processing. Is there a motion to move H ahead ofE?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Commissioner Caron,
seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
Discussion?
Page 4
November 15, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, H will be right after D, just
before E.
We have two meetings coming up after Thanksgiving. One on
the 26th, as we previously stated, at 1 :00 in the afternoon in this room.
It will be only for the GMP Amendments. The book for that meeting
was supposed to be -- actually, we should have received it a week ago,
because it was originally scheduled for today. Then it was supposed to
be today. And now I just found out from Mr. Weeks it will be when?
MR. WEEKS: Tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tomorrow. So we're all going to get it
delivered to us?
MR. WEEKS: Tomorrow into midnight. And -- for the record,
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department.
We will deliver them tomorrow either by courier, or if we send
them overnight, they'll not get there, I don't think to you until
Saturday. That would give you either eight or nine days, two
weekends, if you include the holiday weekend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know the more time we have
with it the more help we can provide to you in our review of it, David.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. And I would remind you respectfully
that this is the adoption hearing, so you've seen these amendments
Page 5
November 15,2007
before. Most issues have been vetted, though there are going to be
some changes since transmittal hearings, including those in response
to the ORC Report from the state.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the ORC Report be included in the
packet?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it will.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So as far as the 26th at 1:00,
does anybody know if they will not be here on that date?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum.
On the 28th we have an LDC Cycle 2 meeting. Starts at 8:30 in
the morning and will also be in this room. A lot of issues on that one,
some of which we directed; in particular, the one concerning the non-
compatible uses that we had talked about two weeks ago, most
recently. So that's on the 28th at 8:30.
Does anybody know if they're not going to be here that day?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? So it looks like we'll have a
quorum that day as well.
Okay, last meeting we continued the meeting we were supposed
to have yesterday on the Bert Harris claim for the Cocohatchee, on the
premise that it was going to be brought up for discussion at the BCC
hearing on the 13th. It was not brought up, that I could tell, on the
13th.
Weare not going to continue it again. I would like a date as to
when we can hear it, Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: I can offer two dates right now. January 2nd or
Page 6
November 15,2007
January 11th are two potential dates that this room is open.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, you're making it open by
looking at the daytime agenda?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we look at like an afternoon start
instead of an 8:30 start?
MR. SCHMITT: I asked for the room all day, so basically--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we start at 1:00,2:00 or 3:00
and we go till 7:00 or 8:00?
MR. SCHMITT: That's your prerogative. I'm still under the
direction to bring it to you, and that is my intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd prefer afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, afternoon works? I would like to
-- and we got -- before today's meeting's over, I would like to know
what options we have, if we could start in an afternoon.
MR. SCHMITT: I've got it the -- I asked for this room all day on
the -- I asked for days and they gave me the 2nd and the 11 th right
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't -- I would rather we not
wait that long. I would rather we do it sooner than later. The first
week, second week of December would be fine. I don't want to see us
miss the opportunity to review it. I have myself reviewed some of the
documents. I think there's a lot of input that's needed, and we could
provide it to the BCC. I feel that if we wait till January there's more
likelihood it will somehow come up again for discussion and we might
be sidetracked on it, so --
MR. SCHMITT: So you want dates in December?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. And if we start sometime in the
afternoon and we spill over a little bit into the evening, and even if we
have to go to a second date, I think we can do it in six hours, five or
six hours, but --
Page 7
November 15, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Just so you know, on your calendar I show you
meeting on the 6th and the 20th of December for your regular
meetings, and on the 12th and 13th for LDC hearings, so you're
meeting four times in December. I'll also look for another day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too far, the 12th
and 13th for the LDC hearings, is that Cycle 2?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we start Cycle 2 the week after
Thanksgiving at 8:30 in the morning. And I've read the entire package.
I can't see why we would need more than that one day for it.
MR. SCHMITT: I do not argue that. I believe that's all you need.
And of course you can -- since none of them involve any rezoning
type of action, you can vote to only hear those once.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that means then that we
would have two days already in December that would now open up
that we could possibly schedule this item for; is that --
MR. SCHMITT: Correct. I have you on the 12th at 5:05 in this
room and on the 13th from 8:30 to 1 :00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 13th looks pretty good. Does
that work for Mr. Midney and Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, the 12th, it says on our
latest calendars, 1 :00.
MR. SCHMITT: I know those dates have--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did that change?
MR. SCHMITT: -- changed. Let me check something else.
I still show the 12th. That was changed to a 5:05 hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that was to comply with the requirement
for an evening hearing, if in fact any of the LDC amendments in this
cycle included a land or a rezoning type of activity, something that
impacted rezoning. But it does not.
I don't think we -- we probably will not need that meeting, but if
Page 8
November 15, 2007
we do, I think it's best to hang onto that one and we can -- if we do
meet at 5:05, it's going to be a very short meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at scheduling
the Bert Harris review on the 13th of December at 8:30 in the morning
in this room?
MR. SCHMITT: I will note that as such. And so we'll -- you've
already got the room. It is your number three meeting for LDC. And I
like you agree that you will not need that meeting, so we can just use
the 13th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this meeting is being requested by
the BCC for us to comment.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really don't care if the applicant agrees
to us meeting on the 13th or not or can be here or not. We will
comment with them here or without them here.
MR. SCHMITT: I would concur with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just leave it on the 13th.
MR. SCHMITT: You know, I'm moving on the direction of my
boss and he's moving on the direction of the -- the direction he
received from the Board of County Commissioners, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are we. So that works well for
everyone then.
MR. SCHMITT: And you will then get a -- we will send out to
you at least the most up-to-date SDPs that we have. I think I'm on
about 13 pages of comments already on this most current eighth
submittal.
And -- but that -- the purpose really is not to kind of go over that
SDP, per se. Of course we can answer general questions. The purpose
of this meeting is for you all to look at that, but also make a
recommendation of the board as far as a settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me make it real clear on one
issue that I have found out about. Part of the settlement agreement
Page 9
November 15,2007
talks about measurements of setbacks and heights.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have found that the SDP, even though
repeatedly asked for, has not, through all this time, included any of the
elevations and site -- and footprints and floor plans that are required
with an SDP submittal that developmental services have gone to a
great extreme to have an intake team review.
Well, you don't even have those yet, so those are critical to the
analysis of the interpretation of that settlement agreement. I myself
have gone through it in detail, and I've asked for these documents, as
you all well know. I want whatever effort you have to go through,
those needed to be included to this information of this body, because
to be honest with you, if it doesn't there isn't any way to interpret the
language in that settlement agreement accurately. Because it's
ambiguous the way it's written. It is inconsistent with the way our
code writes such things as well, so --
MR. SCHMITT: Understand. But I'm at the mercy of them
submitting the proper documentation. And I put the word out again
yesterday. Of course that's a month away, a little less than a month
away for that meeting. I would expect that they will have the re-
submittal. And my plan is that when they resubmit, my staff and I are
going to sit with them and go over every comment that we went over
so far so when we come to you we'll at least have a final position as to
where these -- there's three separate SDPs and where we are with these
SDPs.
But again, I'm at the mercy of them submitting to me the
submittals for us to do the reviews.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have, Joe, is that the
settlement agreement basically references these SDPs.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the same time, the county went
to great processing extent and hiring of people to produce this intake
Page 10
November 15,2007
team.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, obviously there's advantages to
having SDP's logged in at a certain date. And the intake team was
supposed to make sure, I thought, part of their job was to make sure
that people weren't falsely logging things in to come in under the wire
for impact fees and other issues. Yet here we have a project that's
logged in through an SDP without some of the minimum requirements
to understand the project's parameters, which are the elevations and
the floor plans.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. And the elevations were reviewed
probably over two years ago, based on the original design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I asked for records on that, and I
got no elevations. So if they were reviewed, they weren't then
submitted for public record.
MR. SCHMITT: They were checked off. And that was back
when Fred was -- and to use a name, I mean, Fred Reischl was part of
the staff. So that's how long this has been going on.
And the settlement agreement, the wording in the settlement
agreement is specific in staying that upon approval of the SDP. So
again, there's nothing that's triggered until those SDP's are approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I want to make sure the
SDP's, which will tell us how the interpretation in the minds of the
developer is of the language in the settlement agreement, are
reviewed. And that's critical. So those elevations are necessary.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to comment that
Mr. Strain is absolutely right. One of the conditions of that settlement
agreement is that the SDP's are approved as currently submitted.
I spoke before the BCC on this particular issue, saying that that
was one of the flaws in this settlement agreement, they do not have a
Page 11
November 15,2007
complete SDP to look at and make a determination with. And to
accept it the way it sits now is just not right. Not good policy.
MR. SCHMITT: And I understand. But the settlement
agreement is predicated on approval of the SDP's. But the board's
approval of the settlement agreement does not necessarily -- is not
contingent upon the SDP's being approved. So I don't want to give you
that impression.
The SDP's are not the trigger. The settlement agreement is the
settlement agreement. The agreements in the settlement agreement are
triggered at SDP approval, which, if you understand what I just said,
are two different things.
So your issue on the 13th, now, you could do whatever you
want, but the 13th I'm just -- again, I'm cautioning you. If! don't have
the submittals and we've not done the review, are we doing this too
soon?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Because what happens is our
recommendations then will go based on our interpretation of the
language in the settlement agreement, regardless of how that PUD
might be submitted. And that's -- hopefully if the BCC likes our
recommendation and that gets locked in, that's what the law will be
instead of what it may be.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine with that. Just so long as you
understand that I'm at the mercy of them resubmitting based on -- and
I have the packet on my desk. I think we're at eight or nine pages of
comments again on that SDP, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, the 13th is to go on. Unless
the BCC comes back to you and tells us not to hear it, we fully intend
to hear it on the 13th.
MR. SCHMITT: Got it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the SDP available to reviewa
Page 12
November 15,2007
down at community development?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, a portion of it. Most of it. There's some
elements missing. The elevation drawings, the additional three floors
that are part of this settlement agreement in transferring density from
the west to the -- the east to the west. We've asked for those elevation
drawings probably at least two weeks ago, but it's going out in our
rejection notice again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the site plan and -- well, we
could go down and look and whatever's not there is not there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think what Joe is saying,
he's preparing some copies for us to review in our packet that we
would get in regard to that, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Save it for us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so much for that.
The next one is, Kay, I under -- did you send out a notice about
Sonoma Oaks?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been questioned about it. What was
that about?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Collier County
Zoning.
They have requested a continuance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From when?
MS. DESELEM: December 6th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not on our today's agenda.
MS. DESELEM: No, not today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't even got the December
6th agenda yet, so we want to continue something that hasn't been
scheduled?
MS. DESELEM: Okay, sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little mixed up on it.
MS. DESELEM: I apologize for the confusion, and I thought
Page 13
November 15, 2007
you were already aware that that one was scheduled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has it been advertised, Ray?
MS. DESELEM: We caught the advertising before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, then there's no problem. Okay.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing something in today's
agenda.
MS. DESELEM: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually you ask for a continuance on
items on the agenda that's current and that's why I couldn't figure out
what the Sonoma Oaks one was.
MS. DESELEM: Sorry for the confusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem at all. Thank you.
Okay, well, we've gotten through the agenda. This might be the
most difficult part of today's meeting.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 2007 REGULAR
MEETING
Approval of minutes for October 4th, 2007 regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein to approve. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 14
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Report, BCC?
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, last Tuesday the Board of County
Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Naples Reserve. That
was approved on the regular agenda by a vote of 5-0. There was a
variance for the homes, the single-family home in Immokalee by Mr.
Silvario (phonetic). That was approved on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, and the Della Rosa rezone was also heard
that day and that was approved on the regular agenda by a 5-0 vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
As far as the Chairman's Report, I have just a couple of things to
note.
The first one, I notice -- and Ray, I want to thank you and your
staff for the new format. It is really nice to read, much better than the
old. And I also appreciate the fact that you've gone through this Cycle
2, which I have here, to include the standard language for
transportation so we can take that even out of the exhibits to the new
Page 15
November 15,2007
PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that again will help our review of
that. So we appreciate the effort you guys have gone through.
MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate the recognition of the work of
staff. Weare trying to improve our procedures, streamline things,
make things convenient for those individuals who are researching
information in the future, that they don't have to go through such
voluminous documents that have redundant conditions that may be
conflicting with other parts. So the more we streamline the better the
quality documents we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just set up my entry into my
next comment. You said research. Research can be made more
difficult or easier, depending on how the documents are presented.
In the cover page to any new PUD or considered PUD that is on
a piece of property that has a history with it, could we on those cover
pages list the history of the ordinances that that property's had? And I
don't mean just PUD's, I mean conditional uses, variances. Because
you can pull them off the zoning maps.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of forcing us to go to the zoning
map, then trying to pull them out of the index, then going to the clerk's
site to pull them out of that site, if you just listed the ordinances or
conditional uses or prior PUD's, even if they were repealed that have a
history on that piece of property, it would give us the ability then to go
to it quickly if we find interest in it.
Is that something you guys can do, or --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we definitely could do it, I just want to
make sure I understand what you mean by cover page. You mean you
want it in the staff report listing on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you actually have -- I would
rather see it on the page of the PUD that's recorded. So anybody in the
Page 16
November 15,2007
future in the public goes in and sees a recorded PUD and they want to
understand how it got there, they could themselves have access to that
information and make their research easier, as well as ours, so --
MR. BELLOWS: We have a master template. That's an easy fix.
I can add that to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be really helpful, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
Item #8A
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-10376
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will finally get into
our advertised public hearings.
The first petition today is PUDZ-2006-AR-10376. It's the Radio
Road Joint Venture, known as the Lane Park CPUD, represented by
Michael Fernandez.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and
be sworn in by the court recorder.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- just to keep it clear, I think I had
discussions on this before the last meeting with either the applicant or
one of his representatives. I honestly don't remember what we could
have talked about, but for some reason I thought I discussed this, and I
just put that on the record, for what it's worth.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I also am in the
same quandary, I don't really recollect whether I had a conversation
with Mr. Fernandez on this.
Do you have a recollection of this?
Page 17
November 15, 2007
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I don't believe we have met on this
particular project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your office did e-mail me a couple
times, trying to get together. Does that mean we probably never did?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe it was in regard to other projects,
but maybe only and perhaps in regard to the issue of disclosure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, that's right, thank you. Chris
Thornton I think is an attorney that your client hired to look into the
issue of ownership, and he had called me about the affidavit that we
have now in front of us today to assure me that no party involved in
this has any partnerships with people in the United States, basically.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. And basically you have --
Marjorie has reviewed that -- county attorney's office has reviewed
that and she can perhaps address that issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we, because that's the
very first thing on -- that's why it was continued from last time.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney.
Yes, we've reviewed it in our office and feel that the disclosures
set forth therein are adequate for the Planning Commission to
determine whether or not there may be any conflict that any particular
member may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, does any --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too had conversation with
Chris Thornton, so that's where my confusion was. So that is what it
was, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez with Planning Development, for the record.
Page 18
November 15,2007
I'm hoping that as you stated earlier, that the most difficult thing
you had to deal with today was your agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may need the speaker a little closer
to you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm hopeful that the most difficult -- you
believe that the most difficult thing you had to do today was the
agenda.
This should be what we believe is a relatively straightforward
PUD. It's an area that had been designated in the Growth Management
Plan for transition to a commercial use. We're providing a PUD that
basically creates that commercial use.
As you read the staff report, you'll see that the proposal actually
reduces the intensity of development on this site, potential density of
development. It reduces the building heights.
The couple of people that did come to the neighborhood
information meeting, when they saw that it was reduced to 35 feet and
three stories and that currently you can do 50 feet, they were very
pleased to see that transition.
Right now I believe staff and we are on the same page. There's
really no outstanding issues that we're aware of.
There's a couple of items I'd like to clarify or correct that's in the
staff report. Probably just typos.
One, on Page 5 of 7 on the paragraph above neighborhood
information meeting, it says that there's a 20-foot setback required for
Radio Road. That's actually 25, and it does state it correctly elsewhere
in the staff report and in the PUD document.
And then on the next page, talking about the first paragraph and
about the neighborhood information meeting, it states there that there
was a commitment for a type B buffer, landscape buffer. That should
be a type D buffer. And that was just iterating what the standard is for
that buffer requirement.
So with those two corrections, I'll be happy to answer any
Page 19
November 15,2007
questions you may have on this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from -- of
the petitioner?
Go ahead, Mr. -- Brad, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Michael, one question.
Into the staff report on -- actually, the PUD, Page 4 of7.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You show a lot coverage of 30
percent. And Exhibit C shows a building area of 15 percent.
Essentially I would imagine that's the same thing they're describing,
right?
MR. FERNANDEZ: What we're showing is that in the master
plan document there's a provision in there, it does allow changes to
that master plan. That was what was requested for us to provide, the
actual data of that particular graphic. As long as we're consistent with
all the other restrictions of the PUD, we're in good shape.
And this particular PUD has a significant amount of drainage
easements, and that's why we have a -- for instance a 50-foot setback
along Livingston Road, that's a drainage easement. It's not going
anywhere. And so we're readily able to make that commitment.
Twenty- five in the front, if you look to the west, we've got a
30-foot area of green space along that edge. So there's significant
buffers in this case that are really part of drainage easements and
landscape buffer requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the answer to the question
is you could build 30 percent of the --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this exhibit just
happens to show 15 percent.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In some of the uses, you're
exempting some uses. Just kind of curious how that list came about.
Page 20
November 15, 2007
Did you just -- I mean, for example, what do you have against the
outbrokers and home decorations?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The restrictions are from the Growth
Management Plan. When the Growth Management Plan was adopted,
there was a list of prohibited uses, and we basically just incorporated
those into the PUD, as would be required.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. That's all for now.
That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on the first page of the
staff report, the latest staff report, there's an item number 31 is used --
mentioned several times. What is that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that's one that was corrected. And
that there had been a redundancy, and that redundancy was taken out
of the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But should those be identified as
13 rather than 31? See, it references both 13 and 31 there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, I'm not following your comment.
Could you repeat that?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it's in the first page of the
staff report and it's under project status, and it's in the fourth
paragraph.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And it references use 31. And
31, according to the list, is personal services with 5,000 square feet or
less of floor area in the principal structure group seven to 11 and so
forth.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, Kay brought it to my attention.
Thirty-one previously was a redundancy. That's been removed so now
it's correct. And the 31 that's referenced in the staff report no longer
exists in the document.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So those should be deleted then,
Page 21
November 15,2007
the 31 ?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, in the document it has been. That
item number 31 has disappeared and everything moved up as far as
the numbering.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of your staff report addendum, Mr.
Kolflat, should have had some insertion pages that changed the PUD
to make the correction that was referenced on that first page.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, I have a few.
Exhibit B, your table one. Maximum number of stories, you say
three stories.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yet in the NIM, I believe it said 35 feet,
from what the staff report said. Three stories doesn't give you a
footage height, and I'd like to know what your zoned and actual height
are intended to be.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that the document now states that
it's -- the zoned height is 35 feet and the maximum height is 50.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll have to ask Kay when she
comes up, because I didn't get an update on that. Maybe there was
one, but I haven't gotten that.
Okay, on number 43 -- and I guess this may be more of a
question for the county attorney. Of the uses that you list, the last line
references to uses that are purely associated with activities conducted
in an office. I'm not sure what purely is. I mean, an office can have all
kinds of activities, and I'm not -- I don't know if that's an appropriate
word for a description in regarding trying to determine if something
can be used as a comparable use or not.
Page 22
November 15, 2007
Ms. Student, do you have -- I remember I mentioned this to you.
Is that -- did you take a look at that since we talked?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just quickly. I didn't have a chance
to chat with Mr. Fernandez on this point.
But I don't know if solely or just maybe take that out and just say
associated with activities conducted in an office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think if you go back to the
language in the GMP, it says 44 is any other commercial use or
professional services which are comparable in nature with the
foregoing uses, including those that exclusively serve the
administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business,
and are -- this one says purely, too. All right, I just --
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's where the text came from. It's a
direct -- it's an exact extraction from the prior approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- the word purely concerns me.
I mean, I hadn't noticed it before. I'm questioning it now. I guess if it
was a mistake, for history we can -- it doesn't need to continue that
way.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think if we just say associated
with activities conducted in the office, that that will take care of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It will still have the same meaning.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no exception to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 44 says, any of the foregoing
uses that are subject to a gross floor area limitation shall be permitted
by right without the maximum floor area limitation, if the use is
developed as an individual structure that is part of a shopping center.
So that means you could have one 50,000 square foot building.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, I believe there's a definition for
shopping center that would preclude that. The definition for shopping
center requires a minimum number of tenants.
Page 23
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know what that is?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe it's eight tenants.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe, Kay, when we talk with Kay,
she can confirm that there is a definition that references the number of
tenants a shopping center must have? Does staff have that
information?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll double check, but that is my recollection,
too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a definition in the LDC. It's eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's safe?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight, okay, thank you.
Now, I noticed that you used the shopping center category for
your traffic calculations.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly I have a question with
transportation staff about that.
We have an LDC amendment coming up next week -- two
weeks from now that Mr. Klatzkow originated concerning non-
compatible uses, and it's pretty general language. I have it here in our
LDC booklet. And I noticed the BCC discussed this at their meeting
on Tuesday.
I thought it was a good idea when I heard the discussion, so I
thought I'd bring it up again here. Although I don't think they
prevailed in getting it added to a PUD. I certainly think it might be
something that should be considered.
The argument that I heard Mr. Y ovanovich state was that since
it's going to go in the LDC, why would we need to add it to these
PUD's, because the LDC is going to have it. And that's fine and dandy,
if I can expect Mr. Y ovanovich to stand here on the 28th and tell us
that he endorses the language as well, but I know he's going to do just
Page 24
November 15,2007
the opposite.
So I'm wondering, do you have any objection to the non-
compatible language being added to your --
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that text. I'll
be happy to look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do you see any down
side in this language being added into this PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: Good enough for the LDC, good enough for
the PUD, so I have no problem with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you haven't read it yet, so
I'm trying to think about how we could possibly -- I don't have it -- I
have the document.
Okay, Mr. Fernandez, if you want to take a few moments to
review that, we'll ask Kay to do her presentation. We also need to talk
with transportation staff, so we'll get through those points before we
ask you then. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again, for the record my name
is Kay Deselem, and I am a Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
You have received the staff report from the original hearing of
September 20th and you also got a supplemental staff report that
brought you up to date on the two outstanding issues.
The petitioner gave you a brief overview of the project and you
do have the backup information. You've seen the aerial.
Staff is supporting this petition, finding that especially in light of
the fact that there is an actual sub-district specifically for this
particular tract, and the PUD documents have been set up such that
they almost exactly mirror what those requirements are, staff is
recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth
Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of the petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have questions --
Page 25
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- of transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some of transportation, too. Why
don't we -- is there anything of Kay while she's up here?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, just transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Let's get Kay first, then
we'll go into transportation collectively.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's talk about the height issue
that you brought up before, Commissioner Strain.
Is it in fact in the latest documents that the zoned height is 35
feet and the actual height is 50?
MS. DESELEM: I was trying to look at that when you were
asking Mr. Fernandez as well. And it does say on Page 4 that the
maximum zoned height for their two buildings, the retail and the
office, is both 35 feet and the maximum number of stories is three
stories. And it doesn't reference the actual height.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll do that in stipulation.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of Kay?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got a couple.
On Page 2 of your report, it was your original report, you
reference that the number four -- and I need to question you on that. It
says mixed use incorporating residential up to an intensity of 16 units
per acre is permitted and the height can be increased for the mixed use
structures to 45 feet within four stories.
And it says it's not applicable. Why did you put that in there, it's
not applicable to this site, which I expect it isn't. But what does that
have to do with this project, anything?
MS. DESELEM: We were just going through what the
Page 26
November 15,2007
information was regarding that GMP subdistrict and how this
particular project was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, could have had that.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
On number five, it talks about a distance of 256 feet from the
parcel's north property line. Now, I understand it's what it could have
been, but the current transportation documents say 250 feet. I don't
know if that's a big deal, but I wanted to point that out to you. If you
look on the exhibit under -- in the PUD.
MS. DESELEM: That's what transportation is limited to. But it
could have been as much as 256 in the growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The suggestions or the comments that
Mr. Fernandez made about the 20 feet on Radio Road going to 25 and
the type B buffer going to a type D, are you in agreement with that?
MS. DESELEM: I have no issues with that. The only thing is the
information about the neighborhood information meeting, he's talking
about anything that would be adjacent to residential use. So there's
nothing adjacent to this that's residential anyway, so it's a non issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any other questions of Kay?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll talk to transportation. Thank
you, Kay.
Mr. Murray, you're up.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning.
MR. GREEN: Good morning. Mike Green, transportation
planning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. Green.
I'm looking at Transportation's Consultants, Incorporated
memorandum to Michael Fernandez from Mr. Price, and you need -- I
presume are aware of it. And they talk about TS.
Page 27
November 15,2007
By the way, have you got that document?
MR. GREEN : Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, good.
They talked about the TIS comments and speak to the fact that it
would be a significant impact on Radio Road segment west of
Livingston. And it goes on then to say the intersection has been
analyzed for 2006 and not 2011 total traffic. Synchro-analysis shows
the intersection will experience major failure and will require
significant improvements.
And then it goes on to say that after discussions with Mr.
Casalanguida, the conclusion was drawn that the ascribed information
that I just said was excessive or deemed to be abnormally high growth
rate.
Just for the record, I'm looking to verify that transportation -- of
course this is in the document of the submitter, the petitioner. Does
transportation agree that they will not be now, based on what this says,
that there will not be a significant negative impact to that road, Radio
Road segment west of Livingston Road.
MR. GREEN: We agree that there -- the project is consistent
with the volumes available on Radio and Livingston.
We do want to say that there could potentially be operational
impacts on the intersection, and that we want the ability to get
proportionate share from this project in the future when we address
those issues.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted that they go on to say in
furtherance in the memo that the developer has agreed to pay the
project's proportional share, and so that is part of the record now?
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I wanted to confirm.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of transportation?
Ms. Caron?
Page 28
November 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, to that same paragraph
where Mr. Casalanguida and the petitioner agree that the annual
growth rate should be five percent instead of what we normally have,
and I'm sure this is a reaction to the fact that we've had a temporary
slowdown here, but I'm not sure that it's really good policy.
This development, once it's built, is here for a long time and not
just for the short term.
I want to understand the policy that would determine that we
should be using lesser growth rates than we have been using.
MR. GREEN: To speak to that, the growth rates are different all
over the county. This is in a more urban area, and you just can't see
the same growth rate as you do out in the Estates areas.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But has that not always been
factored in?
MR. GREEN: That's always been the factor.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, then why the change for this
particular?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just in time, Nick.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that it's been historically that
when you have a project in the urban area, they look at those growth
rates consistent with what we've provided in this case. In other words,
that number that was agreed upon is the appropriate number for this
location.
Additionally, this is a unique site from the standpoint we're not
rezoning this from an agricultural use or from another passive type use
to commercial. It's actually all currently zoned industrial.
And for instance, one of the examples that we did is we were
able to show staff that we could actually accommodate 96,000 square
feet of office on this site under the current zoning district and
accommodate it, meeting general development standards.
So this is actually -- it's more of a change of use and not an
intensification of use. Now, office use, for instance, would have
Page 29
November 15,2007
different periods of impacts. You know, they would have more
concentrated loads elsewhere as opposed to 50,000 square feet, but it
is double the square footage. But that's, you know, one of the other
considerations about this particular PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I will speak to Mr.
Casalanguida on that issue. I just am curious.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, you all can go
ahead, I'll talk to him at another point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. IfMr. Casalanguida is going to
be coming up -- by the way, when he was first hired someone threw
him in front of us on his first day and I don't think he ever forgot it.
You haven't had a chance to be here before that I know of to a great
extent, so welcome aboard.
MR. GREEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not done yet. It's terrible when
you have to pay for the sins of the person who made the quotation. But
Mr. Casalanguida did say that he's accepting a five percent annual
growth rate. And I -- do you know why he would have said that when
during the AUIR process he demanded a whole pile of money because
the growth rate was not five percent?
MR. GREEN: I cannot speak to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you. We'll come back to
that one in a minute.
On Page 2 of this particular document, it says in the last
paragraph, it is not appropriate to deem proportionate share of
payments at the time of rezoning when sites are being analyzed for,
quote, worst case, unquote, trip generation scenarios.
Now, we have been long told that if you have a laundry list of
uses on your project, that transportation looks at the worst case
scenario in order to determine what the impacts are. Yet every single
time, and I keep bringing this up over and over again, we use the ITE
Page 30
November 15, 2007
standard for Code 820, which is shopping center.
Well, Code 820 has a rate of3.74. That's certainly a lower rate
than what this project could use as example for auto supply stores at
5.98, for food stores at 53.73, at drinking places of 11.54, and at
supermarkets that could go up to 50,000 square feet, although I know
now it can't happen there, of 12.02.
But regardless, you don't use the worst case scenario. So do you
have any reason why things like that are being said here and why you
would accept that and not ask for the worst case scenario, based on
what those standard trip rates are?
MR. GREEN: A lot of those have preset limits to where you
have only maybe, you know, 1,000 square feet, but then they require
25 trips added to them. So it's not just the rate factor. Some of the uses
have much higher pass-by allowances than others.
A number of scenarios were run, and we do typically look at
three or four uses and select the one that generates the highest trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you did get that data.
Is there a reason why we can't see those alternative forms of data
that come to you then when we review it? Because I would have liked
to have seen that you at least looked at other mixes of uses, rather than
using that 820 code that always seem to be used, because it's such a
nice low code.
MR. GREEN: As we move forward, I can make sure that all
those runs are included in the documentation that you get.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This project's small enough, I'm not
concerned about it overall. But it's the philosophy that bothers me.
And I'd certainly like to see those mixes. If you are getting them, that
would be helpful for us to see.
And other than Mr. -- Nick's -- his last name is so hard to say.
But other than Nick's comment on the first page that Ms. Caron
brought up, I'd certainly like to -- that's all I have of you.
Does anybody else have anything of this gentleman?
Page 31
November 15,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. GREEN: One other thing we'd like to ask that it be on the
record is that if operational and safety issues in the future their access
point that's on Radio Road, that the county be held harmless if we
need to close the right out portion of that driveway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your standard language you didn't
cover that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's in the language. No?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some specific language
that you recommend adding? I mean, I heard what you just said, but
do you have any --
MR. GREEN: I do not have specific language, but we can put it
together and forward it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's just -- we have to be very
specific on our stipulations to avoid things that have occurred in the
past.
So the language you're asking to be added to transportation, can
you give me a synopsis we could read into the record at the end?
MR. GREEN: Yes. For safety and operational issues if we need
to close the right out portion of the driveway access to Radio Road,
that the county be held harmless.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: The language should be the county shall
have the absolute right and sole discretion, based on public safety, to
close the right-hand exit onto Radio Road -- right out. We'll work it
out, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to think how to
stipulate it when I've got two different ones coming at us. Okay, thank
you, SIr.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 32
November 15,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
And you know how hard it is to have a good employee working
with you? Be nice to him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the mic, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Please don't scare him away on his
first day at the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't scare you away. You came
back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm a glutton for punishment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, I got you your promotion.
The five percent, Nick. I mean, we listened to you at the AUIR
and all this doom and gloom about growth and how your roads got to
have more money, 600 million or something like that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, some good news at the
AUIR. Our growth rates are moderating a little bit and there were
specific roads that were doing better than other roads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see you giving money back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we're not giving money back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now let's ask about this five percent.
How did you make that determination? How does it tie into the Collier
County traffic count report?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they use the historical growth
rate. And what we looked at was even if you went with a little bit of a
higher growth rate, or less, you aren't going to have a failing link,
you're going to have a an intersection at about 2012,2013 at
operational profits.
Most of the discussions with Mr. Fernandez was paying fair
share. And Ms. Caron asked the question, do you look at fair share at
zoning or do you look at it at site impact? Well, at zoning if you're
going to determine if there's going to be a problem, you're going to
want to require that they contribute that and put that in the specific
language.
Page 33
November 15,2007
When they come for their specific use, then you determine what
that's going to be specifically. And I understand your question about
the land use. I think this petition goes back to even before when it was
originally submitted to -- prior to our new rules. Again, you're going
to get a lot of these that are in that process for about a year or so from
when we changed the TIS guidelines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to use the real growth
rate in lieu of the five percent, would it show that this project should
not be approved for traffic issues today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the -- the growth rate of five percent
is pretty high in this area as well, too. And a lot of that, if you look at
historical, is based on diversion traffic from Airport Road construction
at the time as well, too.
If I was to go to a higher growth rate, it would still be consistent
with 5 .1. You wouldn't have a consistency issue, it would be an
operational issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of Nick on the
issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some other issues today. I
don't know if you were planning to stay or not, but I'm sure that your
substitute wouldn't mind speaking for you, but we have some other
. .
Issues comIng up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem, we'll be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fernandez, have you had time to look over that language?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. And in looking at the language, I
believe it has more to do with residential adjacencies, and we don't
have any residential adjacencies. There's industrial to our north and to
our west, and we have commercial to the east and south.
Page 34
November 15,2007
So my understanding of if you adopt this in the LDC, if we
haven't excluded it, then it will be applicable. So we would just prefer
to allow the board to consider -- finalize our language and if it's
applicable, then it will be applicable.
But in terms of this particular project, there is no residential
adjacency, so I don't think there's really an issue. So no, we would not
want to accept this language in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have residential across the street,
okay? And what I'm concerned about is if you put a -- and you do
have the right to put drinking establishments there. And I can't -- I'm
trying to think of a name of an establishment that we could use as an
example. Maybe one -- maybe a name we can come up with is Stevie
Tomatoes. And you would put it at that corner, and the noise traveled
across the street to those people over there, I would want to make sure
that staff could take a look and see ifthere's any implications there,
that's all.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I can look at -- if we can look at the
aerial for a moment. I think there's a car wash diagonally across. In
other words, the residential some distance away, there's actually a
commercial use, if you're talking about the neighborhood behind that
commercial use?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was talking about Foxfire.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. In the corner there, if you look, I
believe you'll see that there's a car wash, a commercial use actually in
the corner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is a car wash there?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. It's significantly distance from any
residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm thinking that in this particular
instance maybe a mere limitation on where on the site outdoor
entertainment could take place. In other words, I don't think that
Page 35
November 15, 2007
there'd be any objection if it were on the northwest corner up against
the industrial. You know, in fact, it might be the ideal place, and let's
get Stevie Tomatoes to move there and save us all a lot of aggravation.
But perhaps just a limitation on where as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know if that works or not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think I'd rather go
with our soon to be proposed ordinance. I mean, he could put the third
floor outdoor AC/DC lounge up there and blast throughout the
countryside, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's true.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Can I the ask the counsel if they could
opine as far as if it's adopted whether or not it would be applicable?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's one of the questions we had.
This is one of the reasons why I think this would probably be a good
idea to put this into the PUD now rather than have people claim that it
was somehow grandfathered.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, like I said, I don't -- given that we
don't have any residential adjacencies, I'd prefer not to add that
language into the PUD, significantly distance from anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your reasoning is you believe it
doesn't apply to you; is that right?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Given the text, we don't know what the
final text is going to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not dealing with the final
text, we're dealing with the text I showed you today. Because who
knows what the final will be after it gets beat up at a public hearing
and the business community comes out and raises all kinds of heat --
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we really haven't had an opportunity
to review it and have counsel review it for us to make sure that we're
comfortable that there's something in there that's not hidden that we
Page 36
November 15,2007
don't understand. And we'd prefer again not to add it to the PUD. We
don't think it's appropriate. I don't think it's necessary.
We would stipulate that it would -- any language that gets
adopted by the LDC regarding this issue becomes applicable to us.
That would not be a -- that's not something I'd be concerned about, but
I'd like to see it go through the system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, when you brought your
first non-compatible language to us, rightfully so there was concern
that it would be reviewed possibly as some inclusion into property
rights for existing people that had zoning, and now all of a sudden it
would be ambiguous in the manner in which they could be forced
back through the system again. So we suggested that it be vetted out
through the process that you're now going through for the language.
But that was in relationship to PUD's and zoning that didn't have
this language in their documents. So my thinking was that if this
language got into every PUD going forward, regardless of the
outcome of the LDC language, that at least the PUD property users are
on notice that this ability to challenge their use, if it seems disruptive
to the neighborhood, is present. They could no longer claim it was
something that was taken back afterwards, regardless of the outcome
of the Land Development Code.
That philosophy, does that work well in regards to the thinking
of adding this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I like it. I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on the board feel
any issues about this? I mean, this may not even apply to Mr.
Fernandez's situation. What I like about it is if it does, nobody could
claim they were -- this was a surprise to them and it was taking away
something they'd already gotten at a prior hearing. It's part of their
document. And as it goes forward, it will always be. So there's no
question anymore, it's there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, Mark, I don't have a problem
Page 37
November 15,2007
accepting it if it gets approved by the board. As approved by the
board. I've got qualms about taking it on in its current form and that
we don't think it's been appropriately reviewed and considered.
I don't have a problem stipulating that whatever comes forward
from the board would be applicable to us. And I think that's fair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we may improve it,
Mark, as we bring it forward. So he should get the new improved
verSIOn.
But I do think your concern about it -- this site claiming
grandfathering, I think we should eliminate that today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, I think typically
we've put all kinds of stipulations on PUD's as they come forward, and
I don't see this as an issue or a problem, I think we can stipulate as we
see fit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree. And I believe that
if the Board of County Commissioners wishes to eliminate our
stipulation and you're in agreement to it, they can do so. But I would
hope that the petitioner would -- because I'm inclined to vote in that
manner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, Mr. Fernandez, I think you
MR. FERNANDEZ: My concern is just that it hasn't been -- we
haven't had adequate time to review. Again, it's not a matter of--
again, we don't have any problems stipulating too that it would be
applicable to this project. We don't have a problem with it. We just
want to make sure it's vetted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not everything is always vetted. I
mean, PUD's are written by the developer for the developer's needs.
They're customized to the site, as they well should be. They're creative
Page 38
November 15,2007
documents.
So, I mean, I don't think every bit of every PUD's been vetted, as
the LDC language may be. So this may be tailored to this project in
the sense that it's added to it as part of its typical language.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Unfortunately we just -- you know, we
haven't had a chance to review the text in detail and with counsel. If
we had, then we would be happy to maybe comment or accept it,
depending on what our determinations were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. FERNANDEZ: If! could put just one other item on the
board. And again, just to remind the commissioners that this is
industrial zoned property. And I understand your concerns about some
transportation concerns, but it's already permitted to have certain
impacts that would actually potentially be greater through the
development under its current zoning.
This is actually a rezoning that would likely result in less
impacts to the traffic network. And because the stipulations that have
been agreed to in the PUD, you know, you're actually getting
additional restrictions or commitments that if for instance the
operational issues are problematic regarding a fair share of
compensation and then to speaking to the issue of the right-in,
right-out -- or the right-out, we're agreeable to that language. That
language -- or the concept of that language, if we can work out the
actual text.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd just like to get back to
this whole issue of whether we include something about the outdoor
entertainment. And I'll read directly from the GMP in -- specific to
this sub-district.
The purpose of this sub-district is to provide services, including
retail uses to surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel
distance to the subject property. These uses are not an entitlement, nor
Page 39
November 15,2007
is the maximum density for residential uses in a mixed use building.
Such uses and residential density will be further evaluated at the time
of rezoning approval to ensure appropriateness in relation to the
surrounding properties.
So I think we have every right to analyze this for the
appropriateness to the surrounding area and stipulate such.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it, since I
was the one that thought about it as well, so I agree with you.
Any other comments of the applicant before we go into --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I just tend to agree with
both of you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Fernandez. We'll
see ifthere's any public speakers.
Ray, do we have any registered public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any further comments on this
particular issue before we close the public hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: We do have one additional stipulation in the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is? And can I get my book back?
If I lose that, then who knows what could happen.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem again.
I got the actual language that's proposed to address the right-in
only issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to read it into the record?
What we'll probably do is just reference your reading of it, so --
MS. DESELEM: Okay. On written request by Collier County,
developer or his successor in interest at his sole cost shall promptly
relieve -- am I reading correctly -- remove? Sorry, I'm trying to read it.
Reduce the Radio Road access to right-in only, with no claim
whatever against Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the
Page 40
November 15,2007
language?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will close the public
hearing and we will entertain a motion.
Is there a motion from any member of the Planning
Commission?
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that
AR-2007-AR-10373 (sic) be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with staff
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You said 73 or 76?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, the petition that was
advertised was PUDZ-2006-AR-10376, but the petition on the staff
report says PUDZ-2007-AR-10376. Do we know what it is? Since we
might want to get the right one.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agenda references this petition as
PUDZ-2006-AR-10376. The staff report references the petition as
PUDZ-2007-AR-10376. Is it six or--
MS. DESELEM: It should be six, 2006.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Adelstein, your motion is
for PUDZ-2006-AR-1 03 76?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would you mind restating your
motion then, with the exception of that number? We got that right
now.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, I move that AR--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't have to say that. Your
motion was to approve?
Page 41
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2006-AR-10376.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that was a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney with a second.
Now, stipulations and discussion. Notes from the meeting.
Anybody? I know we've gotten -- Ms. Caron, do you have something?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to go over what I
had written down was the outdoor entertainment stipulation; the zoned
height is 35 feet, actual 50; type B to a type D landscape buffer; and
the transportation operational issue of being able to close the right
turn. And there was one other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word purely would be removed
from item 43.
You said something in the beginning, I'd like to make sure it's
clear. You said that -- the outdoor entertainment stipulation. What
exactly were you referring to? Because we talked about a couple of
things, and I want to make sure we get the right one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That we use in this PUD the
language that you submitted to Mr. Fernandez.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the language that has been
issued for review of the LDC Section 10.02.03. And it would be
(A)(5) that we're going to be reviewing next week, and it would be a
five -- the numbers would be A, B, C and D. That language would be
added to this PUD, regardless of its outcome at next week's or week
after's LDC hearing. Is that what you were --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- intending?
And I would agree with that.
Anybody else have any -- Mr. Schmitt?
Page 42
November 15,2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. So what you're saying is even if
something changes next week in language or whatever during the
LDC hearing, that will not impact the language in this PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think we're saying, yes.
Anybody see any differently? No, okay.
Okay, any other stipulations to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is staff clear on the
motion?
MS. DESELEM: May I reiterate to you--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want you to. We don't want any more
unclear motions.
MS. DESELEM: Right. Okay, we're changing the use number
44 to omit the word purely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 43, I'm sorry.
MS. DESELEM: 43?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MS. DESELEM: See, it's a good thing I asked.
And we're adding the noncompatible language about outdoor
entertainment, as reflected in the LDC cycle amendment that you have
for Section 10.02.03(A)(5) and it's A, B, C and D; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Now, that isn't just about
outdoor entertainment, it's just about noncompatible uses.
MS. DESELEM: I just referenced the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MS. DESELEM: -- same title that was -- is there is a date on that
document so we know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Revised 11/6/07.
MS. DESELEM: Revised 11/6/07. Thank you.
And we're adding the transportation condition as I read into the
record?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 43
November 15,2007
MS. DESELEM: And the type D thing was just a correction of
the staff report. It's already correct in the actual PUD documents. So
those are the stipulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the height of --
MS. DESELEM: Actual height of 50 feet, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 35 feet's already in the document.
MS. DESELEM: Okay, I have it, thank you.
Okay, seems clear enough. Everybody fine? All those in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, Kay.
You doing okay, Cherie'?
Item #8B
PETITION: V A-2007-AR-12005
We'll take a break at 10:00, but right now we have a -- we'll go
into another petition, it's Petition V A-2007-AR-12005.
All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court recorder.
John-David, looks like you're the only one up here today. That's
okay, you can speak for the applicant too, I'm sure.
Page 44
November 15,2007
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, did you just
participate in that swearing in by walking in with your hand up in the
air?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I swear to tell the truth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any disclosures on the
part of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich via
telephone on this matter.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I spoke to him also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did, too.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I did, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I mean, do we -- I
requested something from staff. Do I have to disclose that, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I had staff bring the
permit drawings for this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Mr. Yovanovich, it's all
yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, on behalf of Gene and Nancy Zilavy, who are also here
regarding this petition.
Mr. and Mrs. Zilavy purchased the home that's on the visualizer
in May of 200 1. The home was already constructed when they
purchased it. And what you see on the visualizer from the property
appraiser's records is what was there when they bought the property.
The building permit for the home was approved on September
20, 1996, and the C.O. for the home was approved on April 1, 1997.
A C.O. for the pool and pool cage was approved on March 17,
1997.
Page 45
November 15,2007
On June 5th, 2006, the Zilavys were cited by Code Enforcement
for violating the rear setback for the pool and the pool enclosure. This
is more than nine years after the c.o. for the pool and house was
issued and more than five years after they purchased the home.
This is one of several homes in the Vanderbilt Beach area that
have been required to go through this process of getting an
after-the-fact variance for homes that were properly permitted and
C.O.'d by the county.
We tried to find an administrative mechanism to resolve this
issue. Staff I guess correctly stated that they had no administrative
way to resolve this issue, so my client was forced to go through this
petition process.
They were required to pay double the variance fees. The normal
variance is $2,000, they had to pay $4,000 just to get in the door to go
through this process.
I don't mean that as a slight to staff, because staff has actually
been very helpful and worked with us to get here today as quickly and
as inexpensively as possible.
But I do think that that's a little bit of overkill to a property
owner who obviously didn't build the house themselves, they bought
the house in its currently existing condition, yet they were told they
had to pay double the fees.
I find it ironic that not too long ago the Board of County
Commissioners allowed 16 property owners to join up together and
pay one $1,000 fee to get 16 administrative variances, yet everybody
in the Vanderbilt Beach area has had to go by themselves and pay
double the fees.
I hope that something can be done for everybody who's gone
through this process and paid double the fees, and maybe something
could be done for Mr. and Mrs. Zilavy to at least reduce their fee
some.
It's clear that my clients didn't do anything wrong in this
Page 46
November 15,2007
situation. The pool and pool enclosure, if you look, is consistent with
what's next door to us, as far as it lines up.
You have, in your agenda package, I think there's 22 letters of
support from the surrounding neighbors saying that they don't have
any issues with this.
Your staffs recommending approval. Your staff has been very
helpful in getting through this process. We're requesting that the
Planning Commission forward the petition to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. If you need a
more detailed explanation of what's going on, I'll be happy to do that.
But you've seen these types of petitions before, and unless you need
more information, I'll answer any questions you may have regarding
this particular petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, what compelled the
variance petition request? It's been there so long, I was confused as to
why it arose now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there was a -- there had been a lot
of them. I think some prior to your going on the Planning
Commission. And apparently there was an overall general complaint
filed and there was a review ofa lot of properties up in North Naples
area and Vanderbilt Beach that have resulted in several property
owners being cited for violating the pool setback.
What had happened, though, was originally there -- there are two
setbacks for pool enclosures, depending on the elevation of the pool.
In the review of the permits, there was not a requirement to provide
elevations of the pool. So on many homes the wrong setback was
applied. I believe it's a lO-foot setback for pools below, I think, 30
inches and if it's above 30 inches the setback is 20 feet.
There was no review of the elevation, that's why several homes
went through this. Staff has implemented a process now where you
not only give the setback of the pool, you give the elevation of the
Page 47
November 15,2007
pool. And so I don't think there's an issue. There's been processes
implemented to make sure we don't have this situation in the future.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was J.D. Allen the architect of
this house?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, as I understand it, if the
pool deck had been two foot lower, they would be in compliance,
there would be no encroachment; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the report stresses one
correction would be to move the pool back 4.8 feet and the enclosure
8.5 feet. I'm not suggesting this is a viable necessarily solution, but
could the pool deck be lowered two feet and then it would be in
compliance and there would be no encroachment?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming you would have a very
shallow pool; you need stairs to get in and out of the house to the pool
area; the expense to do that, because you would probably need to
come in and get a barge. I don't think that that's a viable solution.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do you know if it was looked at
technically at all?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't do that. We thought that that
was just not -- we thought that that was frankly economic waste to put
a property owner through that, so we didn't go and commission any
studies.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, you mentioned there were
six other variances in the neighborhood during the last 15 years. When
you say neighborhood, how many -- how large a neighborhood was
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you're referring to the staff report,
and I didn't prepare the staff report. It can tell you that I've probably
done three or four in the last two years with the very same factual
scenano.
Page 48
November 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, there's a name mentioned
on the letters that you submitted. Sylvia DeFalco. I didn't see a letter
from her there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sylvia DeFalco is my paralegal.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Her name appeared in all the
letters.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She sent the letters, I believe.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, did she write the letter?
They all have the same verbiage.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We provided some language to the
Zilavys to send around to their neighbors and if their neighbors agreed
with that language, they prepared the response and accepted it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, the letters show 22
signatures and that's what's referred to as the number of letters.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But actually, in going through
it, the residences amounted to 13, since there were two people that
signed for the same residence. So it's actually 13 residences.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thirteen homes, 22 people.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. That's significantly the
ones on either side support it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Correct.
That's all I had, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Who did build the home?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know. I
didn't go back to look at it. I can pull the permit out. I think it's in the
file.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer may have it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer may have it. I know I have it
Page 49
November 15,2007
in here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a fellow named Nicholas
Lagrasta.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. He built a lot of homes up in that
area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Who put in the pool; do you know
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know who the pool contractor
was. It was part of the original home construction. I could dig that out
as well, unless Mr. Schiffer has that handy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
Can you ask another question?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My assistant is thumbing through the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. Suncoast Custom Pools.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the reason that I am asking for
those names to be public record is I'd like the public to know that
these are people who don't do business according to our code. And
they are costing people, like the Zilavys and others, lots of money.
And, you know, I warn everyone not to have a home built by
Mr. Lagrasta or Suncoast Pools, because they don't seem to be able to
follow the rules.
The only other comment that I wanted to make was I had --
when I had my discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich, I have only one
condition that I would like to cite for this home. I have no problem
with this after-the-fact variance. I do, however -- I would, however,
have a problem ifas one of the reasons for getting this after-the-fact
variance is a citing of financial hardship, I don't want to see in another
year or two this family turn around and decide that they can afford to
put a second story on this building without first correcting the pool
setback issue.
So if we can somehow stipulate that in a motion, I personally
have no problem.
Page 50
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron, I understand your
passion for this issue, but I want to make the record real clear, your
comments involving the builder and the pool contractor is not
reflective necessarily of the other members of this or jointly of this
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER CARON: May not be, and please state.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't the right forum maybe for
making those kind of accusations, and I would hope in the future we
can refrain from that. If we disagree with the way the building was
built, that's one thing, and that's as far as we should go with it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments of the applicant or
questions of the applicant?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just kind of to follow up. I
think Donna's comments may have historically had something. But
going through the drawings today, we would never be able -- you
know, the data that we be required and everything would certainly
prevent something like this from happening today, in spite of
everything.
And the other thing, too, is that the building, the actual -- the
concern about the second floor, the structure itself has never been an
issue. It's only these accessory uses that were attached to the back.
I think if you look at the neighbor to the right, you'd wonder why
doesn't he have the same problem. And the reason he had it is he
raised the seawall. In other words, he played that little game. I think
the house here looks much better not playing that game to solve the
problem. You can see what Ray is showing is what he did is came in
and monkeyed with the seawall height, which is kind of mocking the
process.
So I think out of due respect for this site, I would rather a
variance than have them go back and do that to their backyard.
Page 51
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you.
Any other comments to the applicant?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Everyone agrees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a staff report?
MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. John-David Moss,
department of zoning and land development review.
I just wanted to make one clarification. Mr. Y ovanovich said it
was a 36-inch threshold triggering the 20-foot setback. It's actually a
four-foot, as in the staff report. I included that information on Page 2.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for David.
Two things. One thing is that you know when you write out the
requested action? Everybody else calls this an after-the-fact variance.
You didn't. And what you did is you called this to legitimize. So call it
an after-the-fact variance.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the second thing:
David, do you want these drawings back?
MR. MOSS: I can take them back. You probably --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can give them to the owner.
MR. MOSS: Okay. That's probably a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. David, as a matter of
consistency, could we indicate in the reports whether we're reporting
on residents or signatures? I mean, we are faced many times with
groups of letters from both sides, and in trying to compare the value or
put the weight on which ones have more letters than the others or
Page 52
November 15,2007
more residents seem to me to be more apropos just to identify the
number of residents. In this case there were 13, which is still a
significant number, but it doesn't question how many signatures there
were.
MR. MOSS: I was just trying to reflect the information that was
included in the application so there wasn't any confusion, but I will do
that in the future.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments, questions ofthe
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I just want to note for the record, the
comments made concerning the contractor, there is a forum for that to
be addressed, that's the Contractor Licensing Board, which the
homeowner can register a complaint. I'll be glad to assist, my staff,
through contractor licensing.
And there are provisions in the contractor licensing ordinance
that allows for the homeowner to seek reimbursement for the cost
associated with this, to go after the contractor to pay for those costs.
So that exists, and that can be pursued through contractor licensing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to belabor the point, but let's
not forget, my client didn't contract with the contractor to build the
home. My client is once removed. So those remedies may not be
available.
MR. SCHMITT: They are still available.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to get into that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a complaint issue outside of what
we're doing here today. Let's stick to the facts. We have a variance
here, we've heard all the data. There are no public speakers. We'll
Page 53
November 15,2007
close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to approve the after-the-fact
variance V A-2007-AR-12005, Zilavy variance.
The condition that I talked about before, I would like to apply. I
just don't want people coming before us claiming that it would be too
much of a hardship to correct an issue, yet feel that in the future they
can spend those dollars doing whatever else they might want to do to
this home. I think issues should be corrected first. These variance
issues should be corrected first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion's real clear, because we
have got to get a second, can you summarize a little bit what you've
just said? You're making a motion to recommend approval subject to a
stipulation? Could you distinctly say what stipulation it is that you're
making the motion subject to?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. We're approving a variance
here and one of the reasons we're approving this variance is we've
been told that it would be a hardship, a financial hardship for these
people to make the changes that would bring the home into
compliance as it is now. And I agree with that. It would be outrageous
to charge these people to redo the pool and redo the decking for a
problem that somebody else created.
But I don't want -- what I don't want to see happen is that
suddenly a year from now or six months from now on this
single-family home they decide they do have the dollars to put a
second story on their home without first making the corrections to this
pool area. If you can do one, you can do the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a -- you want to make a
motion to approve. Your stipulation -- well, you provided a lot of
background, which wasn't needed. But the stipulation you're trying to
get to is you don't want a second story put on this house without the
Page 54
November 15,2007
pool setback being corrected, is that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion is recommendation
of approval with a stipulation that this home will not be allowed to go
to two stories without the pool setback issue being corrected. Is that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'll second the motion. But I
have a question to ask the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go into discussion. Motion's
been seconded by Commissioner Kolflat.
Discussion.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I wondered if the petitioner
would respond as to whether the petitioner would agree to that
stipulation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I don't know why this
property owner would be singled out from an opportunity -- he doesn't
have any plans to put a second story on there right now. But I would
still submit it's still economic and a financial hardship to spend money
fixing a problem they didn't cause and then to compound the issue by
taking away the right that everybody else in the neighborhood has to
build to a certain height. I mean, you're kind of giving a double dose
of punishment for something he didn't create.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was any other--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The answer to your question
then is no?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know why we would need
to do that. I would hate to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat is trying to get to the bottom
line. Your answer to that question is no, you would not agree to it; is
that right?
Page 55
November 15,2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's going to affect the outcome of the
vote, of course we would agree to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's like betting on the stock market.
First of all, had any other variances in that area --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- had that similar stipulation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's go to the rest. Mr. Adelstein,
then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, this situation was
one they had nothing to do with when it was originally happening.
The fact that they were trying to not have to pay any great amount of
money to correct it was good judgment. The fact that they should have
it done properly is good judgment. The fact that later on, a year or so
they want to put something else on has nothing to do with this issue,
because those people still have the right to do what they want to do
with their home.
Right now what we're dealing with is a situation that somebody
else created. They didn't even know about it for the first eight years or
10 years. Then all this comes apart. Why should they be put into a
position where now they can't buy or recreate something more on their
home? I think that's absolutely stupid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think if the motion maker were
to consider the implications of a future owner of the property, had the
folks decided to sell, for whatever reasons, and another person owns
the home and would like to have the advantage of a second story, you
would preclude somebody in the future from enjoying the opportunity
simply because a variance was granted. And as Commissioner
Adelstein has just stated, one thing really has nothing to do with the
other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other? Mr. Vigliotti?
Page 56
November 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. I feel these people
have been penalized enough and we have some other issues too that
are similar. After-the-fact variances, if they're not the fault of the
people that are living in a house and they just bought the house and
wind up with a problem, bad enough they have to spend the money to
go through the process.
Is there a way, Mr. Klatzkow, that we can come up with an
easier way to do this, rather than put the people through the expense of
spending all this money for these type of variances?
MR. KLATZKOW: The Board of County Commissioners can
amend the Land Development Code. But until that time, we must live
under the rules that we have.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Because this is a hardship for
anyone of --
MR. KLATZKOW: But the problem is, you want to have a sort
of additional cause for an after-the-fact variance, because you don't
want people to try to get something slipped under the process and so
you need that. I'm not going to call it a penalty, but you need that
disincentive to do that. And this is the disincentive.
And I understand that there are future homeowners who come in
here and then they find that. That doesn't mean the original
homeowner wasn't aware of it, though.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. But when someone
buys a home unaware of the problem, I just feel bad that they have to
spend the money.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to have another one come
forward to you today that's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's exactly why I'm saying
what I'm saying, that this is not just this one specific issue, this is an
ongoing issue we have. And to penalize these people to spend the
money and the time and the effort and then asked to penalize them
more, it's an undo hardship.
Page 57
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Ms. Caron. Mr. Klatzkow, I
disagree with the statement you said, we have another one coming
forward today in the same thing. I'm going to prove to you it is not. So
enough there.
Ms. Caron and then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Y ovanovich brought up
the fact that a few weeks back 11 people were allowed to come and
administratively get a variance for 1,000. I mean, how did that happen
versus individual residents like the Zilavys?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll defer to Joe on this. I think we're getting
at the old --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I honestly don't remember and I'm
just curious.
MR. SCHMITT: It was an issue presented to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding Olde Cypress and the approval of
building permits. It was encroachments to the preserve setback of 25
feet versus 20 feet for the development criteria in the PUD. And the
board directed that we proceed with administrative variances for those
properties.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that was a -- it was a board
decision is all --
MR. SCHMITT: That was a board decision, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. That's what I was
trying to get at.
MR. KLATZKOW: But it was also an administrative process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had the process already existing in the
code that we could do for this.
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the board could do the same
thing here.
MR. SCHMITT: The board directed through a vote --
Page 58
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER CARON: Whether they would choose to or
not is a different issue, but they could.
MR. SCHMITT: And they have the authority to amend the fee
resolution. Just as this petitioner can present that same position to the
board and if the board directs a refund, I will comply.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Margie, you may have to
help me, we've been discussing Robert's Rules of Order and how to
vote on those conditions if we're not comfortable. This could be --
Margie, could this be a place where we could divide the motion into
two conditions and move on with it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me make it easy for everybody. It
will cost my client more money to get one of you to vote no on this
than it's worth. So if that condition is the critical vote to get the
unanimous vote, we'll take -- we'll give you the condition. I'm just
throwing it on the table. Because frankly, it will cost more money to
go argue the point in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you can't go on the
summary agenda if one person on this commission votes against it, so
you'd be forced under the overall agenda, which means you're not
doing this pro bono.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Why should my client have to go
through the expense, just like asking -- the only way for me to get in
front of the Board of County Commissioners about reducing the fee is
to pull myself off of summary agenda to spend more money for my
client to maybe save some money. So it's not worth it. We're in a
situation where it's just not worth the money to my client. It's not fair
to my client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, you were--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if we divide the motion
the variance could pass and then maybe the other thing would fail and
Page 59
November 15, 2007
you would have what you need.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that gets me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the speaker if you're
going to talk, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the technical ramifications
of that decision. I just want it on there, that's -- my client's in a
position where it saves them money to go ahead and agree to
something they don't want to agree to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem, Richard,
is we're here because of the behavior of a prior owner. We wouldn't
want a future owner having the same problem.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We don't want to create more
problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have -- first of all, it's Mr.
Kolf1at's turn, after Mr. Schiffer finishes, and then Ms. Caron, and
then Mr. Vigliotti.
Mr. Schiffer, are you done?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, what I'd like to do
is divide the motion, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see if we need to first.
MR. KLATZKOW: The only problem is you can divide the
motion, you can take a vote on the stipulation, but it doesn't get rid of
Mr. Y ovanovich's concern that when you get to the actual vote on
whether or not to recommend this variance, one of you may vote
against it. Do you follow me?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do.
MR. KLATZKOW: So yes, you can vote whether or not that
stipulation's part of it. And let's say your vote is 4-4 or 5-3, whatever it
is, but then you get to the real vote, the one that concerns Mr.
Y ovanovich, to either recommend approval. And if this issue is going
to hold it up, he doesn't have unanimous support of the board, he's got
to go in front of the Board of County Commissioners on this. That's
Page 60
November 15,2007
the problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to move this forward.
Mr. Kolf1at and then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, Mr. Yovanovich brought
up the question of Olde Cypress and the administrative variance that
was granted. There was one stipulation, though, that went along with
that that was not brought up in the discussion and that is that the
encroachment must be within 25 percent of the setback requirement
before it can qualify for an administrative variance. Do you agree with
that, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The criteria for those were administrative,
as the assistant county attorney pointed out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
MR. SCHMITT: The two items that were not will be issued
notices of violation, the two that don't meet that administrative
criteria.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right, but it's eliminated by the
25 percent.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I am not trying to make an
example of the Zilavys here. What I am trying to do is prevent
after-the-fact variances from being approved when it is merely--
when we're going about it as a convenience issue. And that's what
happens in too many of these.
I am -- it will be the will of this board by everybody's consensus
here that this variance be approved. The hang-up is my stipulation.
The Zilavys have said that they have no intention of building a second
story on this home, and I will take them at their word.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean you're going to
withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me finish, Mr. Strain.
Page 61
November 15, 2007
Yes, I will remove that restriction. Because the Zilavys have
stated on the record that they have no intention of adding to this, that
there really is an issue with this one concerning cost.
And at any rate, we're still waiting for a second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there was a second. Mr. Kolf1at
seconded. That's why --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, Mr. Kolf1at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have to get it squared away. You
can't just remove the stipulation because it was part of the motion, so
we need to withdraw the motion, which you're willing to do.
Mr. Kolf1at, are you willing to withdraw your second?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now there is no motion on the
table. Is there a new motion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll resubmit the motion to approve
the after-the-fact variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Adelstein,
made by Commissioner Caron.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
Page 62
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you
all. We will take a break until 10:25.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their
seats, we'll continue the meeting.
Item #8C
PETITION: V A-2007-AR-12129
The next petition up is Petition V A-2007-AR-12129. It's James
and Ruth Kalvin for a variance concerning a guest house on 5801
Cedar Tree Lane in Golden Gate Estates.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this project, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, go ahead, sir.
MR. F AGA: Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Faga, attorney for
the petitioners Jim and Ruth Kalvin.
This was a guest house that was purchased in December, 2005.
The structures were in existence from we believe 1973 or 1979.
There came a point in time where my clients requested that a
propane tank be installed, and at that point the Code Enforcement
Board cited the house for unlawful conversion to living space.
We've done a substantial amount of research, staff has done
research, and the Kalvins have done research, and we were not able to
find out whether this was ever a permitted guest house with
appropriate certificates of occupancy.
Page 63
November 15, 2007
There were no records from 1979. The only item that we found
was a property appraiser's card in 1981, indicating that the guest house
was on the property appraiser's card.
So I guess I'm here asking for another after-the-fact variance, but
I'm not quite sure. It was not legal in '79, I just was unable to find that
-- make that determination.
But we are here, nevertheless, requesting that you approve the
variance which in the staff report lays it out very precisely, that the
present house, on Page 2 of 7 in the staff recommendation, the figures
represent an overage of 7.4 feet and 19 percent respectively for the
two variance requests being made with this application.
As I indicated, one is a separation request and one is an area
variance request.
I'd be more than happy to take whatever questions you might
have, and I certainly appreciate the staffs help in helping us process
this through the system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions?
Mr. Kolf1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, this is more of a question
on my part.
Does the code enforcement have any statute of limitations
associated with it?
MR. KLATZKOW: There are no limitations periods for code
enforcement infractions.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There are none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can murder somebody or do
whatever and there's a limitation, but if you violate the code in Collier
County, it takes you to your grave.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: As the attorneys say, it stays in
perpetuity.
MR. KLATZKOW: Jean Valjean will track you down himself if
you do.
Page 64
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you stated in the beginning that you
found no records to show that this was C.O.'d?
MR. FAGA: Right -- or not C.O.'d. I don't know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're representing the applicant. You
might have reversed that statement and said there are no records to
show that this building had not obtained the proper authorization to be
built in Collier County, because part of 1979 Collier County's lost
most of its records.
MR. F AGA: That seems to be what I learned, but I was trying to
be very fair and objective about it and indicate that I could not prove
either way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me understand this. A guy buys a
house, it was built prior to him buying it. He bought it in '05, it was
built in the Seventies. He moves in, does the right thing, calls in for a
permit, calls an inspector up to get the permit inspected. Apparently
that work is okay. But somehow a neighbor must have ran over,
threatened by life and safety, to say that guest house is illegally built,
it's too close to the main house. Is there a -- who complained?
MR. FAGA: No, I believe the code enforcement, when they
came to do the installation of the propane tank, determined that there
was not -- did not qualify with the present code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code enforcement did an inspection on
a propane tank?
MR. F AGA: Yes, sir. That's my understanding.
MR. SCHMITT: Building inspector.
MR. FAGA: Building inspector, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, there's a big difference.
MR. F AGA: Yes, there is. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the building inspector, who is not a
Page 65
November 15, 2007
code enforcement officer, came out and did an inspection on a
permitted propane tank that the owner was good enough to file a
permit for --
MR. F AGA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and he took it upon himself to decide
that this guest house was not in his liking.
MR. F AGA: I assume -- and I should never make an assumption
here -- that he went to code enforcement and then they issued the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that part ofa final inspection
requirement, to go to code enforcement?
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not going to put anything on the record. I
know nothing about this case. I would have to pull the records to find
out who did what. I can bring that information back, but I don't have
any of that information in front of me.
MR. F AGA: That's how we got here, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know how you got here, and I'm
just amazed, because I don't see the public safety and welfare problem
with this guest house and this guy's house that he bought that was
probably put up in the Seventies. I don't see why someone would have
had to bring it into anybody when there was no complaint obviously
from a neighbor.
I don't understand why we're wasting the community's time and
4,000 -- is it $4,000 of this gentleman's money to get here today, plus
cost for you? None of this makes any sense. And I'm just wondering
how we got here, and if there was a legitimate reason, other than
someone deciding they didn't particularly like this for some reason.
And also, I'm not sure the reason was valified (sic), because in
1968 we had a code that required a lO-foot separation for guest
houses, not 20 feet. And we don't know if this house is in violation of
that code or not, because we don't even know when this house was
built because we don't have any records for it.
MR. F AGA: That's correct.
Page 66
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, and I'm not sure it's a
guest house. I still think it's a garage. And in fact that's what they were
-- and in the article it stipulates that it looked like a garage that was
now turned into a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it goes back to the fact that
there's no complaint, there's no safety and welfare here, and I just wish
that this kind of stuff would stop. It would be different if it was -- I
know it's not your fault. You're here trying to get out of the mess.
MR. F AGA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry that you had to be brought
here for this.
MR. F AGA: Well, I appreciate your fair hearing, I've got to tell
you.
And I just point out too that there are six adjoining property
owners, and we have five letters of support and one -- no objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I for one have no problem
with this.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have no problem myself. Do
we have to listen to staff before we make a motion for approval?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we don't have to listen to staff. I
don't think we're -- I mean, if we're in consensus here, I don't see why
this needs to ever come back to -- any of this kind of stuff ever needs
to come back here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then I would do so, I make the
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like -- suggest we recommend a
refund of this gentleman's variance request fees.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to add that to my
motion.
Page 67
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I put on the record, though, the refund
would have to be at the direction of the board and that it would have to
be reimbursed from the general fund.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care where it's coming from.
MR. SCHMITT: Staff has provided the services, and I'm a fee
for service organization. I have to be paid for those, the services --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What services was staff asked to
provide?
MR. SCHMITT: The hours that staff provided for the executive
-- the hearing today, plus this has to go to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, you missed my question.
What services was staff asked to provide by the applicant here today?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The complaint was filed, it was investigated.
The structure technically doesn't meet the current code
requirements. Staff cannot ignore that until we have an LDC
amendment that vests some of these things. We had to spend our time,
and there's a fee involved. It has to be paid by some entity, whether it's
out of the general fund or whatever the board decides.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolf1at, then I've
got a rebuttal to your statement.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Honestly, it makes no
difference. In my motion, I make a motion for approval, and we give
any money they've spent back. Does anyone second that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I already seconded it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been seconded. We're in the
discussion.
Mr. Kolf1at?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Joe, don't you have an
account for cost of doing business that would be applicable to this?
Page 68
November 15,2007
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. It's a 100 percent fee for service
organization. The permitting and land use application fees pay for it.
The cost is passed off to other permit applicants or other applicants
who provide -- ask for services from the zoning staff that worked on
this. There is no general fund money to pay for this.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But at the last board --
MR. SCHMITT: We have to put this on the regular agenda,
present it to the board, the board would have to approve it and include
a budget amendment to reimburse for the cost of this -- include a
budget amendment as part of the permit appli -- or at least as part of
the proposal to reimburse the staff for the work that was provided.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But at the last Board of
Commissioners meeting you indicated that your division would be
able to support the variance costs associated with Olde Cypress. Now
why couldn't you do that for this?
MR. SCHMITT: I did that because of the issues involved with
the Olde Cypress and just made that recommendation to the board.
The board would have to direct that --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you had a resource of funds
to support that.
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, I do not. I absorbed that cost as part of
the other permit applicant's pay for that service. That cost will be
passed off to other permit applicants --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. SCHMITT: -- as a part of doing business.
MR. KLATZKOW: In the interest of trying to keep the
applicant's costs down, one approach would be that this board make
the motion as it stands with a motion of approval and recommendation
that the fees be waived. But this would go on summary.
At that point in time if the Kalvins wanted to come in on a
public petition and ask the board for a refund, they would have your
transcript where you would state everything you stated here, and they
Page 69
November 15, 2007
could ask the board and it wouldn't cost them anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would a public petition cost?
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't. To get to public petition?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No charge.
MR. KLATZKOW: No charge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, boy, someone's missing the boat
there then, huh?
Okay, so they could actually come in and ask for a refund under
a public petition and maybe get their $4,000 back. But our
recommendation would be that that happen.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and they would have your transcript,
you know, in support of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. When the -- the
staff has lost the records, the staff can't prove that this wasn't built
with a permit, how come it's immediately assumed that it was built
without a permit?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're assuming that stafflost the records.
The other possibility is that they just converted a garage into a guest
house and didn't tell the county about it, in which case there would be
no permits on record.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they don't have records to
building the garage. In other words, why -- the point is that why is the
applicant always guilty? Why can't -- you know, there's two things
that could have happened here. Why do we always assume that the
building was built without a permit?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what's going on here is that you have
the buildings here. And forget the permit issue for a second. These
buildings don't meet setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we don't know that.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that was the issue that got us here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to read the code at that time?
Page 70
November 15,2007
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. But that was the issue that
got us here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when they're doing the
research, why didn't they come up with the 10- foot requirement and
say this could have been built legally? Why do we assume that it's
built illegally right away?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a process in our code enforcement
ordinance which gives the applicant the ability to come back and
argue these points. But the way our code's written, the burden's on the
applicant to do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So unlike the other foundation
of justice in this country, the applicant's guilty unless he can prove
himself innocent, even though the records are kept by the county?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Schiffer, in your packet you
have the property record. The property record, any permit that it's
issued and notice to proceed and that is recorded in the property
appraiser's office, the property appraiser, the last entry shown in your
packet, is a date 1978. I would assume, and it does show the distance,
and it probably was when it was permitted as a garage.
What Mr. Klatzkow is basically saying is there's nothing -- so
the property records do not indicate that there was any permit. We're
not accusing anyone of doing work without a permit. What the
homeowner did is recognize there was a problem and is proceeding
with the process that I have to enforce, and that is for them to obtain
the -- have the inspections, have it approved under the criteria under
the Florida Building Code as far as the inspections, and then proceed
to correct any errors that may exist in the land use.
Now, if you want to change that, you can certainly make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in other words, no way
could this house have ever been built legally and we just can't find the
records for it? Do you believe --
Page 71
November 15,2007
MR. SCHMITT: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know that. But do you believe
that there is a path that could have been done properly?
MR. SCHMITT: Certainly that could have happened. But there's
no indication of any permit being recorded on the property card. I
don't know -- you know, certainly at that time the records could be
mlssmg.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a motion on the floor,
recommendation of approval, with -- including the stipulation of
refunding of the fees -- the county paid fees for the variance cost. Is
that correct, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second agrees with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second was Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for the
chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the code from the period
1968, which I believe you had referenced, does it indicate that the
distance would be 10 feet?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's important to note.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accessory structures shall be located at
least 10 feet from any other structure on the same lot.
Then it goes into other factors about accessory structures. And
when you go into the Estates section of this code, there is no separate
development standard for accessory structures. Therefore, it would fall
back on the general language. That is in Section 5.7 of the 1968 code,
revised in 1971.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So given Mr. Schiffer's --
Commissioner Schiffer's statements about it could be A or it could be
Page 72
November 15,2007
B, I think that certainly is important for the document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly support the motion. I
really wish that we hadn't gotten here with this particular case. I don't
see the need for it. It's different than if there was an obvious complaint
from citizens and there was a safety and welfare issue. This isn't that,
so I'm certainly in support of it.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing Joe said kind of
concerns me. So it's not over from here. They're going to have to
actually go get a building permit and get somebody to do a
constructive testing on the project to determine whether it was built
according?
MR. F AGA: Well, no, I think --
MR. SCHMITT: He's already been issued the permits for this.
He's already gone through inspection, my understanding. The only
issue here was a separation of the two structures, primarily. I believe
that was changed based on separation for fire. Between the two
structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fire is no issue here, because we allow
PUD's consistently with 10 foot or less set back.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. I have no idea what led to the
history as to why that separation between the structures was part of the
code. It was changed. I have no idea why. It was changed many, many
years ago.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a solution could have
been to build a 208-foot addition and connect the thing to the house
would solve it.
But you said, Joe, that it passed the building inspection and it
passed?
MR. SCHMITT: I believe it's gone through --
MR. F AGA: No, I'm not sure that. No, we don't have that. I don't
think we're that far down the road yet.
Page 73
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you don't have any evidence
that it didn't already go through building inspection, so let's not even
go down that path.
MR. F AGA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You shouldn't have to.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Call for the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm imposed because of the fee
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now this fellow has -- comes off the
summary agenda and it's going to cost him more than if he just paid
the fee, because --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well. Commissioner, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm not--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you should remove that
stipulation from the motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I will not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Too late.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too late. It's already voted on.
Motion carries 7-1.
MR. F AGA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Page 74
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Build the addition.
Item #8D
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-11977
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up for today is Petition
CU-2007-AR-11977, the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control Rescue
District. It's for a fire station and administration building in Golden
Gate Estates.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of
Planning Commission.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had numerous conversations with
staff on the -- on this particular issue involving its ST criteria. And
that is an issue I would like to get resolved before we hear it, because
it may entertain a reprimand back to the EAC.
So with that in mind, we're first going to be talking to staff
involved with that issue. And Barbara or Nancy, whoever's going to
address that?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, I'm Nancy Nancy Gundlach,
Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review.
And to answer your questions about the ST, we have Barbara
Burgeson here this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in order to set the question,
Mr. Kolflat (sic) originally brought up an issue that ST's are required
to go before the EAC and have an EIS, and that this has an ST because
of a wellfield overlay. Staff has historically not exercised ST review
for this. Staff believes that such review is not necessary.
Page 75
November 15,2007
I'm not necessarily in disagreement with staff, but I want the
record to be absolutely clear on this. I had asked staff for a waiver so
they wouldn't have to go to the EAC. The staff wasn't willing to do
that for various reasons, which I'm sure will be explained today. And
Mr. Kolflat's side of the issue we will want to hear too.
So Mr. Kolflat, do you want to start out?
MR. KLATZKOW: Are you referring to me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Klatzkow, I'm sorry. I'm still--
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You scared the hell out of me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you guys. Oh, boy, it's been
along morning already.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's fine, it's fine.
Under the Land Development Code, 8.06.03.0, it specifies that
the EAC shall review all land development petitions that deal with a
special treatment overlay for zoning.
As you can see on the viewer, this has been special
treatmentlW -4 signified species of special treatment area with a
wellfield.
The LDC further provides that at staff discretion, if they don't
believe it is warranted, that they can waive the requirement to go
before the EAC on this.
And I would like to see that done, just to remove the issue from
this particular petition. My concern isn't that this is an
environmentally sensitive area so much as if we go through the entire
process someone could challenge this down the road saying it should
have gone to the EAC and it didn't.
And so my feeling is to head that argument off at the pass, all
right, to -- that either go to the EAC or staff waive the requirement,
Page 76
November 15,2007
one or the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there another -- is there any other
legal option in your mind? I've had staff suggest that we could get an
official interpretation. Is that -- does that change anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: The way I read this is clear as a bell. I
mean, it says what it says. Any ST overlay has to go to the EAC,
unless staff waives it. And I understand staffs position, and I don't
disagree with staffs position, but ifthat's the position, amend the LDC
to get rid of this issue, all right, or just waive it. Or send it to the EAC.
But it's an outstanding issue that's out there that could delay this
thing for God knows how much time if somebody out there wants to
raise this as an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Burgeson, I know you're here
to speak on behalf of your department, but the e-mails that I had trying
to get staff to rectify the situation with Bill Lorenz, is there a reason he
didn't feel this was important enough to be here today to discuss?
MS. BURGESON: Probably because he is running the
environmental and engineering department. And that I was also -- I
was involved with this from the very beginning on the committee that
created the groundwater -- the well protection ordinance back in '92
with Bill, so he felt that I was at least as capable as he is, and have
been involved in the ST reviews in a more detailed manner than Bill
has. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so you know that --
MS. BURGESON: It's not that he didn't feel that this wasn't
important enough for him but that I could handle this, or provide
responses for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two things: Number one, because he's
in charge of environmental and engineering is no excuse. Mr.
Casalanguida can stay here, and I'm sure he's equally if not more busy
than Mr. Lorenz is.
And number two, I wasn't saying you weren't equally qualified.
Page 77
November 15, 2007
The problem is that most of the correspondence that's been going on
with this or e-mails have been with Mr. Lorenz. That's why I was
concerned.
And Mr. Schmitt, you had a comment?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. You were the only one that raised this
issue. We responded. The zoning director made an interpretation. We
provided that interpretation to you. I don't think we did to any other of
the commissioners.
I respect certainly the county attorney's opinion, but it's a legal
opinion. The zoning director has the authority to render a decision. If
somebody wants to challenge that, fine. But that decision was
rendered, it was provided.
We do not believe that the ST was applicable in this case. If you
do, I would recommend that you remand it back to the EAC.
MS. BURGESON: I think I could -- maybe it would help -- for
the record, Barbara Burgeson with Engineering and Environmental
Services.
This is a multi-level issue, and it's very complicated, so I'll
attempt to simplify it.
The Groundwater Protection Ordinance, which was originally
created or created in 1992 identified that the areas that they culled out
as special treatment ST with a recharge -- groundwater recharge
protection moniker, and it was not wellfield moniker, I think it's like
NAR. I don't have that in front of me right now. I printed e-mails, but
I don't have them with me.
That Groundwater Protection Ordinance as it was created
identified that the wellfield protection zones should be mapped. And
in the LDC and in the ordinance that identifies the necessity for
mapping those overlays, they identify that those overlays are to be
mapped as W-1, W-2, W-3 and W-4, not with an ST designation in
front of them.
So as the ordinance and the Land Development Code identifies
Page 78
November 15, 2007
the need for these overlays and the designation for these overlays, they
were not identified to be mapped specifically with that ST overlay.
However, when they went to graphics for mapping, because they
were discussed as sensitive treatment areas or special treatment areas,
they mapped them that way. It was not the obligation of the original
ordinance to map them as ST's. So I'll just give you that as background
from 1992.
Now, moving forward to what the code requires right now, it
requires that if you have any -- if we look at those areas as intended to
be mapped as ST, the code requires that any property with an ST
overlay is obligated to do an EIS.
And any property -- there are exceptions to having to do that.
But the exceptions apply only to limited impacts by single-family
homes and other extremely limited impacts such as not having any
impacts to the native vegetation flora and fauna, or to the grading of
the property or to changing the stormwater, or not developing is
basically the criteria.
So an ST would require an EIS. And this particular project or
any SDP that you see wouldn't qualify to be -- to get a waiver of the
EIS. We would not be able to grant an administrative ST.
So step forward to then the EAC section of the code. The EAC
section of the code requires that any project that is required to do an
EIS has to go to the EAC.
Now, there's a section at the end of the EAC ordinance that
identifies when you can be -- when you can not get a waiver from staff
but when it can be waived that you don't have to attend an EAC
meeting. You can be required to do the EIS and not have to go to the
EAC public hearing.
But the specific criteria in that says that under the ST -- if you
are required to do an EIS or have ST overlay, that you've been granted
an administrative approval. And impacting an entire parcel with an ST
overlay would never allow staff to administratively approve that, and
Page 79
November 15, 2007
so therefore they would have to do the EIS, they would have to go to
the EAC because they don't qualify for a waiver of the ST or the EIS
or the EAC hearing.
Now, I think maybe one way -- so we don't have the ability to
waive anything. But I do believe that because of the way the original
ordinance was written and the fact that the LDC has very specific
criteria for the W-1, W-2, W-3 and W-4 zones, and we apply all of
that administratively, that it may simply be that those areas that __
there wasn't an intent through any of the process of creating that
ordinance in '92 to limit the development to prevent development.
As you can see, if you read through that ordinance, they talk
about gas stations, they talk about other uses in W-4 or W-3 that if you
believed that we intended to not allow development, 90 percent of that
ordinance would be just a moot point.
So I think that we could probably clarify it by amending the
zoning maps to remove that ST overlay, which I believe if we went
through everything you'd find that it was never intended to be mapped
as an ST.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, a minute ago you looked
like you were anxious to say something.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I just -- what I don't understand is that
staffs taking the position that it was never intended that this type of
special treatment be a special treatment, that it's just a wellfield. So
I'm just asking staff to say that since it was never intended that this go
to the EAC, okay, staff believes that any requirement should be
waived. You're saying you can't waive it because it doesn't __
MS. BURGESON: We are -- staff--
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to have your arguments before
a court is my problem. I understand your arguments, but __
MS. BURGESON: Staff is --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the only way I can get around this is if
you waive it.
Page 80
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, and let him finish speaking
before you continue, okay?
Go ahead, but just you guys can't be going at the same time, it
doesn't work.
MS. BURGESON: Staffs position is that this property with the
well field overlay does not require or is not -- under the criteria does
not fall under the criteria of that separate section of the LDC that
addresses ACSC and ST criteria and restrictions. We do not -- staff
does not feel that this -- that the wellfield overlays fall under that
criteria.
However -- and that's the zoning director found -- concurred
with that direction or staffs position on that.
However, if we are told that we have to apply that and consider
that as ST, we have no ability to waive any ST review or EIS or EAC
hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MS. BURGESON: We don't believe that -- because the -- as I
said, the only way to qualify for any waiver, if the ST is considered to
fall under that criteria, which we don't believe it does, we do not
believe that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, you've said that real clear
many times. But let's go back. You don't believe you can issue a
waiver. There are four requirements for waivers. Which one of those
don't you believe qualify this situation for a waiver?
MS. BURGESON: If you look at the ST, the fact that it says
lands with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it right in front of me, so--
MS. BURGESON: Lands with special treatment or area of
critical state concern overlays -- this is the EAC hearings -- or any
petition which the environmental staff cannot be resolved between __
this is not -- this section you've got in front of here is not the section
that talks about -- hold on just a second.
Page 81
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read something to you. At the
end of the EAC section it says the following: Any petitioner may
request a waiver to --
MS. BURGESON: That's what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the EAC hearing requirement when
the following considerations are met.
MS. BURGESON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No protected species or wetland impacts
are identified on-site, an EIS waiver has been administratively
granted, an ST zoning is present, and an administrative approval has
been granted --
MS. BURGESON: That's the significant--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or an EIS has previously been
completed and reviewed by staff.
MS. BURGESON: Right. That's the section. We cannot
administratively grant the ST permit. We cannot administratively
grant that section of the ST. And the EIS section that you read there,
because the ST would be required to do an EIS, we could not have
done an administrative waiver of the EIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says right here you can. An EIS
waiver has been administratively granted. Why couldn't you grant
one?
MS. BURGESON: Well, we can't because it's got an ST. And if
you look at the ST section, we are precluded. There's an EIS section,
there's an ST section and there's the EAC section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you can administratively grant
in certain conditions a waiver to the EIS, and if ST zoning is present
you can administratively grant a waiver to that too. But yet now you're
telling us you can't administratively grant a waiver to an ST area that's
required to have an EIS?
MS. BURGESON: We cannot -- we can only grant the ability
for the applicants to not go to the EAC if we could issue an ST -- if we
Page 82
---~--..___.._ ___"'_"""~"'. u.._.~_ _________
November 15, 2007
could administratively issue that ST permit. If we could have
determined that that ST could have been issued administratively. But
if the entire property is covered by ST, we couldn't even have
approved that site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, I just don't understand how
you're getting there. I'm not -- I don't need to hear -- you know, you
could say the same thing over and over again and I probably don't __
for some reason I'm just not recognizing it or understanding it here
today. Maybe it's -- I even got his name mixed up earlier, so who
knows where I'm going today.
MR. KLATZKOW: Barbara, is an EIS required here? In this
application --
MS. BURGESON: Staffs application of the code and the
freestanding ordinances, we determined that an EIS was not applicable
because --
MR. KLATZKOW: All right, so then you waived--
MS. BURGESON: -- it was not an ST --
MR. KLATZKOW: So you waived any requirement--
MS. BURGESON: -- requirement.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that there be an EIS.
MS. BURGESON: Well, we don't waive -- we don't provide a
waiver anymore. We took that out of the Land Development Code
years ago.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's right there. It's number two.
MS. BURGESON: That's a waiver to having to go to the board
hearing. That you can waive -- you can waive the EIS --
MR. KLA TZKOW: You're not requiring an EIS in this case.
MS. BURGESON: We are not requiring the EIS--
MR. KLATZKOW: So you're waiving it.
MS. BURGESON: No, there is not a--
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're not requiring -- what's the
difference between not requiring an EIS and waiving an EIS?
Page 83
November 15,2007
MS. BURGESON: Because the code used to require an EIS
waiver. The Land Development Code had a very specific paragraph in
it years ago that required that the -- staff issued an EIS waiver. It was
criteria for that, we went through a review and the criteria required us
to waive that.
A couple of years ago we changed the Land Development Code
so staff would not make that determination. And staff does not waive
an EIS. It's up to the applicant to go through the review criteria and the
process, and if they qualify for a waiver they do not have to submit
one.
But staff does not issue a waiver or waive an EIS. It's the
applicant's application of the code and the requirement to do that.
What we are able to do is waive their requirement to go to the
EAC. If they're required to do an EIS, staff can waive the requirement
to go to the EAC. But not this project if you have to find that that ST
is in fact the ACSC ST 1ST type and which requires that other criteria.
But we did not determine that that was the case. We did not
determine that this wellfield protection overlay required or fell under
that criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know what? You're probably
right. And that's why on the check-offlist it says environmental
impact EIS and digital electronic copy of EIS or exemption justified.
And it says not required. So that means you provided them with an
exemption to an EIS. Waiver, exemption, whatever. They didn't have
to do an EIS.
Now we're simply saying is since they didn't have to do an EIS,
they qualify for the waiver of the EAC hearing. They requested one
from you. And you're saying you don't believe they have to go to the
EAC hearing, not because you don't want to supply a waiver, you
don't feel you have to supply a waiver because they shouldn't be going
there in the first place. So what --
MS. BURGESON: No, no, no, that's not exactly what I'm
Page 84
November 15, 2007
saying. What I'm saying is that in staffs review of this project we did
not determine that this was an ST, special treatment, overlay. We did
not review this project under the ST criteria, which would have
limited this site to such minimal impacts diminimous that this project
would have been denied just upon the application ofthe ST criteria.
We did not do that.
But we have been asked to look at how we could waive the EAC
hearing. And if we're being told that this is an ST and we should have
applied the ST criteria, we have no ability -- there isn't an ability to
waive an EIS, and there isn't an ability to waive the criteria. However,
if staff is given the discretion to say because we do not feel and do not
interpret that this is the same ST overlay that would require an EIS,
then we could waive that this doesn't have to go to the EAC. But we
wouldn't need to do that, because it wouldn't even need an EIS. So
there would be no staff involvement in it at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, this double talk and talking
in circles. I know you're not trying to do that, but that certainly
appears to be that way.
I'm going to ask the other board members. First of all, staff is not
willing to say this shouldn't go back to the EIS. Your grounds __
instead of just saying that, you're saying we shouldn't even be asking
you the question in the first place.
You know, you can go into those points all along. I simply asked
you two weeks ago, if the applicant requested a waiver, grant it, yes or
no. And you came back with -- not you, but Bill came back with a
long e-mail saying all the reasons why he couldn't. That's fine. Bottom
line is you don't think it should go to the EAC, but you won't say that.
You won't grant the waiver that (sic) the EAC for technical reasons.
So that's up to this board to decide what to do.
What would the members of this panel like? Mr. Murray?
MS. BURGESON: I did just say that I don't believe it should go
to the EAC.
Page 85
-_._--_.._--,._.~,--,----
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're granting a waiver?
MS. BURGESON: Because it doesn't require an EIS under
staffs application of the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, does that suffice as a
waiver from staff in regards to the EAC hearing?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know what that is. I'm not trying to
be --
MS. BURGESON: Staff never held that this needed an EIS.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not trying to be funny, I'm not trying to
be hard. I'm trying to save the applicant from a needless legal expense
if somebody challenges this, and there are only two ways in my mind
to do this: Take this to the EAC and be done with it, although I don't
want to have to put the applicant through the cost of an EIS, or simply
have staff say on the record that we don't believe that this qualifies __
you know, we don't believe this is intended to have gone to the EIS
and therefore we waive it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, are you willing to state that on
the record? No conditions, his statement. He's our legal counsel, we
have to listen to him.
So you heard what he said. Are you willing to grant -- do you
believe it should have gone to the EIS or not, and do you grant a
waiver if not?
MS. BURGESON: Our application of the code, we do not
believe that this project required an EIS in the first place, and
therefore our application of the code would never have required them
to go to the EAC.
MR. SCHMITT: I will--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I will put on the record, if you want that what
she just seed to be deemed a waiver, than you can put my name down
and I'll say it as that based on the opinion of both the engineering and
environmental services director and the opinion of the zoning director,
Page 86
November 15,2007
the ST doesn't apply. If you want to deem that to be a waiver, then so
be it, it's a waiver.
Now, the issue there is that based on that you're telling me now
that that has to be applied to every single-family home in the Estates
that comes in for a building permit, we have to grant a waiver because
they're impacting the wellfield zones. That's the way I would interpret
what you've just directed, because you're going to want a waiver so
every time that we issue a permit for probably 14,000 lots out in these
wellfields, which are never applied and don't require ST waivers, I'm
hearing that you now believe that they do require an ST waiver. That's
what I heard from the county attorney. And if that's the case, we will
have to I guess apply that accordingly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Schmitt, I know that just like
you have -- not you, but just like the county does in other projects,
they try to make the issue into a monumental issue so that it becomes
harder to resolve. I don't think anybody here wants to see
single-family homes have to go through this.
I think the process was rather simple and straightforward. If it
doesn't qualify for EAC review, all staff simply had to do was waive
that, as we believe they had the right to do. So I don't think we're
saying that everything should be qualified ST out there and have to go
through this. I think we're saying that from our reading of the code
you have the right to waive these, simply do that. And then the
record's clean and it goes forward.
Mr. Klatzkow, is that a fair assessment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything that you see now as
problematic in regards to that, Mr. Schmitt? Is that going to change
life for the citizens of Golden Gate Estates?
MR. SCHMITT: Other than the fact that based on what I heard
the county attorney opine from an application -- I mean, granted, I'm
going to have to look at this to amend the code. But right now at least
Page 87
November 15, 2007
there's precedence being established that it is in fact ST and somehow
we'll have to establish a process to grant a waiver for every one of the
applications that come in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The manner in which it was
dealt with by -- I can't remember your name.
MS. BURGESON: Barbara.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Barbara, thank you. I apologize.
It's frustrating here.
The truth is, it's a de facto waiver by virtue of the process that
was applied, the thinking process, and how to go about it and what
your conclusions were.
So as I understand it, Mr. Klatzkow is trying to help all the
parties by making certain that we simply either say it's yes or say it's
no or say it's good or say it's bad. But just simply carrying out the
actions based on predicates doesn't get anybody anywhere.
But now what we're getting is a sledgehammer is what you're
inciting basically because what you're saying is we're going to
penalize everybody now. I mean--
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not going to penalize everyone. I am just
basing on the precedence that is established as far as the application of
the ST designation on the zoning map. If there's a waiver required,
based on the decision, based on the pre-ap. notes, based on the
correspondence that has transpired between myself and Mr. Strain and
between myself and Bill Lorenz and Ms. Istenes, we believe that there
was no waiver required. If you want to deem that to be there's a
waiver, I'll state so on the record.
The problem now becomes it is ST on the zoning map, and now
I'll have to determine whether or not it should be applicable to
everybody within that -- those four footprints as noted on the zoning
map.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I submit that what was a
Page 88
November 15, 2007
de facto waiver simply by the virtue of the manner in which you went
about your decision process, and had the subject not been raised
everything would have been quiet. But I think it needs to be qualified,
I think we do need to get the thing taken care of, and I would only
hope that whomever comes in the time frame that it takes to get this
LDC modification or wherever it's going to reside, I hope we don't hit
too many people with a lot of extra cost.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just so the record's clear,
the raising of this issue was brought to me by Mr. Klatzkow in
correspondence, so I was following through with that kind of request,
as I think it's our job to do so.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Did you interpret me to say
something negative about this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I was just --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, because I actually think this
is a good thing to come up so that we do get these things resolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Klatzkow.
COMMISSIONER CARON: How long will it take us to get the
maps corrected?
MR. SCHMITT: This would have to be part of the -- probably
the spring cycle '08 LDC amendment process. We're just laying out
those dates now. It will probably be sometime in September or early
October before it gets to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why couldn't you do it on the 28th?
MR. SCHMITT: Because the cycle has already started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, we just had a noise
ordinance come through months after the cycle was already into it and
we accepted that. That went in through -- that started to go through the
process.
So this is just a matter of an LDC note saying the ST reference
on the zoning maps will be changed, as it's directed you can do right
here in Section 2.03.07.
Page 89
November 15, 2007
MR. KLA TZKOW: Isn't it a scrivener's error? Is that what I'm
hearing, that this never should have been?
MR. SCHMITT: What was deemed -- these were ST, they were
identified as ST, but not as a special treatment. They were identified
on the zoning map to delineate and identify the well field protection
zones.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can put W-4 there too to delineate
it.
MR. SCHMITT: That's on there now.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But what I'm saying is that -- what
I'm hearing from Barbara is that this was a scrivener's error, that it
should never have been on the zoning maps as ST. You know, how
much discussion do we need for DSAC and everybody else? This is
just a scrivener's error, that's all this is.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, I've got to meet the advertising
requirements, I've got to meet all of those as far as including it in this
cycle. I can include it in a special cycle that I'm going to ask of the
board for one item. I'll include it in that special cycle. So it will be
probably the February time frame by the time it gets to the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you advertised for our 28th
meeting already?
MR. SCHMITT: I do not know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember seeing it. The 28th is
more than 10 days away. Why don't you just add it to the
advertisement for the 28th and let's do a can-do thing here and just get
it done.
MR. SCHMITT: I'll look at that. I have been challenged in the
past for including things in the LDC cycle once the cycle started. So I
will look at that or I will include it in an amendment in the special
cycle I'm asking of the board --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron?
MR. SCHMITT: -- for another item.
Page 90
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would think since it's
pretty much been determined that it is just a scrivener's error, that that
would be a pretty simple thing to include, Mr. Schmitt.
Ifwe run into any errors, you know, any problems, you can
bring it up on the 28th. But I would certainly try to include it, if what
this amounts to is really just a scrivener's error, that ST's shouldn't
have been put on these wellfields sites, then let's try to make it as
simple for everybody as possible. I don't think you're going to get
huge outcry from the public in any sector.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we ought to go a little bit
further, this board make the direction that staff include the scrivener's
error correction to the ST overlay on the wellfield areas for the
meeting on the 28th in the LDC cycle. And I think it's at our -- part of
our rights to be able to request staff to do that, changes to the LDC.
That's what this panel is supposed to be about.
Anybody have any problem with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want that in the form of a
motion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: If! may use the record to reflect
the statements just made by our chairman, I would make that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I put a provision on that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: Provided we can meet the advertisement. I
know you say 14 days, but I have to have the advertisement. And I
believe the advertisement probably went today to the clerk's office for
the advertisement on this. So it's going to be contingent on whether we
can meet the advertisement requirement.
Page 91
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just so you recall, we had a
discussion on advertisements with Mr. Weeks I believe it was a couple
of weeks ago, and he was one day or two days away from having the
advertisement in there. When I got an e-mail from him, he was one
day late. So you might still be within the time frame to change the
advertisement.
MR. SCHMITT: We tried to stop that one and I couldn't. And
that was advertised in the paper. Even though we were within the time
frame, they still published that advertisement, so it depends on
whether we can get this advertised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the advertisement then. Is
that acceptable to the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. That's reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Now we'll finally get on with the case in hand. We are going to
take a break at lunchtime for an hour, so let's see how far we can go
with it.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Robert Duane. I have here with me some members of my team. I have
Jerry Neal from Hole-Montes and Associates; I have Rita Greenberg,
the fire chief for the Big Corkscrew Fire Station; I have Noel
Page 92
November 15, 2007
Hernandez, the landscape -- or the project architect; and myself,
Robert Duane, from Hole-Montes and Associates.
Staff is recommending approval. I'm not sure that we have any
issues, at least that I need to fend off at this point. If it's your pleasure,
Mr. Chairman, I can walk you through the site plan in a minute or two,
if you think that's helpful to you and other members of the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I read, so I certainly have read the
site plan. If anybody else needs any further attention on it. We may
have some questions from --
MR. DUANE: That would be just fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's at the -- you want us to go right
into questions then at this point?
MR. DUANE: Sure, that would be just fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions from members of
the Planning Commission?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, and I guess one is -- and
I'm sure since it's the fire department's project that they've checked it.
But in the back of the site there's a storage tank.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do they have the proper ability
to do the turnaround and stuff like that back there? I mean --
MR. DUANE: The fire department has reviewed the petition.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is -- they can move
their tanker in and out of there without a problem?
MR. DUANE: Based on the review level.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is does the
gravel road that leads to that, and it also leads to the east, where is it
going from there?
MR. NEAL: If! may, Jerry Neal with Hole-Montes.
The fire trucks themselves won't be going to the tank. There is --
the tank has a storage area for the sprinkler system. And also there
Page 93
November 15,2007
would be a line from the tank to the building with a hydrant that they'll
be tying into. That tank is nothing other than a reservoir or a storage
area, just the same as a major water line.
The other question is that under the present -- the property to the
east of us is a big farm field. But that will be and is part of the town of
Big Cypress. And so for right now there is no need for actual access,
but we are putting a gravel road to the farm field, because at some
time there will be a start of the town of Big Cypress, and one of the
access points will be by the paved roads which would be another two
blocks north of us.
But this is just more or less an emergency access to the area,
which the development will start sometime in the future.
If it's determined that this station is going to be in the far future,
part of the overall fire protection of the town, then that section of the
road will be paved. But that's a few years off.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is you
have a building height sketch. Is there a -- and I'm kind of concerned,
would the actual height start causing a problem for you? Your finished
floor of your building is about three feet above the --
MR. DUANE: Our zoned height is shown on the site plan as 34
feet. And the tippy-top of the roof! think was 34 feet point nine
inches. And we have a sketch of the elevation that's shown on the site
plan.
And it's also depicted on that graphic representation there. And
again, I have Noel Hernandez here from Gora McGahey who's also an
architect, if you have some --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you've worked it out and
you're comfortable that that would never pinch your roof height?
MR. DUANE: That is correct. Well, maintaining the 30-foot
height limitation within the Estates zoning district, as zoned.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, the reason we came
up with an actual definition is to get rid of the word tippy-top, so --
Page 94
November 15, 2007
MR. DUANE: Okay, actual.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't use that anymore.
MR. DUANE: It's actual height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you, I'm done.
MR. DUANE: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I happen to have some.
On your site plan, Bob, you have a dry detention basin up
against the proposed preserve area. And then you show some what
looks like rip-rap -- it is rip-rap structural buffer to the conservation
easement line. I thought there was a minimum 10- foot setback for
disturbance of uplands in regards to or areas adjacent to preserves.
MR. NEAL: We have submitted an application to South Florida
Water Management District for the site wetlands and also for the
preserve and for the water management.
When you have a structural buffer, then the preserve can go to
the toe of the structural buffer. And they use the term structural buffer
in the ERP state rules.
And also under the Collier County -- yes, there is a section that
talks about if you are a wetland that you should be a -- you can be a 10
foot unless you can prove that it will be not a detriment to the
preserve, which we are proving by the fact that this has already been
approved by South Florida Water Management District and we're
waiting any day for the actual permit to be issued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that part of it. But in doing
some research on another project, I found some language in Section
10.02.04, Item B, final plat requirements, number one, protected
preserve areas and easement. I'm going to read it to you and just tell
me why it doesn't apply, and then that's fine, if you have a reason for
that.
I'm going to skip the first sentence because it just defines what
the preserve is. But it says, any buildable lot or parcel, subject to or
Page 95
November 15, 2007
abutting a protected preserve area required to be designated on a
preliminary and final subdivision plats, or only on a subdivision plat,
if the applicant chooses not to submit the optional preliminary
subdivision plat, shall the minimum 25-foot setback from the
boundary of such protected preserve area in which no principal
structure may be constructed.
I did check and you do fit that. Then it says further, the
preliminary and final subdivision plats are only on the final
subdivision plat if the applicant chooses not to submit the optional
preliminary subdivision plat shall require that no alteration, including
accessory structures, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or
removal of similar -- or similar activity shall be permitted within such
setback area without the prior written consent of the county manager
or his designee, provided in no event shall these activities be permitted
in such setback area within 10 feet of the protected preserve area
boundary.
And I'm just trying to wonder why -- how does that not apply to
this?
MR. NEAL: The particular section that you're under, you're
reading for platting, and we're not platting. And so we're under the
other section that deals with the environmental. And under that section
it states that if the applicant has the ability to show that it does not,
then we do not have to do the 10 feet.
And our method of showing it does not is the fact that the review
for the environmental is done by the state and the state has already
said that it expects us to have it at the toe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And had this language been available at
the time of the platting of this subdivision, which was decades ago,
then that language would have been more applicable?
MR. NEAL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your EIS that was -- I
guess it's not an EIS now that we didn't have one provided. It's a Fox
Page 96
November 15,2007
Squirrel Management Plan. And I don't -- there's not even page
numbers. But under upland buffers it says, all wetlands proposed to be
preserved are within an upland preserve.
How does a wetland that's proposed to be preserved be within an
upland preserve? Is it?
MR. DUANE: Well, we have a 1.2 -- perhaps that's not correctly
stated. We have a 1.82-acre wetland preserve and we have about
two-tenths of an acre of an upland preserve that wraps around that
wetland preserve.
And you're correct, even though there were no endangered
species identified on the site, we were required to prepare an
endangered species plan for the Fox Squirrel.
I have Marco Espinar here who was the author of that report. If
you some more detailed questions to ask about the management plan,
he could address those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the report was fine. I didn't have --
other than that discrepancy, I wanted to understand what that was.
And that's all the questions I have right now.
Anybody else have any further?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a staff report?
MS. GUNDLACH: For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach,
principal planner with zoning and land development review.
And Commissioners, this petition is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. It's consistent with the transportation element
policies 5.1 and 5.2. It's consistent with conservation and coastal
management element, Policy 3.11. And also, it's consistent with our
Future Land Use Element. And this is part of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
And one of our conditions for approval has to do with Golden
Gate Area Master Plan Policy 5.11, which requires that site lighting be
placed when the site is developed so that it minimizes glare onto
Page 97
November 15,2007
adjacent properties.
So our recommendation for approval includes that, as well as a
condition that this conditional use is limited to what is shown on the
conceptual master plan, dated January, 2007, prepared by
Hole-Montes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Morning, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 5 of 10 on your report.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And toward the bottom, close to
the bottom, it says, the above policy needs to be included as a
condition of approval within the conditional use resolution. I imagine
you made that statement just to make high emphasis, correct? Because
we are obliged to conform to the policies, are we not?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's only to create emphasis
for us; is that right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that was it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we're on a roll.
Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good. No one to upset the
apple cart, huh?
Okay, is there a recommendation on this particular item?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to forward the
conditional use CU-2007-AR-11977 with a recommendation ofSapproval.
Page 98
November 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those subject to staff
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Second, does that agree with you?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker Mr. Schiffer and Mr.
Adelstein accepted the staff recommendations as a stipulation of their
motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Now, we have a half an hour before we would normally break
for lunch. We have a two-step process in the next double hearing, Item
H and Item E. I don't know how long they'll take, but I call this board.
Do you want to get into these and stay with them until we're finished,
or do you want to take an early lunch and come back at 12:30?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Early lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Early lunch?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think this is going to
possibly get involved.
Page 99
November 15, 2007
MR. ANDERSON: Could I -- Mr. Chairman, there are some
public speakers here who cannot come back this afternoon. Would it
be possible to hear them now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that will be fine.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray, would you call the public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: I only have one that registered. Sam Smart?
MR. SMART: There's no problem with me coming back after
lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, on the last motion that we
had, will everybody please pass their conditional use forms to the
secretary .
And I'm sorry, I just missed what was just happening, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Sam Smart is the only registered speaker and
he indicated that he can come back after lunch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Smart, we appreciate
your cooperation.
He's the only registered speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Only one so far.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll adjourn till 12:30
and be back here to finish up this afternoon. We're not adjourning,
we're continuing to 12:30.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from our lunch,
everyone. We're going to resume the meeting. It's 12:30.
Item #8H
PETITION: CPSS-2007 -1 - COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT 2007 SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT
Page 100
November 15,2007
The next two items will be heard together. We'll take a vote on
each one separately. When we do vote, Item H needs to be voted on
prior to Item E. I'll read them both and then we'll go into the
presentation, disclosures and the rest of it.
The Item H that we moved ahead of Item E is the comprehensive
planning department's 2007 small-scale plan amendment. It's for
CPSS-2007-1, Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, for a
small-scale amendment. And it's concerning the mixed use activity
center 13. That's a companion item to Item E, which is Petition
RZ-2006-AR-10422, and it's the Myers Enterprises of Naples, LLC,
represented by Tim Hancock, also known as Naples Mazda on Airport
Road and J&C Boulevard.
With that, we will ask for swearing in by the court recorder.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of
Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had occasion to have a
conversation with Mr. Bruce Anderson regarding this subject.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had discussions with Mr. Hancock
and Mr. Anderson. And we went over my comments that I will
definitely be going over again today.
I also had a request prior to our departure last time. Right after
we had voted to adjourn, I heard there were a couple of other public
speakers, and I was asked if we could hear them first in the beginning
so they could leave and be on the way if they wanted to. And I have
no problem with that. Is there any objection from any of the Planning
Commission members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Ray, could you call the public
speakers first?
Page 10 1
November 15, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: Sam Smart.
MR. SMART: Is it not customary to follow after the petition is
presented? I would prefer that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Sir, before you go much farther,
you've got to be recorded on speaker.
I understand your argument, so let me ask that question. I was
doing this at the request of the applicant who came to me after the
meeting. And Mr. Hancock, I think it was you. I don't care if we hear
the public before or after. We can do it any way that accommodates
those that are here. But your request to me was to hear them first
because they didn't want to stay the whole time. And I have no
problem with that, but somebody needs to give me some guidance on
that.
You'll have to use one of the speakers and identify yourself
before you can say anymore, sir.
MR. SMART: Hello. My name is Sam Smart. I have operated a
business on J&C Boulevard for the last 20 years and have concerns
about traffic and the impact that this rezoning will have.
I have been working with the planning department and
transportation department, have gone to the public meeting, and there
seems to be, let's say, some inconsistent information, some changing
information. And Mr. Hancock and I just agreed about even what was
said at the public information meeting.
So I would like to hear what the latest is on this request and
proposal before I address what will become the issues that I need to
address.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. We will call you. We can
call you back up afterwards. Then I will accommodate those people
that need to be now because they can't stay till later.
Is there anybody now, Mr. Hancock, that you know of that's in
that situation?
MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think those
Page 102
November 15,2007
people left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll go on with the
presentation by the applicant. Thank you.
Ray, at the end ofthe meeting we'll still call the names just for
the record.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. -- or good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bruce Anderson, from the Roetzel and Andress law firm.
I have with me today Mr. John and Tom Myers, who are second
generation family-owned and locally-owned 35-year-old business in
Collier County, Naples Dodge, and their newly acquired Mazda
dealership.
Also with me, I have Mr. Hancock, I have Reed Jarvi and Blair
Foley.
Now, despite the fact that there are two intertwined petitions
before you, this is really very straightforward. It's a simple request to
rezone 1.83 acres from industrial to C-4 to open up a new Mazda
dealership on land that abuts the family's existing Dodge dealership.
And the Dodge dealership is zoned C-4.
Then it morphed into a comprehensive plan amendment.
When the Myers were informed by staff that a Growth
Management Plan amendment would be necessary, Mr. Hancock and
staff agreed that a map amendment before you would be the most
expedient method.
Now, you may ask, if we're only talking about a 1.83-acre
rezone to a less intense use, why are there 10 acres included in the
map amendment to the Growth Management Plan?
It's because the 1.8-acre parcel does not directly abut the activity
center boundary like the existing Dodge dealership does. So we had to
include the existing dealership land of 8.2 acres with the abutting 1.8
that was the subject of the original simple rezoning request.
Page 103
November 15,2007
We were surprised and disappointed that the Comprehensive
Planning Department decided to recommend denial. Number one,
because my client declined to provide a third version of their
previously filed traffic impact statements, also known as TIS's.
Their second reason was because it would cause a loss of
industrial land. Let me address both of those two objections.
First, about the traffic impact statement, it's the comprehensive
planning staff, not the transportation division, that asked for the third
TIS. I believe the transportation staff are satisfied with the TIS's that
have been provided.
The third TIS that was requested would be about what if these
two auto dealerships were converted to a shopping center, since they
would both be zoned C-4? Well, most of the 10 acres involved in this
map amendment are already zoned C-4. And right now today a
shopping center could be built on those eight acres of C-4 zoned land.
And if a shopping center was replacing that auto dealership, guess
what, a TIS would be required for the shopping center.
There is no need for this third TIS based on a what if scenario.
Now, let me address the concern about the loss of industrial
land. The staff report in the Growth Management Plan amendment has
a table about industrial lands in the North Naples planning
community. The staff report states that the county would be losing
almost 10 acres of industrial land if the map amendment is approved.
Well, that statement is not based on an apples to apples comparison. If
you look at the vacant industrial acres in the North Naples Planning
Commission (sic), it's 170 acres. And if you compare it to the 1.8
acres of vacant industrial land that's the subject of the rezone petition,
we're talking about only a 1.05 percent reduction in the vacant
industrial land inventory. That's minuscule. That's insignificant.
Nothing to get worked up about. Vacant land compared to vacant land
is the most valid on-the-grounds facts comparison.
It's based on these faulty premises that there is a denial
Page 104
November 15, 2007
recommendation on the map amendment. And because staff is
recommending denial of the map amendment, they can no longer
recommend approval of the rezone. We ask you to override that
recommendation.
I want to ask Tim Hancock to come forward and tell you about
all the donations that the Myers are making to help with
transportation. And then we'll all be glad to answer any questions you
have.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Tim Hancock, with Davidson Engineering, on behalf of the
applicant.
Due to some questions with regard to transportation impacts and
unfortunately an anonymous fax that was sent out by someone
opposing the project, misstating some of the transportation
commitments, we feel the need to place clearly on the record what the
Myers have agreed to do in working with your transportation staff to
address the issues.
If I could go to the bottom two items first, Mr. Bellows. These
are two that are related directly to the application before you here
today.
The Myers have agreed as a stipulation to provide at no cost to
Collier County a narrow strip of land along J&C which will provide
for the addition of a eastbound to northbound turn lane. And that is the
one turning movement at J&C and Airport that is problematic.
Additionally, they have agreed with transportation staff to design
and permit the improvements to the intersection at no cost to the
county .
The other commitments that I'm going to describe to you are
actually ongoing in a site development plan approval that is not before
you today but I think are important to discuss, and they are the top
two.
Mr. Bellows, if I could ask you kindly to roll that down.
Page 105
November 15,2007
Naples Dodge is currently expanding their service department
and they're in for an approval or an SDPA for that expansion. As a
part of that, they have agreed to provide at no cost to the county a strip
of land approximately 40 feet wide by 220 feet in length that, much to
Mr. Murray's final surprise, I believe, will provide that connection
between Corporation Boulevard and Pine Air Lakes that you folks
have heard before in the Pine Air Lakes proposal before you.
The Myers are donating that land. No cost. No impact fee
credits. That in and of itself will provide tremendous relief within the
industrial park and will have a positive impact on the J&C and Airport
intersection.
In addition, the Myers have agreed to pay up to 25 percent of the
cost of the construction of that driveway connection.
These are the commitments standing before you today. The
bottom two are associated with the project you have before you today,
and the top two are stipulations they have agreed to as a part of a site
development plan approval that is in process right now and hopefully
in its final review.
I want to make clear for the record those commitments, so that if
anyone has any questions, we could clear up any potential
miscommunications you may have heard on these matters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to that donation of
40 feet by 220 feet, we certainly thank the Myers for that. That will
help to relieve some traffic problems that we have.
But is that finalized? Did we have -- actually enter into an
agreement with regard to that to make certain that that does go
forward without any problems?
MR. HANCOCK: There is an agreement that will be finally
executed before going to the Board of County Commissioners
between Pine Air Lakes and Naples Dodge to affect the construction
of that, yes, sir.
Page 106
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: It's under review by attorneys on both sides
right now, but we have agreed in concept, we have a handshake, and
prior to the board hearing this item we have promised Mr.
Casalanguida that we will get this resolved and signed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if we were to stipulate that
in this agreement, would that have a problem for you in any way?
MR. HANCOCK: No objection to that whatsoever, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you finished, Tim, with your
presentation for all questions, or just --
MR. HANCOCK: Believe it or not, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a lot of questions of staff and
transportation that may generate some for the applicant. Let's just
move forward then.
Presentation by staff?
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with the
comprehensive planning department.
The petitioner went over most of the items in this petition. I just
want to clarify certain things.
The GMP amendment is a small-scale amendment. Florida
statutes allows this type of petition to be outside your regular GMP
amendment process, you know, your yearly GMP amendment process.
And that's why you are able to vote on this as a separate item.
Also, I want to clarify that in regards to the petition, the recent
petition, yes, is for almost -- a little bit less than two acres now. The
GMP amendment, as the petitioner explained, is for almost 10 acres,
and that will take away almost 10 acres of industrial inventory from
our county.
Page 107
November 15,2007
They provided a commercial inventory as part of the backup,
which you have in the packet, and that commercial inventory, it's just
for certain properties. It doesn't go into the details of all possible
commercial inventory in that prior radius study that they provided.
They also stated reasons such as cost and corporate preference in
regards for not being able to use that existing commercial inventory
for this proposed dealership.
Regards to the transportation study, the TIS does not account for
the most intent (sic) uses, and staff, we need to point out that to you.
But I also have to say that transportation department will cover that
item.
Transportation impact is being -- the transportation impact is
being addressed at the rezone petition with the stipulations of approval
for that rezone petition.
Now, for the GMP amendment, those stipulations doesn't (sic)
tell me in the study that they provided how it will affect the whole
10-acre -- almost 10 acres of industrial land. And again, transportation
will address that.
And again, as the petitioner stated, we are recommending not to
transmit this petition to the Board of County Commissioners. We
believe that the study doesn't go into the detail of commercial and
justification for deletion of industrial inventory of our county Future
Land Use Map.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions? Ms. Caron,
then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ms. Valera, I need you to
explain to me again how parcels 22, 23, 24, 25 that are currently in the
industrial area, and represent 1.8 acres, how does that suddenly morph
into a loss of 10 acres?
MS. VALERA: Yes, the existing Dodge dealership is part of the
urban industrial designation of our Future Land Use Map. It was an
exception when we adopted our industrial -- urban industrial area that
Page 108
November 15,2007
those properties in the perimeter of the industrial area will be
exempted. So the existing Dodge, which is C-4, is zoned C-4, is
actually part of the urban industrial area over county.
And so in order to include those properties to the north of the
Dodge dealership, you have to take -- you have to go through the
existing Dodge dealership and then be able to extend the map all the
way to the proposed Mazda dealership. I hope I'm explaining myself.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, wouldn't that then mean that
if this were approved and incorporated, wouldn't those parcels just
become part of that urban industrial?
MS. VALERA: Actually, it's the other way around. The
amendment is to turn the existing Mazda dealership, which is part of
the urban industrial, and the proposed Mazda, the two acres, to the
commercial activity center, which is activity center number 13.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So right now the Dodge dealership
is not C-4?
MS. VALERA: It is C-4, but it's part ofthe urban industrial. So
possibly it could be that someone could go -- if Dodge ceases to exist,
then someone could come and rezone that land to industrial and use it
as an industrial use without a GMP amendment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which you would be happy with.
MS. VALERA: And without a GMP amendment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was exactly the question I
was going to ask as well, but I'm not sure I -- I think I understand you,
but I want to be certain I understand you.
So you're saying that your premise is that if the Myers choose to
leave that area some day without changing from C-4 -- they changed
from C-4 to industrial in those parcels simply because it's in an
industrial area; is that right? Or it was zoned originally industrial?
MS. VALERA: No, it was zoned original C-4. When we adopted
Page 109
November 15,2007
our urban industrial area, those lands that were already there and that
were zoned C-4 were incorporated into the urban industrial. And they
were allowed to be kept as C-4 as part of the adoption.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, okay, I thought I
understood it that way.
But my question then goes further than that, I guess. I hope. So
that what I'm looking for a proof of what you're saying. So it's sort of
-- if they were to leave, it's not as though it would revert, because it's
already a C-4. But an industrial application could be made in that area
without a GMP amendment.
MS. VALERA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's your basis for saying
the totality is a subtraction from all of the industrial.
MS. VALERA: Of the urban industrial inventory, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nevertheless, that 10 acres still
represents about one percent. And is that construed to be significant?
MS. VALERA: I don't have the data in the backup of this
petition to prove to me otherwise.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I don't understand the
answer. I'd like to.
It does say in here you have 1,000 acres set aside for industrial,
somewhere in there. And even if we use the 170 that was premised
earlier, we still come out to like one percent. And is one percent -- and
I recognize you're careful stewards, I'm not criticizing, I'm trying to
find an answer. Is one percent considered a critical factor, or is it
something that you must hold to or is there any latitude at all? Or is
that our job?
MS. VALERA: I think that is your job.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. Then I got the
answer I was anticipating. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
Page 110
"----'~~-~.,~--_..__.
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, did you write the rezone
findings, or was that somebody maybe before you?
MS. VALERA: Yeah, that was zoning and land development
review staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't you that?
MS. VALERA: The rezone findings. Yeah, that was -- no, I'm
with comprehensive planning. I used to be with zoning and land
development review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you guys change chairs quite often
over there.
Is the person that wrote the rezone findings available?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There he is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. When I asked for staff
presentation, we usually get the person who did the --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I thought we were hearing Item
H first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're hearing both together, but I
understand.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, there were two different reports
generated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my questions were about
the second report that you haven't done a presentation on. Do you feel
you need to do one?
MR. BROWN: Yes. Take 30 seconds, I think. The zoning --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we have your
presentation then.
MR. BROWN: -- recommendation is very simply. If the board
finds -- if the board approves, rather, this small-scale GMP, then the
rezone -- excuse me, the small-scale amendment -- then zoning
recommends approval of the rezone and finds that the project is
consistent with the GMP.
If not approved then, of course the rezone would be inconsistent
Page 111
November 15,2007
with the GMP and zoning would recommend denial. And that's our
position.
If you'd like to ask me anything that's within the staff report, I'm
available for questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple of questions about your
rezone findings.
Number five, the question is whether changed or changing
conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary.
And I would think that you would get into the land use issues
involving that, because that's what our rezonings are usually about.
And this one is five, it's under pro. Due to budget cutbacks, it has
become increasingly difficult for the county make transportation
improvements.
We just got done with the AUIR. Transportation had no
cutbacks, and in fact they said they were fine. And I understand
maybe the political process in the county you felt you had to put this
here. But I would hope that a rezone findings would be absent of
political process and that they were reflective of planning process, not
political.
I don't know if you watched the AUIR hearings, but there were
no issues with transportation's budget. They actually said they need
zero for next year, they're at a balance. So I would hope in the future
we wouldn't be doing that.
On number six, whether the proposed change would adversely
influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The change will
improve living conditions.
I'm just wondering how you felt the living conditions are going
to be improved by a car lot. I'm not objecting to the car lot, I'mjust
curious as to how a car lot improves any body's conditions.
MR. BROWN: Well, the current GMP designation of the
property is urban industrial. And more intensive uses would be
allowed, in my opinion, under that designation for this property. The
Page 112
November 15, 2007
former use of the property was a restaurant, which would be in my
opinion more intensive than the use being proposed. And so that's how
I arrived at that answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, I know staff has a tendency in a
lot of these pros and cons, and I've read others before, that don't seem
to focus on as much sustainable facts, real strong facts on planning
issues and zoning issues, and I would hope that maybe we could focus
on those in the future.
It says that the existing lot with improvements is better suited
than industrial uses. This is under number five, findings.
Were you aware when you said this that comprehensive
planning was going to turn it down?
MR. BROWN: I had no idea. This staff report was written two
months, actually, in advance of to day's hearing, because it's been
continued once. It was originally scheduled to be heard by the board
on November 1st.
It's been an evolving project. And again, at the time the report
was written there was no determination made at that time that the
project would not be consistent with the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your finding.
I'm just finding it interesting that you as a zoning staff person believe
that this change is warranted, but the comprehensive planning staff
believes it's not. And it's just the same --
MR. BROWN: The consistency--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- internally within the county, I guess.
MR. BROWN: The consistency review that was prepared for the
zoning report found that the project was consistent, I guess contingent
upon the small-scale GMP amendment being approved.
There was a different reviewer that prepared the consistency
review for the rezone, a different reviewer for the small-scale GMP.
That kind of left me in limbo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It did, I agree. Ijust though it was--
Page 113
November 15, 2007
MR. BROWN: Again, we're still waiting on a determination
from the board to determine -- or rather to approve the GMP or not.
And based on your decision, the rezone would be deemed consistent
or not consistent with the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have a couple of
questions now of compo planning. I thought David was here
representing compo planning, and I didn't know Carolina transferred
over.
David?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, I'm David Weeks, Comprehensive
Planning Department.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went back all the way to the Seventies,
I think that was the earliest I went, and took a look at various maps of
this area, because I found a discrepancy in the current maps that seems
to disagree with your finding that this is industrial. So I went back to
see how that could have happened.
We heard this morning that the zoning maps apparently have
scriveners errors in them, multiple ones in regards to the labeling of an
ST. And I'm wondering if they have a scrivener's error in the outlining
ofthe industrial, because if you take the FLUE map, which I know
your department is very conscientious about, because even the
slightest changes in that map have always come before us to get
amended so they're accurate.
The FLUE does not reflect that area as industrial. I've got the
map here. The TR-5 map, which is your concurrency management
map for transportation also does not reflect that area as industrial. It
shows a strip fronting that area which appears to be encompassing the
area that is in question today as not industrial. Doesn't show what it is,
it just don't highlight it as industrial. Are you aware of that
discrepancy?
MR. WEEKS: No, I'm not. And I can tell you that in 1989, when
Page 114
November 15,2007
the plan was adopted, with rare exception, this not being one of those,
the existing industrial zoning was designated as industrial on the
Future Land Use Map. And the subject property presently zoned I and
C-4 was all zoned industrial in 1989.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on this map -- I mean, if
you haven't taken a look at it, maybe you could tell me what we need
to be going by. Because in the past I know we've always pulled these
FLUE maps up and put an arrow next to the area in question. The
lighter gray in that map says the same in TR-5, under the TCMA
maps.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: He could probably bring that up
on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The overhead?
If you notice where the darker square is at the intersection of
Airport Road and Pine Ridge, that's your I believe typical activity
center. Then it extends north and I thought maybe that only goes to the
north edge of Pine Air. But then the neck that's left is narrower than I
believe the neck that appears to be on the other maps that were
provided to us. And I'm just wondering if you've looked at that and
you feel that this is accurate or what.
MR. WEEKS: I do believe it's accurate.
One thing to keep in mind with activity centers, the square -- the
color version that's red is representative. The original activity centers,
with a few exceptions, were a half mile square. But with the 1997
EAR-based amendments, we adopted site specific activity center
maps. We left these representative squares, but you have to go to the
inset maps of activity centers to see the specific boundaries of those.
The activity center boundaries in fact takes in that whole white
area between the activity center shown on the map and the gray area
where the subject property is located.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fair enough. I just wanted to
make sure that this graphic didn't have any dominance over the
Page 115
November 15, 2007
argument. Good, thank you.
MR. WEEKS: And I would like to, if! might, respond to a
question you'd asked Willie, which I believe he correctly answered. I
just want to stress that when comprehensive staff reviewed the
rezoning petition, we did in effect a dual analysis. First we looked
under the existing planned designation which is urban industrial. And
our determination was no, that rezoning to commercial is not
consistent. The urban industrial district does not allow retail uses as
freestanding principal uses.
And then our second analysis was if it were re-designated to an
activity center, would the rezoning be consistent? And our conclusion
was yes, it would.
So the rezoning could be found consistent only if the plan
amendment is approved as requested.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the industrial area
you've shown on this map and where it seems to lie, wouldn't some of
those uses along Shirley Street that are retail be questionable, based on
this? Like you've got a Suzuki or a motorcycle shop there and you've
got rental furniture and you've got a series of stuff that seems to be
doing more than what you're indicating --
MR. WEEKS: Yes. That goes back to how the Dodge dealership
got here in the first place, too. How did that C-4 zoning get there, if
it's designated urban industrial.
The original 1989 Growth Management Plan included a
provision that for properties designated urban industrial but located on
the perimeter of that designation were allowed to have transitional
uses, which was interpreted to mean our highest intensity commercial
zoning district, C-5 and C-4. That number one allowed for those
existing C-5 and I think some C-4 zoning along Pine Ridge Road on
the east side of Airport Road where there's industrial designation there
on the north side of Radio Road and other areas in the county to retain
their C-4 and C-5 zoning. And it also allowed for, in this particular
Page 116
November 15, 2007
instance, the Dodge dealership being located on the perimeter of that
urban industrial district, to be rezoned to C-4. That provision for this
perimeter transition no longer exists.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the provision, when it did exist,
would have allowed what is being requested today?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, it would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't there a time in this county a
reference to a light industrial on the books?
MR. WEEKS: A light industrial zoning district, yes. I don't
recall a reference in the -- it's not a GMP designation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was this area ever considered light
industrial?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. It's been zoned I industrial for many
years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the LI or the IL never popped
up anywhere else. Okay.
From a planning perspective, can you comment on things, or is
that the other side of the services? I thought you guys by the way are
under the same roof. I figured you might coordinate some of these
things before you come before us, but --
MR. WEEKS: Well, number one, I think both departments are in
absolute agreement with the petitioner that compatibility is not an
issue here. And as Carolina has already explained, our perspective,
aside from the TIS issue, really focused on the inventory issue of
industrial.
And if! may, Mr. Chairman, your earlier question, we don't see
requests like this very often. It is rare to have a request to change
industrial designation. It's also rare to have a rezoning from industrial
to another zoning district.
So it's not something I would say is on our radar from the
perspective of monitoring this to consider well, what is the appropriate
percentage to say this is of concern or this is not of concern.
Page 117
November 15, 2007
One perspective certainly would be to say this is a diminimous
impact related to transportation and say there's just no concern here.
But from the staff perspective, since we don't again see these very
often, our perspective is any loss of industrial, most particularly of
almost 10 acres, is of some concern. We know that there's some need
right now for more industrial lands, and we can only expect that to
increase in the future as the county's population is going to, well,
current projections will be almost triple from what it is today.
The loss of industrial lands is difficult, far more difficult to
replace than it is for commercial. You see commercial re-zonings
before you regularly. You also see on an annual basis comprehensive
plan amendments requesting a commercial designation. You rarely see
a request for industrial. And it's more difficult to locate industrial
because of the intensity of the uses that are allowed. Truck traffic is
associated with it, the -- I guess I covered most of it. It's difficult to
locate new industrial lands from a compatibility perspective; no so
much though with commercial by comparison.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more question, and Ms.
Caron has a question.
And my last question is this morning we had another industrial
conversion, but I didn't hear you guys comment on it. It was Lane
Park. I believe they were zoned industrial, now they're requested
today mostly PUD and that were all basically C-3, 4 uses type things.
I didn't hear anybody make a noise about that, and it was a bigger
chunk than this is.
MR. WEEKS: I think the reason for that -- well, the reason for
that was because the comprehensive plan amendment had already
been approved. We had already crossed that threshold. So the
designation had already been changed to allow for commercial
development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Weeks, you said that
Page 118
November 15,2007
you don't often see requests like this. So would you anticipate -- in
other words, my question would be are we creating a domino effect
here? Could you then start losing industrial down the road here? Is
that something that you would be concerned about, or --
MR. WEEKS: I think it's possible. As we were discussing a few
moments ago, for many of these industrial parks, these industrially
designated areas on the Future Land Use Map, there already exists a
frontage of commercial zoning. Therefore, there would be no need for
a plan amendment such as you're discussing today.
So I would say yes, there's some concern, but not a great amount
because of the limited applicability. Other than if we went the next
step and started chipping at the depth of the property, push the
commercial back further inward as opposed to linear along the
frontage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of compo
planning? Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a comment on that.
But this is not along that frontage. This extend that frontage
further.
MR. WEEKS: It's -- all of the property has frontage on Airport
Road. So in that sense it is -- the frontage portion of the industrial
designation, as opposed to somewhere in the interior.
But you are correct about the depth. Because the Naples Dodge
dealership is perpendicular to Airport Road. So in that sense the depth
is pushing back farther. And again, there may be some concern that
what's going to happen next. Well, the next property to the north can
then say, well, they've got commercial back to this depth, what about
us? But we've not really thought about that much.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I won't ask this, but
maybe I will. I'm not sure as I'm speaking on it.
Page 119
November 15,2007
What's the worst industrial application we could have on a piece
of property?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just made your mind up, because
you asked it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. And I'll just cut to the
chase. If you can think of the worst one and they are allowed to do
that, you've already indicated compatibility is not a question, because
you'd rather that than the worst thing that could be put on that
property, right? So it's merely a matter of whether or not this board
and another board conceives this as being a more appropriate act,
regardless. Am I right on that conclusion?
MR. WEEKS: I think I followed that. The property with existing
industrial designation of 1.83 acres could be developed industrial. The
C-4 Dodge dealership could be rezoned back to industrial to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. And then yes, subject to
meeting all the typical development standard code requirements, the
property could be developed with the most intense industrial use.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which would not be desirable
for the community in that particular area, I would think. You might
think it would be positive?
MR. WEEKS: Well, by nature of the -- by virtue of the fact that
it's already designated industrial, the county has made a decision
sometime in its past -- and I would say we're standing by it, there's no
effort to initiate a change to that -- that this is the appropriate
designation for the property. Therefore, the land uses allowed within
that designation are appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, your conclusions based on
your logic are certainly valid, I agree with that. But as we are human
beings, we can see the change sometimes as beneficial, even if it goes
against the thesis already that you've related. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this
time?
Page 120
November 15, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much.
Ray, we'll see what public speakers we have.
MR. BELLOWS: Sam Smart?
Did you want transportation to respond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked. Nobody had any questions.
We'll still get to him after the speakers, then, if Nick wants -- I guess
we could find reasons to ask Nick something.
MR. SMART: Hello. Sam Smart again.
I was here to really speak about the Naples Mazda rezoning
issue and about the traffic that I fear would be generated by it. And I'm
not sure that this is the appropriate time to speak.
The only thing I would say, industrial property, it's in short
supply. There's a lot of it in Immokalee. And business people such as
myself that by the county code have to occupy a business in an
industrial area, and the industrial -- and people such as myself, all the
trades, the contractors, they provide a real valuable service to this
community. And I think what you're doing -- and the point is that if
you push all the industrial property into commercial, there's no way
that a plumber, an electrician, can have a place to operate from and
that can afford the property.
So to a point here that was talked about rezoning in industrial, I
would speak to that. Again, the intent here though is I wanted to speak
later on traffic in the Mazda dealership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, later is now. This is when we're
asking public speakers to comment.
MR. SMART: Oh, on the Mazda rezone?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both iss -- there's two issues. They've
been -- we're going to discuss them together but vote on them
separately.
MR. SMART: I see. Okay.
Well, then the thing that I wanted to talk about was the impact
Page 121
November 15,2007
on the J &CI Airport Road intersection, should the Mazda dealership be
permitted.
And I think it's crucial that people appreciate, and the documents
weren't really clear, that there are three access points, three driveways
that are requested within 500 feet of the J&CIAirport intersection.
And that's going to create a problem. There's already a problem
with J&C traffic.
Now, I don't have a lot oftime, so I was going to start maybe
with my conclusions and then try to justify the point.
So the thought here is that you have to have concurrency, that if
you're going to allow this rezoning you have to have the infrastructure
-- I don't do this very often, talk to the public -- infrastructure to
support the rezoning. And I would suggest to you that you don't have
the adequate capacity at the J &CI Airport Road intersection to allow
this rezoning unless there are improvements made to the intersection.
And I per se have no problems with the Mazda dealership. I do
have a problem with the impact on the industrial community.
Now, to continue beyond just saying that, you know, people
recognize that concurrency is important, you can't overburden existing
facilities, there's another aspect to that also and that's basically safety.
And this acc -- this potential for accidents at this location, J&C
has shown up on reports as being the top 10 sites in the county for
accidents. So it has a history of being a dangerous intersection.
Now, pretty much before you make a decision about allowing
this dealership, you have to kind of address this issue of verifying --
the burden is on you, I feel, to make sure you have adequate capacity
to accommodate the traffic that's going to be generated.
Now, you can make a bad situation worse at the intersection, and
kind of graphicly speaking there, you can create a monster that's going
to come back and bite you. And again, the liability that would be
associated with permitting an overburdened intersection that's already
known for accidents -- could create major problems for the county, I
Page 122
November 15, 2007
feel.
Now, to try to support some of the things that I was saying, what
is the situation on J&C Boulevard? And I've tried to get information,
tried to get records, have gotten different things, and that's the point
earlier, I wanted to speak later just to see what the most recent
information is. It's sort of changed.
But J&C, you can stand and see the traffic, it's there every
afternoon, it can back up from one end of Airport Road down at the
other end at Taylor Road, and it's a daily occurrence. And you don't
have to be a traffic engineer to stand there and see it.
However, there are traffic reports that tell you that the PM, the
afternoon peak rush hour traffic, it exceeds capacity. And it's a known
fact that, you know, the road, the intersection is over burdened. And
that's something again that has to be recognized. It's a problem now
without allowing any additional traffic.
So the next question is, well, what are you going to do with the
Mazda dealership? And there's some reports out there that -- I mean,
basically you're looking at traffic counts that were done in April of
2007 that show this condition, the current graphic.
You have people that have gone back and offset traffic counts
from businesses that were closed three to five or six years ago. In
other words, they're saying the net effect for allowing this Mazda
dealership is only going to be four or seven more trips during peak
hours. Well, that's very flawed. Because what's happening is they're
taking credit for traffic that doesn't exist in the current traffic counts.
So that's another problem I ran into, what is the real effect of
allowing Mazda and the traffic. There's going to be different numbers
and different reports. 376 trips a day is one of the numbers that's used.
And it's all going to impact J&C Boulevard, and it's all going to
impact the intersection, because it's within 500 feet.
And I've got a report that says 80 percent of the traffic is going
to be on Airport Road, there's no problem, traffic's not a concern. And
Page 123
--_._.>.,---_.~_.-'~
November 15,2007
that's one of the reports that went to county.
So the thing again that I'm here to say is that you need to make
improvements to the intersection. Mitigation is a big word, I guess.
And the question is what needs to be done. And again, I've heard a lot
of different things from nothing's going to be done to an existing right
turn lane is going to be extended 70 feet and they're going to change
the angle of access to now that there's going to be a second turn lane --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have to caution you, we were
supposed to limit discussion to about five minutes. You've gone about
twice that long. And that's okay.
MR. SMART: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get you to a point where
you're wrapping it up, because some of the stuff you've said is a little
redundant. We understand your point, we'll certainly get transportation
to try to explain some of it for you.
MR. SMART: Okay. And thanks. And I appreciate the courtesy
of allowing me to ramble on.
And pretty much I have said everything. Just I'm not sure what
needs to be done, and I would trust the commission to kind of try to
figure out what would be an appropriate course of action here. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll ask the
transportation director to -- well, whatever title Nick has, to explain
some of their responses. And Ray, I'd like to do that before we move
the thought.
Nick, would you mind? And the gentleman brought up some
issues. He brought up making sure this has concurrency, which I know
your department does, but you might want to elaborate on that a little
bit. And also that there needs to be improvements on the intersection,
which I know the applicant has volunteered some improvements. I'd
also need to understand from your perspective how beneficial they
will be to that intersection.
Page 124
November 15,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida with transportation.
I listened to the gentleman speak for about 10 minutes. And he
kept talking about J&C Boulevard. There's two things we looked at
when we look at projects. We look at consistency with traffic on the
arterials that we measure concurrency on. There's no problem with
concurrency. There's an operational failure. We know that. The
operational failure is primarily not caused by this petition, it's caused
by the background traffic that's on J&C Boulevard. You run into this
problem in many areas throughout the county. You have existing
failures that you try and make one applicant fix. So we try and balance
that when we look at this application.
And I can tell you, dealing with Mr. Myers and the petitioner,
they've gone out of their way to help us.
Let me walk through what's identified as improvements. They've
already committed to Commissioner Murray and to me off the record
that they'll sign that agreement with the folks next door to provide that
interconnection. We've been pushing that for a long time. That's going
to be done.
We've identified that an eastbound left turn lane on J&C is
required. Not because of this application, it's required right now for
background traffic. And in fairness to the Myers and Naples Mazda
rezone, they should all, the whole industrial park should chip in and
help pay for the improvement.
But what we've asked them to do is to design, permit and
provide right-of-way necessary to make that improvement. And if we
feel that we can do a reasonable developer contribution agreement,
have them actually construct the improvement as part of their project.
But to give you an idea, they are less than four or five percent of
the impacts to that eastbound left, yet they're going to take on the
burden of providing probably 50 to 60 percent of the improvement and
donating right-of-way to get that done. That's a big improvement for
Page 125
November 15, 2007
us.
So I think they've gone out of their way to mitigate for it, and
we're looking forward to working with them on that, and that will
benefit the gentleman that works on J&C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a site plan that's proposed,
and they've got frontage on J&C and I think it's called Corporate or
Corporation Boulevard to the south. Yeah, Corporation Boulevard. It
looks like they're through lots.
If you look at their site plan, Nick, there are three -- yeah, three
connections to J&C are all interconnected internally on the property. I
don't know if you've got a site plan there, Ray? That's not a -- that's
not the plan. It's the one that's in the packet.
The first two are going from the Airport Road inward. The first
two -- and that's not as clear as the one that's in our packet, but -- if
you were to eliminate those first two and just use the one to the far
left.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's tough for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what. Ray, if you go to Page
4 of the staff report, in the bottom of that page there's a proposed site
plan that really makes it pretty clear. There you go.
Coming from Airport Road and going west, you see your first
two outlets go directly into that turn lane that's going to be added to
J&C Boulevard. And since they're all internally connected anyway, if
the applicant would be willing to remove those two and from J&C
Boulevard only use the interior and exit on the far left, and then it still
has all those ones on the south where they can go out onto Corporate
(sic) and take a right down there, I don't think anybody's losing by that
and J&C's traffic might improve by not having those cars turning
directly into that right lane turn.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could eliminate one of those
driveways; we talked about that for traffic circulation. They've asked
them to keep it intact. Part of the improvement you don't have here is
Page 126
November 15,2007
we've seen the improvement for the additional eastbound left turn
lane. There'll be a median separator in that road. And when we
actually review the plans, we'll talk about what needs to be closed and
be adjusted. We haven't gotten to that level of development review yet
in terms of the site plan, because obviously they've done a preliminary
site plan but they haven't done the intersection plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But from a congestion viewpoint,
if they were to accept closing those two, they could actually put more
parking spaces on their property, have one entrance and exit off J&C
Boulevard, and then they've got Corporate Boulevard to do the rest
which would get them onto Airport Road which feeds the intersection
to Pine Air Lakes subdivision, because they're going to have a light
with the donation they've made there so they can get down there so
they can get onto Naples Boulevard then. I'm wondering if that would
help.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would help. But with that median
and I think one of those are restricted to a right out only where we
talked about as far as a site plan.
Coming out is not the problem, it's getting in. If they start
making conflicting turns too close to the intersection -- but there's
going to be a median there, so they can't do that. They'll have to go
back into that far west driveway. In other words, if that's congested,
they're going to be sitting in their parking lot waiting to get out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless they go south and go out
Corporate Boulevard, they'll go out with the same right they could
have made there where it's less congestion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. They can do that too as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My suggestion was make Corporate
Boulevard more appealing by having more of the exits there and less
onto J &c.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could do that. I think the sight
circulation, the way they're trying to set up their service center, they
Page 127
November 15, 2007
were trying to not force people to come back in a conflicting way and
I'll let Tim talk about that.
MR. HANCOCK: Can I zoom that out a little bit.
The reason I'd like to use this exhibit is the connection from
Corporation Boulevard through to Pine Air Lakes does not connect to
our business. It's not a part of our circulation plan. As a matter of fact,
it's in between our water management lake and Corporation.
So our only connection to Pine Air Lakes is through the access
we have close to Airport Road, which was created through a license
agreement 11 years ago with Pine Air Lakes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tim, the zoning map that we have
included in our package shows Corporation Boulevard going straight
out along the top of C-4 to Airport Road, separating your four lots
from the C-4. That's not true?
MR. HANCOCK: That has been an inconsistency in the zoning
map from day one. As a matter of fact, 11 years ago --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another scrivener's error.
MR. HANCOCK: -- when this item was rezoned in 1996, I
remember the day well, because I was watching this hearing on a
television in Naples Community while my daughter was being born.
And that was the subject of discussion, that the county required that no
access be provided through the project from Corporation Boulevard to
Airport Road because it did not meet access guidelines. So that which
has been on the zoning maps forever was never a platted roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. So--
MR. HANCOCK: So what we've actually done is -- and the
reason we have -- I would like to point out that on J &C Boulevard, the
two previous uses, Tia's Restaurant and the Amerigas, which is a bulk
propane facility had six access points on J&C. We're cutting it down
to three and they will not be all full accesses. One is going to be right
out only, one is going to be restricted and one is going to be full. And
the one furthest away from the intersection will be full and the one in
Page 128
November 15,2007
the middle, that's going to be subject to design and review by
transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize you're cutting down on them
and I had not realized that Corporation Boulevard wasn't going to
continue.
MR. HANCOCK: I was getting a little lost in your comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The zoning map that we have, like we're
learning zoning maps are, isn't apparently accurate. So thank you.
Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's kind of on the same issue.
What does happen to Corporate (sic) Boulevard? In other words,
it looks like you're putting a retention in some of the right-of-way. If
you look at the aerials, it does meander up to J&C. Is that across
private property, or is that a right-of-way?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to go westbound and then
north to get to J&C.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when I'm looking at this
aerial and I see a lane, that's just going through some guy's parking lot.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a platted part of the
right-of-way, but it doesn't connect to J&C. You'd have to go west.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the dead-end that's --
Ray, could you put on an aerial photograph existing? If you could
zoom in on that, where this interconnection is going to occur.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right here. Head down Corporation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so Corporate goes north,
then it makes a right. And then somewhere there's an --
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, Mr. Schiffer, Corporation stops at
the back end of the Naples Dodge property. What you see to the north
is a driveway, and then as you go back to the east, that is an access
easement to a utility pump station, which is at the terminus of that
Page 129
November 15,2007
driveway.
When you get to the eastern edge of that pavement, there is no
connection through to J&C. And as Mr. Murray is well aware, that's
been something that people have looked for for some time but been
unable to acquire.
So Corporation itself terminates at the western end of the Naples
Dodge property. What you see as pavement there actually are access
easements that are used by those businesses, but they really are for
access to a pump station for service and maintenance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when your daughter was
being born and they did cut off Corporate, they didn't consider
cul-de-sacs or turnarounds or anything like that?
MR. HANCOCK: What they required was that there be a
vehicular turnaround. And when you go to Corporation Boulevard and
you go to the north, there's a large area of pavement up there, where I
can attest that sizeable vehicles use that to turn around and go back
down Corporation.
This connection from Corporation through Pine Air Lakes will
obviate the needs for people making that kind of a turning movement,
with the one exception of the person who -- someone who may make a
left turn and go somewhere they didn't intend.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll turn it -- and who's
going to use that road from Corporation?
MR. HANCOCK: As someone who works in the industrial park,
every one of us who goes to Chick Fillet for lunch. The -- coming out
on Trade Center --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good answer. That's
good enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions?
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like to add just two things. One is
there's a section of the Code 1.04.04 which talks about reductions in
Page 130
November 15,2007
the case of right-of-way acquisitions. And we always run into this
problem. You've got a developer who's willing to make an
improvement and he may have to donate three feet of land to make
that right-of-way or that turn lane for that project to improve that
intersection. We'd like to be able to take advantage of that. In other
words, it would be like a condenmation.
If there was -- the county was to do it, I'd have to condenm the
land from the applicant. And to condenm the land, you'd reduce
maybe a buffer or setback or whatever it would be, that they should
have the benefit of that. Otherwise, it makes it difficult for them to do
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you suggesting some stipulation
language in case this is --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the applicant is to donate
right-of-way necessary for public improvement projects, that they
could take advantage of the language in the section of the Code
1.04.04 consistent with condenmation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can't they do that if it's in the
code?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Am I reaching? Close?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll tell you what, we'll work that out. But
yeah, you're pushing it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're under the same problem
we had too in the Estates where the applicant at the corner said, I want
to help you out but I don't want to be punished for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you weren't tricky until you
got your new position.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not true.
MR. KLA TZKOW: He was always tricky.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was always tricky.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we didn't notice it so much.
Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow for pointing this out.
Page 13 1
November 15,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Last point of record is this happens a
lot. It happened with Naples Nissan and other applications. An
applicant is burdened with doing an application that far exceeds their
impacts. But they're willing to step up and do that, and they should be
recognized for doing that. Design, permitting and providing
right-of-way when you're less than five percent of the cause of the
problem takes us a far step to getting an improvement done. So it
should be recognized.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Any other questions of staff at this point? Ray, were there any
other public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, two other speakers. Joe Gammons.
MR. GAMMONS: Is this okay? Is this the one I should speak
at?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine.
MR. GAMMONS: Joe Gammons.
Interestingly enough, I think that might be my building right
there, but I can't really tell. I'm a little discombobulated by looking at
that from a bird's eye view. But to make a long story short, I'm a small
business owner that owns a furniture dealership just down on J&C
Boulevard.
And I can attest with the economic conditions we're facing right
now that as a neighbor of Naples Mazda I would love for the
commission to, you know, take the gift, I guess for lack of a better
word, that they're willing to redo that intersection. Because to -- as the
transportation gentleman spoke and said, maybe to have everybody in
that corporate circle chip in to do it, you know, I can attest that the
money ain't there.
So it's -- just from that aspect of it, I guess I'm here to speak on
behalf of the petitioner and say two things, really. That's the first.
And the second is I would much rather have a Mazda dealership
on the corner of that property than for Naples Dodge and Naples
Page 132
November 15,2007
Mazda to become infuriated and pack their bags and move someplace
else and have a 10-acre Rinker cement plant. Because I think the staff
tends to speak in hypothetical and, you know, we tend to live in
reality. If that makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. Thank you for spending the
time here today to speak to us. Appreciate it.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker was Doug Peddice (sic).
Unfortunately he couldn't stay for the afternoon session of this petition
but has submitted a letter he would like to read in. It's a short one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. BELLOWS: Please take notice of our opinion that the
proposal as -- for rezoning should benefit all commuters and general
traffic attempting to access both J&C Boulevard, as well as Trade
Center Way. I am in favor of this rezoning petition and request that
you vote to pass this petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And could you leave that
with the court reporter so it gets recorded with the documents.
Okay, are there any other questions of anyone at this point by
the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just curious --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and then Mr. Schiffer. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just of the petitioner. Where do
you park the car trailers that come in?
MR. HANCOCK: Currently the vehicle carriers are using the
service road that goes behind Lowe's. And then the vehicles are
moved in.
One thing that we have is -- and we will be constructing as a part
of our current SDP A is a second access point on that service road
where those trucks can come into the storage part of the lot and not
have to use that service road.
Page 133
November 15,2007
Because as you know with the Pine Air Lakes, that service road,
the character of that road is changing. So that second access point will
allow the carriers to come into the rear portion of the site and unload
there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Out of the way of regular traffic
usmg --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. It's a liability with -- with the
way that roadway is changing, we recognize that and we're trying to
address that currently in our SDP A which we pray is going to actually
get approved some day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Carolina, question for you.
I understand the logic of connecting what they wanted to the
existing activity center. But why did you choose the location of the
western boundary of the larger tract? What was the logic of that line?
It's not on a property line, is it? In other words, why did it go back that
far, to prevent going through buildings or --
MS. VALERA: What the petitioner is requesting to go through
the activity center doesn't include the whole property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what is the logic of
that location? Their request or--
MS. VALERA: Well, that would allow them to go as a
small-scale GMP amendment. If they were to be more than 10 acres,
this would be a full-scale amendment and they would have to go as
part of the yearly cycle, the GMP yearly cycle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the answer is that's the
furthest they could go before they went over the threshold.
MS. VALERA: That's the max, exactly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no other speakers, so we'll
Page 134
November 15, 2007
close the public hearing and entertain a motion. The motions have to
be in order and we need to take Item H first.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I recommend Item H for
approval. That's the small GMP amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're recommending approval of
Item H. That means we're not supporting staffs recommendation of
denial.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I want to make sure we all
understand that.
Any other discussion on that matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #8E
PETITION: RZ-2006-AR-10422
Page 135
November 15,2007
Now, the next item we need to take action on is the petition
itself,2006-AR-10422.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also make the motion to
approve, and I do want to bring up the fact of what Nick said, that if
you have a developer or builder that's going to give something to the
county, how could we bite his hand for it.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second the motion first
before you talk about it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You can talk about it now, I
seconded it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So I'm done, that's it. I
just can't see how we could not -- how we could punish him for being
nice. You got me all confused.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask the motion maker to
include a stipulation that an agreement will be reached, and this is a
stipulate that it will be part of it to have that 40- foot by 220- foot what
did we call it, an easement? I'm forgetting what that's called now. That
was not an easement, that was a fee, transferring fee?
MR. HANCOCK: Ultimately it will be a donation --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Donation, yeah.
MR. HANCOCK: -- to the county. The agreement between Pine
Air Lakes and Naples Dodge that will be executed prior the BCC
hearing will simply ensure that it gets -- somebody's on the hook, it's
going to get built.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I want to put it, if
you include it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will the motion makers mind
including the recommendations as -- yeah, recommendations of staff.
Page 136
November 15, 2007
There are five elements of staff, all of which I think we've talked
about, there's no objection to?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If the petitioner has no
objection to staff recommendations.
MR. HANCOCK: The only correction was made by Nick with
regard to the improvements on J&C. I believe your recommendations
talked about construction of the improvements. What Nick had on the
record was slightly different than that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Design, permit and construct and
provide right-of-way. Ifwe enter into a separate agreement for them to
construct, to agree to a separate DCA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you looked at staff
recommendations?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one would we be changing to
coincide? Because they're all about right-of-way for the most -- well,
the last four of them, I should say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's three. The paragraph three,
it says, the developer shall be responsible for construction of all
required intersection improvements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you recommending that be
changed to read?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That we strike that. We're going to do
that outside of this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do that by the DCA
that's been agreed to?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are going to either have them do it
as part of the DCA, or the county's going to fund the improvements
themself. They're going to design, permit and provide right-of-way
necessary for that improvement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then that's what needs to be in
number three.
Page 13 7
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at, Nick. So
now, what needs to go -- how do you want number three to read?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Developer shall design, permit and
provide right-of-way sufficient for an additional eastbound left turn
lane on J &C Boulevard, prior to the certificate of occupancy for that
site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the staff understand that
stipulation or does it need to be clarified? We don't want any mistakes.
So if you're not absolutely sure on what the language is, ask for it to
be repeated. I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about Willie or
whoever is going to have to be writing this down to make sure it gets
put in the PUD properly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Developer shall design, permit and
provide right-of-way sufficient for an additional eastbound left turn
lane on J&C Boulevard prior to certificate of occupancy for that
additional site.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Also --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish this one first.
Willie, do you have all that down?
MR. BROWN: I do. I have an abbreviated version, but I can get
with Nick to go over the details later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The microphone's going to have to be
used.
MR. BROWN: Essentially I believe he's saying the developer
shall design, permit and provide right-of-way sufficient for -- is it the
right turn lane?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Additional eastbound left turn lane.
MR. BROWN: Additional eastbound left turn lane prior to
certificate of occupancy for this site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I just want to make sure
1.04 that you discussed about before is clarified.
Page 138
November 15, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we found a way to deal with
that, and we'll work that out with the county attorney's office.
MR. KLATZKOW: We will get into -- we will work that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be in the DCA.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll work that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that doesn't include the
construction of it, though.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we all set on that? Staff
understands the stipulation? The motion makers accepts the
stipulations as changed, including the remainder of the staff
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Now, we have another one final item. It may take a little while.
We're probably at time for a break. Because then we come back and
Page 139
November 15,2007
we can finish up before we get stopped in the middle of something. So
let's take a 15-minutes break and be back here at five minutes to 2:00.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will come back to
their seats.
Item #8F
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-11121
The next petition is PUDZ-2007-AR-11121, the Chestnut Ridge
LLC, being presented by -- represented by Mr. Hoover and Mr.
Y ovanovich. It's on Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard.
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: Disclosures on the part of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had some questions. I spoke
to Mr. Y ovanovich by telephone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I too spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich
about this. I can't remember what we spoke -- oh, I think I told him
some of the discrepancies I'm going to talk about today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe you did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I believe I did, too.
Okay, it's all yours, sir.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner.
Page 140
November 15, 2007
I also have Bill Hoover with me to address any questions you
may have, and Jeremy Sterk and Josh Fruth from Davidson
Engineering.
I'm going to put on the visualizer real quick the location map of
the property. It's a small parcel at the intersection ofImmokalee Road
and Everglades Boulevard. I'll put -- even though it's hard to see, but
it's a very small piece.
Here is an aerial of the property in its current condition. The
property is 6.01 acres. It's at the, I believe, southwest corner of
Everglades and Immokalee Road. The property is within the Golden
Gate Estates master plan. It's within the neighborhood center
subdistrict. Let me take that back. A four-acre portion of it is within
the neighborhood center subdistrict. I'm going to put the PUD master
plan up.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Southeast, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Southeast. I knew that. I wrote southeast
and I said southwest. I was testing you. No, I did write southwest.
Parcel 113, as you can see on the master plan, is about four
acres. It's on the western portion of the property. That's within the
neighborhood center subdistrict.
Under the subdistrict that property could be rezoned to C-1
through C-3 type commercial uses.
Parcel 114, which is about a two-acre parcel immediately
adjacent to parcel 113 is eligible to be changed to conditional uses if
parcel 113 is rezoned to commercial uses.
What we did is we combined into one application a PUD to
address both the retail uses on parcel 113 and the conditional uses on
parcel 114.
We've agreed to limit the commercial square footage to 24,000
square feet and the conditional use square footage to 6,000 square feet.
The conditional uses, basically we've asked for two: One is a
church and one is a day care. The county attorney has advised that we
Page 141
November 15, 2007
can include the church as a conditional use as a matter of right. But the
day care has to go through the conditional use process again and
submit another application for the conditional use. So we've listed that
so people know that the only two conditional uses we're thinking of
putting on the property are the church and the day care. But we will
have to come back again through another conditional use process to
get the day care.
Your staff report analyzed all the required elements of the GMP,
as well as the Land Development Code. Staff agrees that the request is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Land Development
Code.
Your transportation department has been vigilant. They have
requested that we donate an additional 50 feet for Everglades
Boulevard, as well as an additional 39 feet for Immokalee Road.
We've agreed to do that in the transportation stipulations.
We've provided for interconnection for the property to the south
that is also in the neighborhood center, so at some point it will come
forward we believe with a request to go to commercial. If not, you can
see on the master plan we have set the buffers up for a 75-foot buffer
for our property to the south in the event they do not come in and
request commercial. If they do come in to request commercial in the
future, we can reduce that buffer.
We've provided for a 75-foot buffer for our property to the east,
which on the aerial again you will see is an improved home. And
we've got a 75-foot buffer between us and the home.
With that, that's an overview of our petition, and we'll be happy
to answer any questions you may have regarding the petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the
applicant?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
Page 142
November 15,2007
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, you show a rear setback
of 15 feet, yet you're 75 feet from anything in the Estates. So where
would that 15 feet ever apply?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Probably wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't think it would
either. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, in the neighborhood
informational meeting, you talked about putting a concrete wall.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe I talked about putting one
there. I think the gentleman who owns the house asked if we would
consider it. I don't remember saying we'd consider a concrete wall. I
know we agreed we'd consider a wood fence.
We don't think a concrete wall is justified for a church use. If
something changes when we come through for day care to justify a
concrete wall, we can discuss that at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read the staff report.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I read that statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, let me read it for the record. Mr.
Rich Y ovanovich said they, the applicants, would consider a request
for a concrete wall as they go through the process.
So you're saying now that you did not say you would consider a
concrete wall as you go through the process?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, I don't recall
saying that. And Mr. Hoover certainly said he doesn't think I said that
either. He also made it very clear that he would only consider a wood
fence. Since he's the owner of the property, he was very concerned
about the financial implications of a concrete wall requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming Willie Brown was the
staff member there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had two neighborhood information
meetings on this. I'm not saying Willie's wrong, I just don't recall
saying that. I know that cost was an issue.
Page 143
November 15, 2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the fact that it was brought up
and that you are against a single-family residential on that one eastern
side, a wall sure is warranted. I don't have an objection to a wooden
wall, but it depends on what you said. If you said a concrete, then --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One thing I'm very clear on, is I did not
commit to construct. I said -- if I said we would consider it, it would
have been consider the financial aspects of it. I did not commit to a
concrete wall. That I'm very clear on. So if you want a wood fence, I
don't believe we'd have an objection to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to like this next
one.
I've read your uses. Next week or the week after Thanksgiving
we have an issue coming up with incompatible uses, and we -- in the
previous PUD we recommended that that language be included as part
of the PUD, just in case it doesn't succeed being put through the
process of the LDC amendment. Do you have any objection to it,
adding it to this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd rather address it with what are your
concerns as to location. Because quite honestly, it hasn't been -- I
heard the comments earlier, if it's good enough for the LDC, it's good
enough for this PUD. Well, it hasn't been determined to be good
enough for the LDC yet, so I don't think we should single out this
particular PUD and attach a standard that's different for it than every
other PUD in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think at the time that this
language came about we did it with the intention of differing PUD's. It
came about because we realized we had made errors in the past that
couldn't be fixed rather easily. Example, Pebblebrook PUD with
Stevie Tomatoes. This came about to try to prevent that.
The objection has been that if we put it in the LDC and we try to
go back on projects that have already had their zoning, that we'd be
more or less infringing on their rights because they didn't know about
Page 144
November 15,2007
it. We're simply saying putting this language in the PUD puts you and
everybody else on notice that if you get out of hand there is a process
to address that.
For example, the church that you're putting next to the
single-family home. Churches today have changed. They have live
bands, they have loud music, they have all kinds of things, depending
on the type of denomination that may be in that church. I certainly
would think such things would be questionable, whether they're
indoors or outdoors and how much sound transmits to the neighbors
next door in a single-family house next door to you. So I don't see any
reason why this shouldn't be added to the PUD like it was in the one
this morning. So my recommendation would be strongly to add this to
the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, Mr. Strain, I'm sure -- since
you brought my name up earlier in the presentation on the first one,
I've read that language. That language is not measurable. There is no
objective standard in that language so any property owner knows what
his rights are on his property. It is wide open, it's open to
interpretation, and you're essentially saying that -- and let's use the
church. Because you have a neighbor who decides that they don't like
the way certain people worship they're going to bring a complaint and
we're going to go through some potential pressure on the county
manager and his staff to what, shut the church down or not let a
church use in the future because you have a neighbor who -- or a
manager who is sensitive to those issues?
I think we should look at the permitted uses on the property and
decide whether they're appropriate, based upon the development
standards next to a home. And then if they're not appropriate next to a
home, let's talk about that. If you don't want to have outdoor
entertainment, then don't let us have outdoor entertainment. You have
a noise ordinance, I think that's the appropriate way to regulate this.
It's impossible for a person who owns this property to go to a
Page 145
November 15,2007
potential buyer or a tenant and say the world can change on you based
upon the decision of the county manager.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What the thing says first of all does not
come in and cause a reaction to the homeowner next door. It happens
at a time of your first designation of a use on a site development plan.
The homeowner next door would more or less realize your uses well
after they were in operation.
And during the staffs review, it says right here, within 30 days
from an applicant's first designation of a use in a site development
plan, it shall be within the discretion of the county manager or his
designee to refuse approval of such site develop plan.
And then that throws you into a process of review to assure that
the intent that you were going in with was what was presented, more
or less, or what you thought was going to be presented at these
meetings. I see nothing wrong with it, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's not clear about our intent on this
application? We've listed the uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, we went through this in
Pebblebrook. I didn't think anything was -- well, I thought we were
very clear on Pebblebrook. It didn't get transmitted that way, it didn't
get resolved that way. And now we have a problem.
And I heard testimony that there are other places in North
Naples that have a similar problem. So I don't think this is
unwarranted. I think by putting the notice in the PUD, it puts
everybody on notice that if they've got anything that goes beyond
what may be considered extraneous activities and noises, that they
could be subject to further action.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So let me ask the question. I come in
with my site development plan for my little retail operation, and in
that I have a restaurant. How do you know -- I don't have to tell you
the name of the restaurant. How do you know you're not going to still
have a problem with Stevie Tomatoes?
Page 146
November 15,2007
Because you're telling me it applies when I get my SDP, not
after I'm already in and operating. So the language you're proposing
isn't addressing the Stevie Tomatoes issue. Because that's an
after-the-fact issue. What I'm suggesting is if the concern is you don't
want outdoor -- and we've done this on others, and this was after the
Pebblebrook issue. We've eliminated outdoor televisions, and we're
not allowed to have drinking places, that's a prohibited use clearly in
the PUD. We're only allowed to have restaurants. So I don't
understand the issue. I don't understand the issue for why the county
needs to come up with this language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're focusing on outdoor
entertainment. There are other issues that cause a disturbance. You're
going to have a convenience store. I don't know what the lighting's
going to be like, but I'm not going to sit here and engineer your
lighting.
I don't know what -- for example, I pull up to some stores like
one of those super stores, they call them, and they've got speakers out
on their gas pumps that are blaring some kind of music I don't even
know even what language it's being spoken in, practically. I don't
think we want that out in the Estates.
I don't think people living nearby in a quiet atmosphere need to
hear that. And I think that if that were to happen, there'd be some
restitution -- not restitution, some correction needs to be available for
staff when they go through the process to make sure that isn't
happening.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, and I could be wrong, but I
thought your Land Development Code addressed lighting. I thought
your Land Development Code addresses noise. You have a lot of
regulations on the books that either need to be tightened up -- but I
don't think any of the circumstances you're just describing are going to
be addressed by the provision you're trying to impose upon us.
Because this is -- are we going to start submitting on our -- when we
Page 147
November 15,2007
come in with a convenient store with gas pumps, are we going to start
submitting the decibel levels for our speakers? Are we going to start
submitting the type of music we're going to play? I mean, is that all --
is that what we're going to start getting into when we do a submittal
for a site development plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think when the SDP plans come
in, hopefully staff will start asking questions about any use that could
be contrived off of those plans that may go beyond what was intended
for the neighborhood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you and I could debate them. I
could spend the next three hours this afternoon debating this, and you
know what, you're not going to change my mind. And I probably
aren't (sic) going to change yours. So we can end our conversation.
If anybody else wants to contribute, they're more than welcome
to.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is it we exactly want to
do? Because we have words now that are proposed but they haven't
gone through the process yet. So how would you handle this, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just what we did this morning. We add
to the PUD the language that was -- that's proposed in 10.02.03(A)(5)
A, B, C and D, for the revision dated 11/06107 for the LDC meeting
that's going to happen on the 28th of this month.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's say we go through the
vetting process and we come up with better wording. They won't have
access to it and they'll be stuck with this wording, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's better than nothing. If you
think --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think another way to handle it
might be that they can't consider themselves grandfathered from that
clause, whatever that clause we come up with is.
Page 148
November 15,2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I'm correct, we're always subject to the
Land Development Code in any changes that occur.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Isn't that what this document says?
You've been doing it to us -- the county staff says, hey, whatever the
rules are at the time you come in with in the SDP, you've got to meet
the current rules.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that on the 28th when this
issue comes up for discussion, you and I don't know how many people
from the business groups will be here, and DSAC's already weighed in
on it, they don't like the language. Of course they're not going to like
the language, because it's tightening things up that may benefit the
public in a manner that is hurting them with regards to outdoor
entertainment right now that isn't as regulated as it should be.
I don't think the language is going to survive that intact. It may
survive this board, but when it goes to the next level, who knows what
it will come out at.
And for that reason, I think anything we can put in now that
helps is better than nothing at all. And your applicant's being put on
notice that it's there, and so are the people that are moving in there, so
-- anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me continue.
Mark, what language is in there? Because I know we had a
hearing where we made some comments on it. Jeff, did you upgrade
that and that's what's in the LDC coming up?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, coming today, I didn't
know we were going to -- I mean, I wish I'd have brought my book,
too, or read this prior to today to see what revisions were even made in
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's up to you. I'm just --
I'm suggesting the stipulation when we get to that point. The
Page 149
November 15,2007
applicant's saying no. That's where it lies at this point.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't imagine -- even though I
appreciate your argument, sir, I can't imagine us not taking the effort
to introduce it, because we did it this morning believing full well that
it was appropriate.
And I understood, as I said it as well, that if the Board of County
Commissioners decides that it's inappropriate, they have every right in
the world to ignore it. And I think it's incumbent upon us to try and be
as proactive to help the community now that we have an opportunity
that we didn't have earlier. So I would support you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is this coming before the BCC;
does anybody know?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it was part of the second cycle, so I
guess it's going to be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, when is this application, Chestnut
PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sometime in January.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the BCC will have ample
time then before they hear it to know the outcome of the language in
the Land Development Code on the 28th. And if they decide that
whatever that outcome is for better or for worse, they've certainly got
the wisdom then to make the decision to change it. So nobody's at a
loss.
And Mr. Y ovanovich, you could easily make that argument. And
if you're arguing with them --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You asked me if I was acceptable to it. I
said no, I'm not. And I tried to explain my reasons why. So you all
will do whatever you all think is appropriate. I just tried to explain that
I think it's better to be handled in the LDC and to not single out
specific PUD's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that at this time to put this
Page 150
November 15, 2007
in subject to the BCC review, which they will do anyway, that they're
going to have the opportunity to decide, based on the LDC review,
whether or not it's adequate or not or ample.
Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I believe an ounce of
prevention, even though it's not perfect, is certainly better than
nothing. And I think I would support your position that we ought to at
least try it on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, his comment on the LDC,
if in fact we add a new, you know, amendment to the LDC to cover
this, the proposed amendment, would this particular application be
required to honor that?
MR. KLATZKOW: The development community has taken the
position that that would be unlawful.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if now we put some verbiage
that this particular application would have to honor that particular
clause and focus on it, would it be the clause that's amended or would
it be the clause as it exists today?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, therein lies the problem. I mean, I
understand your point. You're point is -- I'm not totally sure how you
can put a condition on something that we don't know what it is yet.
Whereas this stipulation is -- you may not like it, you may not
want to vote for it, that's fine, but it is what it is, and, you know, take it
from there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, ifby the time we get
done hearing the LDC amendment you'll get a flavor of where we're
going on it and what changes if any resulted from our discussions well
before the BCC's meeting.
By the time it gets to the BCC, you could also express the
outcome of the LDC hearing to them, for whatever that is worth, in a
discussion to either support or modify this language. And then they --
Page 151
November 15,2007
I know they would understand what's gone on, they could make a --
MR. KLATZKOW: Herein lies the rub. Let's say just for
purposes of discussion that you vote for this condition and you vote to
recommend this unanimously. It goes on consent. And it will be a
condition of the board's approval that this stipulation require the PUD
ordinance. And unless the applicant wants to take it off the consent to
argue it before the board, it's going to go through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody else can take it off consent?
MR. KLATZKOW: The staff could, I suppose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if the petitioner would want
that. He might --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could members of the BCC take it off?
MR. KLATZKOW: They can always take it off, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I'm sure that if they
see a problem I wouldn't imagine they would leave it on there. I would
think they would take it off. I hopefully would rely on their judgment
to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant or discussions on this or related issues? If not, we'll move on
to presentation by staff.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you done with me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes.
MR. BROWN: Good afternoon again. Willie Brown, Principal
Planner, representing the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the
application on file. I will note that this is a very small lot, considering
the requirements imposed upon it. However, the project complies with
Page 152
November 15,2007
the intent of the appropriate regulations of the LDC and Growth
Management Plan.
The 6.01-acre development proposal does take into account, as
Mr. Y ovanovich mentioned, future right-of-way expansions along
Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, as well as landscaping
and preserve requirements.
1.77 acres oflandscaping, 0.61 acres of preserve and 0.2 acres of
water management is proposed, leaving only 0.60 acres of buildable
space after internal circulation drives and parking.
The Golden Gate Area Master Plan in the adoption of the
neighborhood center subdistrict provides for neighborhood
commercial uses within the Estates requiring a heightened (phonetic)
amount of buffering along the southern and eastern borders of the site.
75 feet of buffer would be provided adjacent to the Estates zoned lots.
On June 28th the petitioner held a neighborhood information
meeting. A neighboring property owner phoned in (phonetic) concerns
related to potential nuisances and traffic impacts. If built to LDC
standards and GGAMP overlay requirements, impact would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you slow down a little bit? She's
having a hard time keeping up with you.
MR. BROWN: If built to LDC standards and GGAMP overlay
requirements, impact would be minimal, staffs opinion. Many of these
details would be worked out during the SDP process.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed MPUD rezone,
subject to the agreed upon developer commitments found in Exhibit E
of the PUD document. Also an analysis upon which conclusions were
drawn, staffs opinion can be found in the staffs report.
Rezone MPUD findings. No letters of opposition have been
received.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I'm looking at your staff
report. I just have a few questions for qualification. On Page 3, in the
Page 153
November 15,2007
last paragraph, tell me when you get there, please.
MR. BROWN: I'm there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the second line --
MR. BROWN: Mr. Murray, this is the consistency review from
compo planning, and David Weeks is here, he could perhaps better
address those issues than me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. That's fine. I didn't
actually realize that.
Let me see what who all signed this. Willie Brown, that's what I
thought. Okay, hello, Sir David.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon. For the record, David Weeks,
Comprehensive Planning Department.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Although this is signed by
Willie Brown, this is still your baby apparently that he wants you to
relate to, that portion of it. And my questions have to do with the
words.
In that last paragraph where it says neighborhood centers are
located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate
Estates according to commercial demand estimates, where do we get
those estimates? Who provides those estimates? Are we using it more
in the vernacular or are we using it in truth that there are demands by
the community, their needs, or their calculations, what?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Murray, I'm always impressed with your
vocabulary. I know the word vernacular, but I'm not exactly sure how
you mean it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, everyday language. The
use of everyday language.
MR. WEEKS: That's exactly what it means. It's not a matter of
actual data that we're comparing. And this goes back to the original
designation of those neighborhood centers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And probably then some
of this also applies the same way.
Page 154
November 15,2007
Now, there is one on Page 5 of 12, and perhaps I'm still in your
territory. All buildings shall have tile roofs, et cetera. And then it says,
the building shall be finished in light subdued colors, except for
decorative trim.
I just was curious, we had a color chart of some sort that went
through a process. And I don't know if that was approved. I suspect
that it was, that we were going to use a certain color chart? If that's
true, would we refer to that chart? Because that was supposed to be
the authority, as I remember Mr. Hale, was that his name?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick Hale.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nick Hale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This preceded -- this GMP language
preceded the issue you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then would it be useful,
if that is -- if that has been approved, would that not -- may I make a
suggestion, would it be useful to put that in there as a reference point?
Because as I understood it, that was to determine for all time what
colors and colorations, hue and all the rest of it would apply. So as a
thought.
Then I think lastly, again, I'm now on Page 6 of 12 under A of
the last three paragraphs. Says, there shall be no adverse impacts to
the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to
this area shall not increase the annual hydro period unless it is proven
that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation.
Again, is that more the vernacular or is that -- how do we go
about proving that? When it becomes inundated or when we have
people in canoes or -- how do we know that?
MR. WEEKS: That's a good question. And one I really can't
answer, Commissioner. We would defer to environmental services
staff to actually implement this provision. So at this point it's a matter
of -- and this is typical, the applicant simply says yeah, we agree to
that, and they craft this language and insert it into their PUD.
Page 155
November 15,2007
Actual implementation would occur at the site development plan
stage, and they submit whatever data they can submit to try to show
that they are in compliance with this requirement. And then
environmental staff would review it and make that determination.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Barbara Burgeson would be
taking care of it?
MR. WEEKS: And our staff, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Ray, are there any
public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing
and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll -- dare me, dare me, I'll go
forward with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We are talking about Chestnut
Place. Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11121, Chestnut Place MPUD.
Making a recommendation of approval to the Board of County
Commissioners. And I don't see any other stipulations or
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded.
Discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we've made some
stipulations here today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, we have, haven't we?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So for one, the county attorney has
requested that the conditional use be for the church only and that they
Page 156
November 15, 2007
have to come back for an additional conditional use if they want the
child care center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie has a comment on that.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. Marjorie Student-Stirling, for
the record.
County attorney didn't opine that, that's in the Land
Development Code in Division 2.08.00 that churches, schools or
eleemosynary uses when they're in a PUD do not have to come back
for further conditional use.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good word for Mr.
Weeks, eleemosynary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I should have said that Mr.
Klatzkow brought up the issue. Thank you.
We have requested that there be at least a wood fence around the
eastern edge of this property to protect the residential. And we've
included the compatible use language that we'll --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you, because in
my zeal to get this thing going, I overlooked those two things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me define the language,
Donna, that you referred to. It was add the proposed Land
Development Code language 1O.02.03(A)(5) A, B, C and D as revised
through the 11/06/07 revision date in the distribution of the LDC
amendments we received.
And as far as your first part of your motion, did Margie's
comment change that? So it stays as it is, oaky. I just wanted to make
sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, my motion. She was
helping me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so you know, we had already
addressed the issue about the church and the day care and the PUD, so
I don't know that it --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We saw that.
Page 157
November 15,2007
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we have a motion and there's
been some suggested stipulations. Does the motion maker and the
second accept that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like them.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Did you include the Exhibit E
list of developers commitments in the motion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit E is part of the PUD, so I would
assume that by approving the PUD, we're approving Exhibit E,
correct?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would like to stipulate that
separate.
MR. BELLOWS: I would also like Mr. Brown to clarify
everything before you make your final vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. BELLOWS: I would like Mr. Brown to repeat the
conditions, just so we're clear before you make the vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Brown, see how well you
took notes.
MR. BROWN: A wood fence shall be required along the eastern
and southern boundaries of the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The eastern boundary of the site.
MR. BROWN: Just the Eastern boundary?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, just the eastern.
MR. BROWN: Section -- and I'm not sure which document
you're referring to. 1O.02.03(A)(5), letters A, B, C, and D, revision
date 11/6/07 shall apply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's of the proposed LDC
amendments that were Cycle 2, 2007.
MR. BELLOWS: We'll get him a copy of that.
Page 158
November 15,2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you mind if someone sends us a
copy?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Speak to the staff. If you want a copy,
you've got to call the County Manager on the cell phone.
And there was another comment about --
MR. BROWN: The other one about the conditional use I hear is
an LDC requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to restate that in the
stipulation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in there.
MR. BROWN: If it's already there, does it still --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no.
MR. BROWN: -- have to have it in the stipulation? Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But the fence, you want a six-foot fence?
Just for clarity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume a six-foot fence. Shorter
would probably do no good. So a six-foot wood fence, is that--
everybody? Okay, so there's only two stipulations, six-foot wood
fence around the east side, and then the referenced LDC language that
we talked about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As the motion maker I think
that's good; six-foot fence is fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second -- does the
second accept that?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Before you vote on a six-foot fence, can
we confirm we can have a six-foot fence? I think it's only a five under
the compo plan. I'm not sure, but you're going way fast.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why don't we just pull out the
footage.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's our compo plan expert.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to consistency with the compo
Page 159
November 15,2007
plan --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's still a wooden fence.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. That's good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It says five feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a five-foot wood fence along the
east side. How does that work?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the motion maker accept that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that change?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown, do you have all that down?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you.
Now, we're into old business. Does anybody have any issues
they wish to bring up at this time?
Page 160
November 15,2007
Item #10
NEW BUSINESS
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have a new business.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, see, this is a good
example. The staff reports.
Ray, is there a way you could date everything that you're doing?
A lot of times you'll have the date of the hearing, but for example, on
this one we got two staff reports, one in color, one not. And they
probably are the same, but I think it's important that all material be
dated so that we could -- and not just the date of the hearing. In other
words --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The date it was printed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The date it's printed. I mean, if
these are the same, they would have the same date and I would trust
that. But right now I don't know what they are. I don't know if they're
the same. They came from two different directions at two different
times.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe in the footer we could put the last
revised date of the printing of that document. That shouldn't be a
problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's important so
that we know that something's been changed. In other words, I could
look and see.
MR. BELLOWS: Typically the only reason to get a second
report is if it's a supplemental staff report, and it should say
supplemental staff report on top.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there may be things in there
that haven't changed, there may be things that have. So let's try to get
all pages dated, where available. I mean, I think it's safer that way.
Page 161
November 15,2007
That way nothing could accidentally pass by us without noticing it
was different.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, one of the projects I'm working on this
quarter is to update all our templates for our various petitions types.
And that could be part of the revisions that we're making to our
templates. So when the next group of staff reports come in, they'll
follow the new templates and make sure all the various categories are
addressed properly, plus having this date note on it. And plus what
Mr. Strain said earlier about putting the ordinance numbers, the
history of ordinance numbers on PUD documents so we can trace the
history of the zoning actions for that particular property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, that would be helpful.
And again, I know that at times our meetings seem to criticize
staff. I don't know if that's the intent as much as criticizing the process
that we're saddled with at times. So we appreciate all you guys are
doing, we appreciate the cooperation that you have provided to us, and
I hope that staff realizes we're trying to get to the same conclusion
they are.
MR. BELLOWS: We're all working as a team to the common
good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any new
business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No public comment, because nobody's
left.
Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to adjourn. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 162
November 15, 2007
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned. Thank you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:32 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mark Strain, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 163