Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/06/2008 R March 6, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 6,2008 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 David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Zoning & Land Development Page 1 AGENDA Revised II COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ----.----- ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 5, 2008, LDC MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has directed that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and comment on a proposed settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, L.L.C. (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) project) to settle alleged claims arising from a denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. These claims are: (I) A petition for writ of certiorari, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and (2) an alleged Bert Harris Private Property Rights claim. (Coordinator: David Weigel, County Attorney; Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney) FROM 2/25/08 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: VA-2007-AR-12477, Gregory W. and Beverly J. Schuelke. represented by Christopher J. Thornton, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLP, are requesting 4 Variances for a project to be known as the Schuelke Variance. The Variance petition seeks approval for encroachment of a pool retaining wall and wings, pool screen cage, and concrete stairs within a required 10-foot side yard setback. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot I, Block U on 0.27 acres, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR- I 1723, Amy Turner and/or Tammy Turner Kipp, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, request a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) for the Vanderbilt Trust 1989 PUD, to allow development of a maximum of 200 assisted living, continuing care retirement community, nursing home, retirement community and/or independent living facility units for persons over the age of 55, to be developed at a 0.6 floor area ratio. The subject 7.8* acre property is located on tbe nortb side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862), approximately 1/4 mile east of Livingston Road (CR 881) in Section 31, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Review and recommendation on a proposed ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, providing for a permit to authorize the operation of outdoor serving areas; specifying outdoor serving area pennit application requirements; providing for suspension of such permit; providing for operating regulations; providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for repeal of three specified ordinances; and providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Chief Assistant County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow) II. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3/6/08 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for a pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. 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 Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. Are there any changes needed for today's agenda? (No response.) Page 2 March 6, 2008 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing that, we'll move forward. Planning Commission absences. Our next scheduled meeting is the GMP Meeting on the 17th in this room at 8:30. Is everybody -- does anybody know they're not going to be here for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on this -- I was going to bring it up under chairman's report, but I think we can bring it up here just as easily. And that's an issue involving the county attorney's office, as well as the consensus from this board. The GMP Amendments that you've all received in a rather large book, an over-stuffed book, included a lot of different petitions in different parts of the county. And I've gone through very lightly to try to understand what we're dealing with. And there's three of them there that I want to ask the county attorney if we could modify the agenda and the time frames. And I know that this has been or will be advertised for March 17th. I have no problem with that. And I think we certainly should have the meeting that day and start in the morning at 9:00. But what I'd like to suggest -- and first I'll tell you everything I'm going to do, Jeff, and you can then tell me if it's legally doable. And then if it is, I'd like the consensus from the commission that it's yea or nay. The first item that was scheduled for the 17th is an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. It involves a million square feet of leasable industrial space or commercial space out in Immokalee. Now, that's a big issue for Immokalee. And we have many times said that if we get an issue of any substance or controversy, we'd want Page 3 March 6, 2008 to schedule the meeting in Immokalee so that people out there can be here. Especially now knowing that this has been going through an Immokalee master plan amendment, not only for this item, but they're actually rewriting their master plan, so -- and it's a big issue for working people out there. I would suggest that we look to reschedule that Immokalee meeting to a night -- that Immokalee item to a night in Immokalee sometime after the 17th. So at the 17th meeting we could continue Item A. And let me -- when I finish, I've got two others I want to mention. Item Band C are Golden Gate Estates. That's another working area of Collier County. To have the working people fully participate, it's difficult if you schedule everything in the daytime. I would again like to suggest that we hold a second evening meeting in which those two items are discussed. So on the 17th we would start with Item D and work through the agenda. But Item A would be on one night in Immokalee and Item Band C would be another night here. Now, first Mr. Klatzkow, is that something we can legally entertain? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Comments from the Planning Commission on those issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like it? Anybody have any objection to it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I think it's fine, but I just want to go over it. The 17th we're going to start with Item D? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm suggesting. I'm going to ask for a vote before this -- the one we've been discussing. Yes, we'd start with Item D and between now and whenever Mr. Schmitt could get back to us, we'd pick nights -- we'd set up a meeting Page 4 March 6, 2008 in Immokalee for Item A. It doesn't -- you know, whatever night works for the staff and for the convenience out there, and we set an item for Band C in the time frame needed to make sure that the Golden Gate ones are held in the evening in this room. Or -- well, preferably this room, yes. It needs to be this room. So Mr. Schmitt, if you could work on those scheduling items for us, assuming that we want to do it. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no problem in principle with it. I just need to make sure we don't -- I mean, I have my plans, like a lot of us do, set out for the evening for many things. Do you have any idea of when you'd expect to do this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We need a quorum, and so long as five of us can show up and it's a transmittal, it's not just that we -- because it does have to come back through adoption. I understand that we all -- and I too have things in the evening. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will change anything I have to accommodate the Planning Commission, because that's the priority to me. So in that regard, I'm open most every night, unless it's a medical thing that I've got to attend with my wife or something. But other than that, I'll be here every night. Other than that, I don't know, Mr. Murray, we'll just have to take that -- we'll play it by ear, we'll do the best to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like I said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- everybody's schedule. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I don't have a problem in principle. I just want to be sure I can do what I have to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know you have a lot of things going, and I understand that, so we'll do the best we can. MR. SCHMITT: I could just offer, I -- first I've heard of this, of course. And your second meeting is scheduled for March 28th. I'm Page 5 March 6, 2008 going to have to find a time in the evening. I don't know what days this room is open. I'll have to find that out. Plus the other issue with Immokalee, even finding a facility out there to do the meeting we'll have to coordinate that with Immokalee. But I don't think there's what I would call a facility out there that's -- that will accommodate this type of meeting I'm aware. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ave Maria? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before Mr. Wolfley, Ms. Caron had a question -- Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Wolfley. Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there absolutely no reason why we can't have that meeting here instead of from Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Planning Commission's ordinance that enacts us says that we can have -- we have the ability to have meetings in Immokalee when the need arises. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do they have a place that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just got to find it. We have county facilities out there. This is not a new subject; we've agreed to do this before. It just never materialized because an item of significance hasn't come up. I think we need to go to the effort to accommodate that community, and so I think it's important that we at least try. And you know, even if we have -- there's ajail out there. I don't mind meeting in the jail. We'll just meet there. MR. KLATZKOW: Speak for yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wherever you can find, Mr. Schmitt, I think we ought to look for it. MR. SCHMITT: The only thing that comes to mind would be the ago center. But that's not in Immokalee, you're at the edge of the Estates for that. Page 6 March 6, 2008 We'll look. I know there's another facility on, what is that, 29, heading out of Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's a nice -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There's a -- I can't remember the name of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you get yours? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say your piece? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Mr. Wolfley was supposed to be next. That's okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to mention that I can't remember the name of the place, unfortunately, but it's a center that was built for the folks to -- they do their -- the city business, if you will. They have -- I'm stumbling and fumbling and I apologize, but I can see it. You're going down the main road, just before you get to the Seminole, you turn up to the left and you go up to the next long block and turn right and there's this lovely place, and it's got a big open room in there. And it would be suitable. And I wish I could recall the name. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I have to find out. I have to find out if there's a cost associated with -- the other option may be what Mr. Wolfley said, is Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else you want to add, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think what he was talking about was One Stop in Immokalee? The One Stop center? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, wherever it is-- MR. SCHMITT: I'll look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schmitt will do the best he can to Page 7 March 6, 2008 find it. And that's where we ought to leave it. I take it from the consensus of the Planning Commission that that's a doable item? Okay, what about moving Band C to an evening meeting? Does everybody have any problems with that (sic)? Okay. Joe, before we leave today's meeting, which will be, you know, probably around noon, is there a way you could check with the scheduling staff to see what evening meetings are available, so we could at least get that one locked in today? MR. SCHMITT: I'll send a note back to my staff to find out-- they need to coordinate. Certainly that has to be -- meet availability of advertising. It's already been advertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll just -- what we would do is MR. SCHMITT: -- continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- adjourn on the -- when we adjourn on the 17th, we just officially then continue these two. But I wanted to get a consensus now so that the public would know not to try to take days off from work and show up when they're not going to be heard. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. And I have to contact the petitioners as well. So I've got -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- MR. SCHMITT: And my other -- the crunch I have is Tuesday, April 22nd is the day of the GMP Hearings to the board. So I've got very little or small window to get these things scheduled in order to get this through you, finalize our reports and get them to the board. So it's -- I'll do what I can today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The consensus is the board; we'd like to do it. If you can find a way to do it, that would be most appreciative. So let's just leave it at that and before the meetings over today we'll add it to the old business discussion to see what we've been able Page 8 March 6, 2008 to progress on. That takes us past the Planning Commission absences. Approval of minutes, there were none available at this time. And as a side note to that, my last discussion with you all was that we would try to post them somewhere where we could electronically review them to save the cost of the collation and printing. I had e-mailed the county attorney an issue that came up and trying to get that resolved and I didn't know that his e-mail has been down until today. So I'll repeat the question I sent to you, Mr. Klatzkow. And that was, in talking with Sharon, she said well, you know, your minutes are posted at the clerk's website. And I said no, I'm talking about the minutes that we've not yet approved. She goes, no, they're all posted. I said, well, I don't think they legally should post the ones that haven't been approved by this board. And she said no, they post them immediately. So before I went further with her and suggesting that we go to that website then, I wanted to make sure that that scenario was even the right procedure. Because until we say those minutes -- or acknowledge those minutes on approval of the meeting, I didn't think they were posted. MR. KLATZKOW: I didn't think they were posted either. I'll have to find out why we're doing it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you then -- once you get that answer, then we can figure out how to proceed with electronically filing those pre-meetings in order for this board to review them so they what I thought then could be posted. Thank you. Page 9 March 6, 2008 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 29,2008 BCC Recaps. I guess we have those here for our reading. Does anybody have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we can read them ourselves and that takes care of that. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's Report; I have two other items. I had talked to you all about an electronic device. I can honestly tell you, I've made no progress on that so far. So I will work on it. There have been other things that have taken time. Yes, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I think just of note, the LDC Amendments that's on the second page, as you know, the amendment having to do with the shoreline calculations for dock facilities, which was denied by the Board of County Commissioners, there is an agenda item on Tuesday's agenda requesting to have that item reheard. Just so you know the tracking of that. And we'll deal with that. Whatever the board decides, we'll deal with that accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, personally, that caught me by surprise, because that went through this board without much of a problem. I was surprised at the amount of people that showed up. I wish that we had had the benefit of the discussion that occurred, because I certainly hadn't realized there was such controversy over this issue. Page 10 March 6, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: I certainly would have appreciated information as well, because we would have been prepared to deal with it at the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item I want to mention, in talking with the staff who has to copy and distribute all of our packages, I pick mine up at the county when it's available. And every time I do, I keep getting these plastic see-through envelopes full of folded up plans, which I just routinely throw out, because we have the same plan in an II-by-17 in the package. I found out -- I just left them there and I said, Sharon, I just don't need these, why don't you just stop printing them? She said that would be a great savings if she could. Not all of us need those. I know some of us do. (At which time, Mr. Midney enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 11 -- I have not found anything on the II-by-l7's that I couldn't -- that I needed a larger plan for. So from my perspective, I absolutely don't need the big plans. And I suggested to her I'd ask the commissioner's who actually wants them; and then that would save -- because those plans are expensive to print. Then staffs got to collate them and fold each one, stuff it in a plastic envelope and then include it with our packet. If we don't need them, then we don't need to have them printed. So I'd like to ask from end to end who would like them, and we'll just eliminate the ones that -- Mr. Wolfley, did you need them? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, do you need them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I cannot see the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I cannot see the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Then do you need the larger Page 11 March 6, 2008 ones? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Which plans are these? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your packet, you would have received two large blueprints that are duplicated in a regular size sheet of paper or Il-by-17 in the package. Do you need -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need them either. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. And the concern I have is that there's a lot of written word in there that there's no way you can read it on the small thing, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've read every one of them, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can read the little ones? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, I certainly can. I read them out loud to this -- but that's okay, I understand, everybody has different issues. But I'm just trying to find out how many need -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I want the large ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want the large ones. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Kay, if you could let Sharon know Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Kolflat all need large plans, and the rest of us don't. So that will save -- MS. DESELEM: Thank you. Page 12 March 6, 2008 Item #8A COCOHATCHEE BAY PUD PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we will move into the consent agenda. And this week's consent agenda package was thicker than normal. It was because of the Bert Harris discussion that we've been going through for previously three meetings was all summarized. Also included in that electronically was the summary I had reviewed with all of you at our last meeting. I tried to make the changes as I understood them to be at our last meeting on that summary . I added the date on top, I believe that we didn't discuss. And I added the last sentence suggesting -- telling the BCC that it was submitted by the Planning Commission so that they were assured it was from us and not from staff. Now, I need to know if there's a recommendation for approval of the consent agenda or any other comments. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just -- I think I'd like to add one other item to our summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And just I think number 10. I think we need to note for the BCC that the petitioner has changed the master plan. It's in there as Exhibit A as changed, but I think it needs to be noted that that was one of the things that we went over for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me look and see where you -- and maybe there's a place to add it where we previously discussed it. That's what I was just checking in here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think it may fall here under Page 13 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, 1-B says amended site plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But I think that doesn't tell them what changed. And I think we should add a comment that just tells them what changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not that we approve, but tell them what changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in order to make sure that I don't do something that becomes controversial with this board, I would like to know the very specific language that we're talking about adding to that so that no one can say they disagree with it or they don't agree with it. Let's just get it done. And I don't want to be the one responsible for that, because as soon as I do it, someone's going to say, oh, that's not what we meant. So what specific language -- if you were to go I-Band then put a "i" after the "B", what specific language are we talking about? Mr. Y ovanovich, you have something positive to contribute? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think it's positive. Certainly we don't mind -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to set you up for that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. If you want to add that, because it does -- that's fine with us. But I would like you to also add that we made that change because it's consistent with our Corps and Water Management District's permits. Those are the permitted lines for what the preservation area needs to be, according to the Corps and Water Management District permits. So if we could just -- I don't mind saying there's been a change, but explain what the change was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, see, you're going beyond what I Page 14 March 6, 2008 think was the intent. Because if we have to delineate in a paragraph every change to that master plan, we might as well sit down and rewrite it, because I don't think that's the intent. I think it's simply saying that the master plan that's been amended is changed from the master plan that was previously provided. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I don't think saying to reflect the approved Corps permits is adding too much to that. I think it leaves it a little open-ended as if there may have been some ill intent if you don't explain the little bit I would like to add. COMMISSIONER CARON: You'll be there to explain it to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, I'm going to write the language up. Okay, let me run this language by everybody. Under I-B, it will be an indented "i". Master plan as attached has been modified from the master plan of the original PUD. Does that meet everybody's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I think Mr. Y ovanovich is correct. If you can introduce that particular part of it, there has to be a basis that you're saying. Because it sticks out like a sore thumb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, wait a minute. Mr. Y ovanovich is focusing on one piece of the master plan that is changed. There may be other areas then. If we're going to highlight one, we have to go back and reanalyze it and highlight them all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, keep in mind that as a consent agenda we're now modifying it to highlight something, so it's no longer really a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're restating I-B so that it's clear. It just says amended site plan. We're saying the master plan, as attached, has been modified from the master plan of the original PUD. I mean, Mr. Murray, if you want it changed, what language Page 15 March 6, 2008 would you suggest? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would add based on the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that that is true? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but he is testifying to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else see a need to change the language I've suggested, or you want -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean in this report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron is suggesting under I-B we add a little "i" that says, master plan as attached has been modified from the master plan of the original PUD. Mr. Murray wants the language further referencing permitting of the South Florida Water Management District and I think the Corps of Engineers. I'm suggesting we leave it like this, Ms. Caron's suggesting we leave it like this. Does anybody else see the need to have it changed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's go on and we'll vote on the entire consent agenda at one item. So the language we're talking about as has been read into the record. Is there any other suggested changes to any item in the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, and it's in number six. It's the large paragraph almost towards the end. It's -- I'll read the whole sentence. It says, however, as a result of the language in the PUD, the CCPC recommended that reference to building separation be removed Page 16 March 6, 2008 from the settlement agreement and the applicant should rely upon the interpretation of the PUD. What I'd like to do is strike the rest of that sentence which says, with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDP reviewed by the CCPC. And the concern is that might give the impression that we endorse the separations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I actually put that in there to protect the fact that the SDP's we reviewed were locked in by that sentence. See, without that sentence, between now and the time it gets to the BCC, based on the testimony by staff and the language here, they could actually change the building dimension. That makes sure that this was based on what we saw. That's why I was trying -- as a minimum. I didn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why when I read it I get the impression that this board is okay with that from that sentence? Is that an incorrect impression, do you think? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- I think the board is acknowledging that they read an SDP, that the SDP had certain dimensions, and that we don't want that SDP to change. If it changes, it should come back to us, because it's -- then our recommendations for language changes become irrelevant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And see, that kind of proves my -- we don't want it to change. There are some of us on the board that don't want it the way it's shown. And therefore, that sentence gives the illusion, as you even just worded it, that it's okay the way it is. And that was something we were careful not to endorse the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point of the sentence. But maybe it needs to be clarified. The point of the sentence is, if the SDP changes then our recommendations don't hold true. I don't care if it changes to it's 1,000 Page 17 March 6, 2008 feet between buildings or 10 feet between buildings. If it changes from what was presented to us, then our recommendations are null and void. That was the intent of putting that there. And if you got a better of doing it, then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, look -- you know, again, some of us don't think that the separation is being properly read. What you just said is if they make the separations as per what we think the PUD says, that that would throw this thing null and void. And that would be a disaster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not what I'm saying, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said if they made it 1,000 feet. That's greater than 120 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you missed the point. What I'm trying to say is if they changed the SDP, then our recommendations are null and void. Our recommendations were based on the SDP's that were presented to us. If they modify those SDP's, I don't care if they modify them to our benefit -- to your benefit, I should say, or against your benefit, they change them, then our recommendations are null and void. The purpose -- point is we reviewed and we made recommendations based on those SDP's, and I'm suggesting that we have to lock them in, that they're not going to change. And that's all I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then what we're saying is by what you said, and tell me if I'm wrong, you're saying that we endorse the SDP's, we accepted the separation between those buildings as shown in those SDP's. And I don't think we did that. We were careful to get ourselves away from the SDP approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer, and maybe it's me. What I'm saying is we made these recommendations to the Bert Page 18 March 6, 2008 Harris argument based on the SDP's we reviewed as we reviewed them. That's all I was trying to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that meant that this board accepted the separation between those buildings as a proper separation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying that we made recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners based on our review of the SDP and the language in the Bert Harris claim and the language in the PUD and the coordinating of those two documents. This is our result. Whether you want it to be 1,000 feet, 200 feet, 100 feet or 10 feet, I don't care. I care about one thing, that we don't get a different SDP that goes to the Board of County Commissioners and they're thinking that we accepted that. That's what I worry about. And that's all I was trying to do here was cover that base. Now, if you have a better way of doing it, tell me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I thought the striking the rest of that sentence would remove the illusion that we think it's okay. But the point is, Mark, that we really, I thought, in our hearing we removed from this board the acceptance of the SDP. What you're saying now is that we in fact are locking in the SDP, which is essentially the acceptance of the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm saying that, again it says, with the understanding that the separations would not be less than those shown on the SDP's. Our review was based on our review of all the documentation, including the SDP's. If they had produced a lesser separation, we may have had a different review. They produced a certain separation that we based all of our review on. I'm not saying that everybody agreed on it and I'm not saying that that was the review that you were citing. In fact, I did all this to Page 19 March 6, 2008 accommodate you, and you're the only one that's been objecting to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not objecting to it, I just want to be careful with it. The -- but one statement you said that scared me. So if they actually in the review of the SDP, which we know is not final yet, they actually really looked at that issue and decided to make the buildings the proper 200 feet separation, that you would say that would throw our work -- would they have to come back before us to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think any change to those SDP's -- and if the commission wants our opinion on those SDP's that are more intrusive than what we reviewed, then we need to see it. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The SDP's, as I recall, weren't even complete as reviewed. We hadn't even gotten to that point. However, could we not just put a date on them or put some kind of an identification to allow us to fix that point that you're attempting to relate, rather than -- because I do agree with Brad that we really didn't -- couldn't review the SDP's; they hadn't been yet finalized, to my understanding of it. I don't disagree with your attempt, but perhaps a common ground would be the SDP's identified as X, Y and Z and that fixes them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't change his argument. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not saying that I agree with his argument completely or your argument completely. I'm trying to find some common ground that we can work with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask a question, Mark. Would the commissioners rely upon our review that everything represented in the SDP is acceptable to this board and shows proper interpretation of the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we attempted to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes or no. Page 20 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do that. I mean, I don't think we attempted to do that. I think we reviewed everything and decided with our discussion if it was logically -- the settlement agreement was logically interpreted based on the PUD and the LDC. I don't know if we went in the direction you just suggested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the commissioners, when they're looking at this, shouldn't rely upon our review as that fact that the SDP represent a proper development or a development that matches the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand what you're asking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, we had a lot of conversation. Joe Schmitt was in it. Because I think what the staff wanted us to do was sign off on the SDP's. We didn't sign off on the SDP's did we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe we signed off on the final SDP's because they couldn't be finalized until the settlement agreement terms are finalized and they know then what they got to design to. They proposed a concept in the SDP that was 90 percent there, subject to finalization of this document. And when these documents are finalized, I'm assuming their final submittal then would be approved subject to the terms of the settlement agreement. And Mr. Schmitt, am I right or wrong or -- MR. SCHMITT: Based on the way this has progressed, that's the position we're in right now, that the settlement agreement is finalized. I will then wait for a re-submittal which we expect will be forthcoming from the applicant. We'll get the re-submittal of the three separate SDP packets. We will review those based on the strike-through and underlined PUD that is modeled after the settlement agreement. That review will be connected. And basically our intent is then to report to the Board of County Commissioners that hopefully at that time that the SDP's will be Page 21 March 6, 2008 deemed compliant with both the LDC and the settlement agreement. Now, if this board wants those to come back, you need to so advise. But right now we have a settlement agreement, we have a strike-through and underlined PUD, I'm waiting for the re-submittal, we'll go through the plans, and I'll deal with them accordingly based on those reviews. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, if a commissioner asked you a question did the Planning Commission, okay these separations between the buildings, what would your answer be? MR. SCHMITT: Well, based on -- when you say okay the separation, my answer would be the separation between the buildings was never an issue that was discussed as part of the settlement agreement. And I don't think it was an issue that was brought before this board. Now, it could have been inclusive in the direction that you got from the Board of County Commissioners, because the commissioners were asking, is everything that is involved in this settlement agreement in compliance with the LDC. I thought this board ruled based on the language both in the PUD and in the language in the LDC that there was not much that could be done other than acknowledge that they invoked the rule number three and that the criteria in rule number three allowed for those building separations. Now, I don't have any other way to tell that to the board. I would say, I guess to answer your question in simple terms, by affirmation, yes, I would say that this board approved -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the problem. MR. SCHMITT: -- the design. I don't think we have any power to deny it. And we've been through this when we talked about the Page 22 March 6, 2008 application of that rule. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, the reason we discussed it was that they requested in the original -- one of the drafts, it's a strike-through -- that it be reduced. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, they want to lock in 100 feet, when it's essentially because of the height of the building, 200 feet. So we had that taken out, because we did not want to give approval of a reduced setback. And then it was totally up to the administration of the staff, your professional staff, to make a judgment on those things. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And we did. And basically -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the thing I didn't want to have happen and it sounds like it might have happened, is I didn't want the Planning Commission to endorse that judgment. That's your staffs judgment. And I don't want anybody rely -- I don't think anybody should rely -- I mean, we should vote and they can rely on that judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Brad, again, I understand and I have understood from the beginning what your position was. I wrote paragraph six to try to acknowledge that you had a position there. The ending sentence that you want struck, or the portion of it you want struck was added only because I thought somebody else on this panel was concerned to acknowledge that they don't change the SDP again after -- between us and the BCC. I don't care if we strike that last piece. I was trying to do it because I thought it would benefit this board and not hurt it. If you feel it hurts it and the rest -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me again state it and the other members can judge, is that when you state something like so long as it doesn't get any closer, I think you give the illusion that it's Page 23 March 6, 2008 okay the way it is. So that's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go from there. Let's ask the rest of the board. Because I don't want to belabor this all morning. It would take all morning to go back and forth on it. From the board's perspective, let's just focus on this last piece that Mr. Schiffer's suggesting being struck after the word -- after the letters PUD in item six. Those that would like to see it struck, as Mr. Schiffer is suggesting, please acknowledge by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. Five. I'm sorry, Mr. Midney. There's five. So those that wish to see it remain will obviously be the remaining four. So looks like that last piece will be struck. Okay, I don't know who had wanted it, but we'll strike that last piece. So number six. Now, is there any other item on this document that is problematic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, can I get a motion to accept the consent items, or -- yeah, motion to approve the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'll second it for comment. Page 24 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray made a second. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to vote no. But if! were to vote no, if others were to vote no on a consent, that dies then, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it means the consent isn't reflective of the corrections we asked -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- staff to make. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, I still have an issue with the first item, but I have to vote for it, because I think it's well done overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? All those in favor of -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do want to make a comment before we take this vote. I believe that this document reflects what the majority of this board agreed to. I, however, am not in agreement with the settlement. I have major issues, as Mr. Schiffer does, with the setbacks. And I neither agree with staff nor with the petitioner on this issue, and I think we should be ashamed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor of the consent agenda motion, please acknowledge by raising -- signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 25 March 6, 2008 MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #9 A PETITION: V A-2007-AR-12477 Next item on the agenda is Petition V A-2007-AR-12477. It's the George W. and Beverly 1. Schuelke, Vanderbilt Beach Estates, 496 Flamingo Avenue variance. All those wishing to testify on behalf of the petitioner, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- I talked to Mr. Thornton. I also sent an e-mail to Mr. Schmitt and to Mr. Klatzkow concerning a document I found on Monday that seemed to discuss this kind of Issue. I didn't get a response from Mr. Klatzkow because he hasn't been getting his e-mail.InevergotaresponsefromMr.Schmitt.Mr. Thornton I'm sure will bring it up for discussion today. With that and there's no other disclosures, we'll go forward with the presentation by the applicant. MR. THORNTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chris Thornton, for the record. I'm representing the property owners Page 26 March 6, 2008 today. This is an application for a variance in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach area. The matter began as a code enforcement action against the property owners because they had pulled some permits to do a pool screen cage replacement in 2004. And at the time they went to get their C.O. for the pool screen cage replacement, the as-built survey revealed some setback problems that were caught by the building department. And subsequently, because the C.O.'s, the permits that were issued for those -- for the pool screen cage replacement did not have C.O.'s, code enforcement initiated an action, inspected the property and found not only setback deficiencies with respect to the new improvements but also with respect to the pool itself. This is a corner lot at the end of a dead end canal. And so we're here to address those issues. We attempted to work the issues out with code enforcement to try to find a way to resolve this matter without the need for a variance, and we were unsuccessful in that attempt. The main points I'd like you to consider are that these are accessory structures that are not blocking anyone's view. It's at the end ofa dead end canal adjacent to Vanderbilt Drive. The pool, which is the primary issue from the property owners' perspective -- the issues that we're dealing with have to do with a screen cage, the pool itself and two stairways that lead up from the water level up to the pool level. The main issue is the pool itself. The pool has been on the property card. The pool was constructed in about 1985, 1986 time frame. And the property owners have been paying taxes on that pool for many years, 23 years. We do have 11 letters of no objection, and we do have a staff recommendation of approval. Page 27 March 6, 2008 The details can get complicated. This picture helps understand -- helps you understand what's occurred. The stairway, the wall you see is supporting a pool. That's the top of the pool deck. The seawall is below it, just above the canal. The stairway to the left was originally constructed with the pool in '85, '86. And the cage, as it sits in this picture, is the replacement cage. The home was built by Mario Lagrasta. This was his personal residence. He was a builder in the county. This was his personal residence from about 1986 through 1989. He did permit and get a C.O. for the home. The pool and pool deck had a permit but no C.O. We could not -- I have not been able to find a C.O. for the pool. The cage was knocked down by the hurricane and replaced, and when the contractor who actually installed the cage originally for Mr. Lagrasta, the contractor, when he went to replace the cage, using the surveys that he had available to him, he placed it exactly 10 feet from the outside face of the seawall. The survey that he was using doesn't make it very apparent that the property line does not match up with the outside face of the seawall. So basically the wall and the left stairway have been there since 1986, roughly. The cage is a little better than it has been for the past 20 years because we moved it back about a foot, a foot and a half off of the outside face of that retaining wall. But it still does not meet current setback requirements and we are seeking four variances to authorize these improvements to remain where they are. I think we resolved with staff the fact that the wings of the wall -- you can see one wing here projecting out towards the canal. We resolved with staff the fact that the wings can be considered walls and fences that are not subject to the setback requirement. Page 28 March 6, 2008 The setback we're dealing with is a 10- foot side yard setback for a corner lot on a waterfront property. The lO-foot setback, stairways are allowed to encroach three feet into that setback. So basically if everything was -- if everything was measured from the seawall, according to the rules that existed when they were built, including the 1986 original construction and the replacements recently done, I think those would all comply. But they don't because of we didn't have C.O.'s issued. We're seeking a variance of four feet for the wall, because only at its worse points it comes within six feet of the property boundary. And we're seeking a variance for the cage and the two stairways that are shown in this photo. The staff report goes into great detail. It appears to be -- the factual description seems to be accurate. And we hope you'll support the staffs recommendation of approval. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. I know the facts are somewhat complicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got a few. Kay, could this be put on the overhead? MS. DESELEM: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had sent this out originally to the county attorney and to Joe, hoping that they would be prepared to address my question I had sent them in an e-mail on Monday. And my question was simply, how does this affect, or if it does affect, the document -- or the variances we have in front of us today? This is a 1998 clarification to the codes, and it was -- it did two things: It addressed the dock facility section of the code, and it also addressed the definitions for yard waterfront. And it talked about, in your background and considerations on those two different issues. Page 29 March 6, 2008 And the determination was that the measurement for structures and for docks should be taken from the outer water side of either the seawall or the seawall cap, as shown in the attached diagram. I have not been able to find the attached diagram, I can only go by the text here. But if the measurement, from what I can see, on Page 5 of the staff report, the applicant stated the setback problems appear to stem from the unusual circumstance that their property line falls approximately 2.7 feet inside of the seawall, which was perhaps overlooked by the pool contractor. He also states that the replacement cage and stairwell would meet the current setback requirements, if measured from the outside face of the seawall instead of the property line. And therein lies my question and concern of staff as to how this clarification might impact the needs of the multiple variances we have here today. And maybe Mr. Brown, if you did this, you could respond. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. Good morning. The memorandum was discussed by staff, myself, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager and the Director Susan Murray weighed in. If you only read the determination clarification part of the memorandum, it does lead you to believe that -- and I'm sorry, I can't really see it from here. Okay, great. Well, if you read the determination clarification, it says the measurement of both structures and dock facilities should be taken from the outer water side of either the seawall or seawall cap, as shown on the attached diagram. We don't have the attached diagram. You read just that alone it does lead you to believe that the measurement should be taken from the outside face of the seawall. However, in the background considerations of Section 2.6.21.1 from the LDC reads, in quotes, protrusions as well as extension of dock facilities are measured from the property line, bulkhead line, shoreline and seawall. Either one of these. Page 30 March 6, 2008 And then it goes on to say whichever is more restrictive. And I have a better -- if I may grab my photograph, just a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. We need to get it resolved. I take it then that after I sent this it did get circulated, because I never got an acknowledgement. And that you did or somebody must have tried to look for the diagram that's referenced in this document? Because I could not find it. MR. BROWN: Don't have the diagram. I do have a photo and we do have the survey record of the property. If you look at this, just an approximate of what exists on-site, the property line lies 2.7 feet inside of the seawall. So in this scenario the property line is the most restrictive point. And you use the most restrictive point to determine your setback. And so that's why the applicant finds himself with this variance request and the property in conflict with the LDC. A 10- foot setback is required, as he's already mentioned. The concrete pair of stairs, the pool deck wall and the pool screen cage do not sit back 10 feet from the property line, and that's why you have the variance request before you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that. If you could put that other highlighted paper back on. If the answer was as plain and simple as you've stated it, then why did we have this clarification come out? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I can help answer it. MR. BROWN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can remember when we studied seawalls. First of all, to build a seawall, the furthest you can bring a seawall into the waterway is the outside face of the seawall has to be -- is the property line. This thing is encroaching quite a bit. Page 31 March 6, 2008 The reason I think we had this is we have lots in Connor's where the property line is actually outside the seawall. MR. BROWN: That's what I was about to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think the reason this was going to come about is that there are situations where really the lot line could be three or four feet beyond the seawall, and this is to clarify that you measure from the seawall, not that lot in the water line. MR. BROWN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, just for your first statement, seawalls are routinely allowed to go past the property line. In fact, I'm COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Really? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. In fact, DEP and the Corps of Engineers do it as a letter notification. The Corps of Engineers does it as a nationwide permit. When you replace a seawall, they prefer you put it within one foot of the existing seawall outside your property line so that you don't have to water jet out the old seawall and cause more turbidity in the water. I know that for a fact. MR. BROWN: In this case -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The seawall then would be encroaching more outward, which would lose the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That makes sense. Willie, let me just answer, though, is that we do have a seawall ordinance and in that ordinance it shows where the property line can be. MR. BROWN: That would be true, but in this case the seawall is -- it's not public property. The canal is a public easement. The seawall is actually owned by a private entity or a property owner. And so you have the property line, you have the seawall, which is owned by someone different, you have the canal, which is a public easement. Page 32 March 6, 2008 And would you like to go into detail about the seawall and who it's owned by? And a vacation would possibly be needed in order for CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're asking that. My whole purpose of the discussion was simply to understand how and if this applied. It seems you're telling me it doesn't apply because -- MR. BROWN: It doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the measurement -- okay, and that's fine for this case and I'll drop it there. But at some point I wish that staff would, number one, find the backup to this document, and number two, explain why it was done in the first place ifit doesn't apply. And it doesn't -- what was this document done for in 1998? Someone had to ask for it. So that's the only comment I would like to note. Okay. That -- okay, anybody have think other questions on the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for the applicant? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the question I had, was who has responsibility for the seawall and -- because I thought frankly that that would be the homeowner. But apparently a third party can have ownership of a seawall. I didn't know that. Mr. Thornton, do you have the answer to that question? MR. THORNTON: The seawall itself was constructed in the early Eighties by a lady named Diane Smith who owned the property at the time. She sold the property to Mr. Lagrasta. Mr. Lagrasta added the part of the seawall that cuts the corner short. And the seawall was C.O.'d, permitted and C.O.'d where it sits by the county when it was constructed. March 6, 2008 The -- if you want to know who holds title to the canal, I don't know the answer to that question. I can tell you that for property notification purposes, you're supposed to go by the property appraiser's information. And that's basically shown as a publicly dedicated waterway. The plat dedicates the canal and the streets to the public. So I can't tell you who actually holds legal -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the seawall were damaged or in bad shape, who would be responsible for -- MR. THORNTON: Property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Property owner. MR. THORNTON: Property owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Even though you don't know whether they own it or not. MR. THORNTON: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I think we've established they don't own it because we've established a property line that is some distance short of the seawall. So that seawall is a separate entity owned by a property owner, but he has no title to it. This is very confusing. Measurement from ownership is what I thought we were working from. But apparently that's -- MR. THORNTON: Before the adoption of 04-41, the re- codification of your LDC, there was a phrase in your definition of setback or setback line that said you measure from the most restrictive of this long list of things. In 04-41' s re-codification, that sentence that contained the phrase the most restrictive was dropped. I pushed with code enforcement and staff to let me measure from the outside face of the seawall, because the most restrictive language is no longer in the LDC. I lost that argument. The counter argument was that 04-41 was Page 34 March 6, 2008 only a re-codification, it was not intended to make any substantive changes. So you need to carry around 04-41 and prior versions of the LDC to know exactly what rules apply. And the most restrictive language is still effective, and that's where you should measure from. And that's the ruling that I'm working with. And that's the ruling that I'm working with, that I do have to measure from the property lines for my improvements on the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the basis for this whole case, though, is that these structures were built at a time where the rules may have been read or interpreted differently than they are today. The diagram that Mr. Schmitt put on here, if that's -- the diagram that was supposed to accompany this staff clarification seems to confirm that the measurement then in '98 would have been from the outside face of the seawall cap. Is that the way I'm reading it, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's -- I didn't know you were looking for that drawing. I certainly would have found it, because I know when I got your e-mail it was to Jeff. I didn't respond to that e-mail, but I did circulate it to my staff to be prepared to address it. The drawing -- and I'm almost positive this is the drawing that was originally part of that is the staff policy or staff opinion on how to apply it. But this was from a case we know about from a few years ago. But it is from the outer edge of the seawall cap as shown there. That's the highlighted. That's the measurement. Now, I believe -- and most of this area, the property lines are actually in the water. And it wasn't from the property line, it's from the seawall cap. There are areas out there. And that was the whole dispute up in this area, that it wasn't from the property line, it was actually from the outer edge of the cap of the seawall. That's what's shown Page 35 March 6, 2008 there. And I believe that's the drawing you were looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that. Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, tell me what exactly this is. I don't -- there's no date on it, there's nothing that tells me that this is -- this particular property. I don't know what I'm looking at here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was the diagram that's missing from the green highlighted memo. If you read -- that memo that was on the thing prior that I found -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says pursuant to the attached diagram. This is it. See where -- and that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he was trying to show. That's what explains -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- dates back to 1998-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is when this document was written. In 2002, Mr. Schmitt, you did a whole study and presented to the Board of County Commissioners on seawalls and setbacks in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: This particular property was one of the ones that was noted in 2002 as not being to code. So I'm just -- I'm concerned. Why would you in 2002 say it was not to code if in '98 you're saying according to a staff judgment it would have been? MR. SCHMITT: I hear your question. I'm not prepared to answer that because I'm not sure -- I didn't follow the logic on the -- I'm not that familiar with this case, so I'm not -- I can't -- all I know is Page 36 March 6, 2008 what's in the case here, but I can't answer your questions specifically unless I sit down and actually analyze what you just asked me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I think this points out is maybe in any further of these variance requests that come forward, this document, if it's proven to be applicable, is taken into consideration. And I think if the staff were to know that that document's there and if it's something that should apply to the variance request that you're looking at, then so be it. At the time -- that may prove why so many of these homes seem out of compliance when at the time they may have been relying on this clarification and may have ended up confusing the issue more than making it more understanding. So I think that's where we need to leave it today, and that's staffs purview to go forward with it at this point. Any other questions on this? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I have questions back to the actual picture of the property there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the one with the seawall and the steps? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. The steps to the right, when were they added? MR. THORNTON: The steps to the right were added in 2004 with a permit approved by the county. And that's because the screen cage replacement that was due to a hurricane, when that screen cage replacement was being permitted, the stair to the left was determined by the building department to not be a code compliant stairway because it didn't have an adequate landing. The property owner therefore screened over the left stair and permitted a new stair, the stair to the right. And that stair was set back exactly just a little over seven feet from the outside face of the seawall. Page 37 March 6, 2008 Apparently just like the original property owner and just like the screen cage contractor, the survey that they've been using that was for a purchase just didn't make it very clear where the property line fell in relation to the seawall. So that is a brand new stair built in -- well, not new now, but it was built in '04, and it was never C.O.'d because it did not meet setback. That stair -- the bottom right corner of the right stair actually comes to within less than a foot of the property line. But if measured from the seawall, it meets the seven-foot -- lO-foot setback with a three- foot encroachment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll see if staff has anything else to add. MR. BROWN: Good morning. For the record, Willie Brown, Principal Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I won't repeat a lot of what's already been said by the applicant. I just want to confirm that the petitioner's presentation is consistent with the application on file with the department of zoning. Staff is recommending approval, subject to two conditions, and I'll put those up. Staff is recommending approval subject to two conditions; those being: That the development shall be limited to that which is depicted in the record survey with the revised date of October 1, 2007. Here's the record survey. Which is also in your packet. And the second condition is that if for any reason the structure shall be damaged by more than 50 percent, then the property shall be brought into full compliance with the LDC requirements at the time of permitting. So those are the two conditions that staff is recommending. Page 38 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolflat. MR. BROWN: I'll almost done but not quite. Sorry. This property again was cited to be in violation by the county's code enforcement department for the aforementioned reasons. You can see from this photo the screen cage, the pool deck wall and the concrete pair of stairs. Those are the specific variances being requested here. The home pool and pool accessory uses are permitted within the RMF-3 zoning district. This property is zoned RMF-3. The uses are also permitted within the urban residential designation of the GMP as well. In compliance with Section 9.04.03, criteria for variances, the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination. Staff is offering criteria (sic) Band D which state approval may be granted if there are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as preexisting conditions relative to the property. These are preexisting conditions. The house was built by a different property owner. The current property owner inherited these problems. D states, approval may be granted if the variance will be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Staff feels these are minimal in nature. Lastly, nine letters of -- I'm sorry, I believe he said eleven letters of support have been received from neighboring property owners, including a letter from the Zilavys (phonetic) who were approved for rear yard variances in January, 2008 by the BCC for pool accessory uses. And the Zalavy's property's immediately next door to this Page 39 March 6, 2008 property . No letters of opposition have been supported. And if there are any questions, I'll be more than happy to entertain those that this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to the commission, Mr. Schmitt, did you have something you wanted to add to the staff report? MR. SCHMITT: No, I just want to make sure we answered Ms. Caron's concerns. I can go back and look at that briefing that was given. I know what Willie just said, of course is this was a previous -- one of the ones identified as a violation. And I just want to make sure we answered your question. Because we had a plethora of violations out there, all different -- for all different reasons, most of which violated the lO-foot four-foot rule, setback rule, basically requiring the -- my recollection, 20 feet from the seawall for the principal structure. I don't know specifically what your question was and can we answer it, between what is Willie knows about this and what I -- I'm trying to recall from a couple of years ago when we first went into this. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question was simply -- and if you want to look at this while we're going through the rest of this, then you can tell me whether it is or not. I just wanted to know whether -- if they had been cited in 200 -- you knew in 2002 that there were problems, and problems with this specific property. Why wouldn't they have gotten corrected then? Why were they allowed to continue creating these issues? I don't understand it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that I can't answer. This is one of the ones that was cited for a violation. And it's been cited for a violation. I can't answer why they allowed to continue with the -- I guess with the additional construction of the steps and the extension of the seawall is Page 40 March 6, 2008 what you're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think maybe Ms. Caron's touched on something that needs to be revisited by staff and that is a reevaluation of that disk of violations that purportedly are in that area, based on that staff clarification language and the diagram that you now just showed us. And if that does have an impact on those, I think the commission needs to know that. MR. SCHMITT: That's the same staff clarification that we applied when we debated the Dowdy case over what, three or four years ago. That's where that drawing came from when I pulled up that briefing. That staff clarification is nothing new. It's exactly what we applied back then. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But all I want to make sure is that clarification which was done in '98 -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- conforms to whatever you told everybody in 2002. And if there are differences, why? And should some of these people be cited and some of them not? I don't know. MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that unless I go through every one of those. But in 2002 the staff clarification, to the best of my knowledge, was what we applied when we evaluated those evaluations. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it was based on the '98. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what's in here for 2002 was based on what you had written in '98. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We used that same staff clarification when Mr. Dowdy came in and put the -- raised the seawall and put the cap on the seawall. And then we issued the administrative variance based on that. And that of course was Page 41 March 6, 2008 subsequently appealed and overturned by the board. But it was from the most outer portion of the cap. If you recall, that's where he constructed the overhang, the cap and the overhang, and constructed an additional foot. And we allowed that as the most -- well, as the most restrictive point, I guess. And we took it from there and measured that and that's what the board -- when the board overruled that, but that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it was overruled. MR. SCHMITT: But that has been consistently applied. And most of the cases that you were citing in that briefing were, I'll call it, at least alleged violations. We didn't have anything to validate it, we just through suspicion and our initial measurements. We were going back then and looking at various spot surveys, and this was one of the properties from that original study over four years ago. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're consistently approving something that's been overturned already by the BCC? Is that what you just said to me? MR. SCHMITT: No, no. No, what I said was back then we applied that. The reason the board overturned the Dowdy case was they felt it was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we know. MR. SCHMITT: -- an egregious violation as far as constructing the overhang. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then, one last comment. You have -- now you're telling us that the '98 staff clarification was -- has been utilized. Except if you utilize it on the variance that was in front of us today, three out of the four probably wouldn't be here. So I'm not sure that -- and all I'm suggesting, maybe you ought to go back through and check all those locations on that disk to make Page 42 March 6, 2008 sure that they're either consistent or inconsistent with the '98 staff clarification, so that we're not bringing people in here and forcing them through the system when they may not need to be, based on the readings of the time. That's all I think this board's saying. So Mr. Schiffer, then we'll go back to Mr. Caron to see if she has any follow-up, then Mr. Kolflat. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was going to -- if you want to stay on this topic, go to Ms. Caron now then. Is that what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're done with this topic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think one thing we have to be careful of is that in the Dowdy case the property line was outside the seawall, and that drawing was showing you that the most restrictive in that case was the seawall. This case is the exact opposite. The property line is inside the seawall. Therefore, the most restrictive in this case is the property line. Willie, my question is, what is the -- MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The property lines that are on the canal, you're considering those sidelines? How come they're not rear property lines? MR. BROWN: They're not rear yards, because as you can see from the diagram on the visualizer, this is a corner lot. Corner lots don't have rear yards; they only have front yards and side yards. And that's the way it's written in the LDC. And that's what we go by in terms of establishing yards. So you have Flamingo Avenue and Vanderbilt. Those are both front yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you interpret the LDC that if a lot is a corner lot, which this definitely is, that from that point on you only have front yards and side yards? MR. BROWN: Correct. Page 43 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though geometry like this is -- essentially these are rear yards. I mean, in other words, if the side yards did connect, you'd be 100 percent right. But in this case these are not stout, and I don't know why the setbacks for rear yards wouldn't apply. The property next door, for example, that's a rear yard, the one to the west of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a corner lot. MR. BROWN: I have something that -- okay, Section 5.03.02 from the LDC, fences -- related to fences and walls. If you go down to item number four, it says for corner lots, one acre or less in area, which by definition have only front yards and side yards. This is the language we have to go by. There are no rear yards for corner lots. And this is universal standard language in any ordinance in any city in any state in the U.S. This is the way it's interpreted for all ordinances for corner lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see, here's the thing, is that I do work all around and we do consider that that's a rear yard set -- what this says is a corner lot, which by definition has only front and side yards. Well, this has year yards also, so this may not be a corner lot by that definition. In other words, you can read that backwards too and say that a corner lot has to have only front and side yards. MR. BROWN: I respectfully disagree. It doesn't have a rear yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern -- and I'm a friend of the application -- is that, you know, if it is a rear yard, we've got that problem with the seawall height. It's slightly over and would require actually a 20- foot setback. So I would just want to make sure we clear that up. MR. BROWN: Yeah, and the very last sentence in number four says, fences with required side yards may reach six feet in height. So the height of the fence in this petition isn't an issue. Page 44 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a couple of things. When noting the stairs to the right, you said that they had been done by the prior owners, that all these variances were required because of steps taken by the prior owner. And that's not true. The steps to the right were just constructed by this current owner in 2004. MR. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I just wanted that clarified. Now, if you go to this Exhibit A plan that you're looking at approving. If this cage gets blown down in another hurricane, what's actually to prevent somebody from saying I'll put a door on the old staircase again? It looks like that's part of this approved plan. MR. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't we make them just block off those stairs? They're not supposed to be used, they're not supposed to be there anymore. Why wouldn't we say concrete them in? MR. BROWN: To date it hasn't been an issue. They were issued building permits, but as the applicant has said, they have not received a certificate of completion so of course our code enforcement officers go out and they inspect these uses. And so in this case they were found not to be in compliance with the LDC. And so until a certificate of completion has been granted, they're found in violation. And for this applicant, it's required them to come in for a variance to get approval. If approval is not granted by this board today, then the screen cage wall has to come down, the concrete stairs have to be demolished and possibly even the pool. COMMISSIONER CARON: So -- but my point is here now we're compounding problems in variances. If they hadn't bothered to put in the new staircases and come before us then, we'd only have one Page 45 March 6, 2008 variance here for this one staircase. Now we're talking about approving two. Why wouldn't you ask them, ask the petitioner to concrete in this old staircase that now there isn't an exit to? Because it's been in violation apparently for a long time. MR. BROWN: You raise a very good point. I'll let Mr. Thornton respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. THORNTON: I'll just try to address your comment. The old stair could be used -- could have been used if we designed the screen when you come up the stairs to have a long tunnel into the pool deck area and then a door. Because that would provide a landing, I suppose. That wasn't a very attractive option to have such a screen protrusion into the pool deck area. And we asked for the variance, because the stair does sit there today, and we're asking for the variance so we don't have to demolish the stair. Demolishing the stair would require demolition and then somehow reconstruction of that wall, which would require engineering and masonry work. And therefore, we're asking to let that old stair sit where it is, even though it's not useful to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you put the overhead aerial on, please. Now, the petition included 11 letters, I believe, of neighbors that -- this property? MR. BROWN: The letters of support, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Who wrote that letter? It's the same letters. Do you know who wrote -- MR. BROWN: No, they're different signatures at the bottom of each letter. Page 46 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the letter contacted exactly identical for all 11. MR. BROWN: The letters are identical. I'm assuming Mr. Thornton wrote the letter. But each individual property owner along Flamingo Avenue, and that's where the bulk of the letters come from in support. They signed -- each individual property owner along Flamingo signed the letter. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, the property just adjacent to the subject property, was the letter writer from there also, one of the letters from that person? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. That was the Zilavy variance I referred to that this commission approved back in November oflast year for rear yard -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When you look at this -- MR. BROWN: -- variances. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- aerial, it would appear that there's very few houses that see what we're talking about as far as the encroachment on it. A neighbor obviously would have an interest and across the canal probably two or three of the properties. But what is the relevance of having 11 neighbors write that it's no objection to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I mean, some of these people are probably in houses they can't even see the property and know what's going on. MR. BROWN: I think it goes to making the point that the neighboring property owners don't feel that there's a detriment to public health, safety and welfare. I think that was their purpose in submitting the letter of support. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But because of the remoteness of the people that are writing some of these letters to the property, I'm concerned that we're letting voting take care of land use policy decisions and making our decisions based on how many letters a Page 47 March 6, 2008 person can come up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I don't think any of us are-- I'm not doing that. I don't think anybody on this panel is doing that, sir. I mean, I certainly want to let the record show that that's not swaying my way of voting on this particular -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, then what is the purpose of putting it in the petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staff was just trying to show us that the immediate neighbors and the neighbors on that street, or wherever they're from didn't have an objection to it. But it wasn't something that necessarily is our -- what we find upon. We find upon the LDC and the application for public safety and welfare, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But shouldn't there be some sort of limit to how far an area we go in getting letters in support? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we could limit public opinion and public input. I don't think we could legally do that, nor would we want to, sir. MR. SCHMITT: There's no limit. We've had petitions bring 500 letters in. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So we should make the determination of the relevancy or nonrelevancy. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, sir, that's your prerogative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any public speakers, Kay? MS. DESELEM: I do not have any, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any rebuttal requested by the applicant? I don't know if you need any. No. Page 48 March 6, 2008 Okay, in any -- we'll close the public hearing. Weare starting a new process. The last rezone or item we had, we had discussion before the motion, so I'll certainly offer that up. Does anybody want discussion? If they don't, I'll ask for a motion. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion on this particular issue? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Does your motion include staff recommendations -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Vigliotti? Does the second include those, too? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Acknowledged. Okay, any discussion from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I will vote against the motion, and only because I think we're compounding it. I think that that center staircase at the very minimum should be concreted in. I understand that the pool was there from the beginning from the Eighties. I have no problem with the pool. I don't have a problem with replacing the cage on the pool. There are some questions here about that right-hand staircase that I think easily have been handled, but I don't see why we compound the issue here with that second staircase. But that's just my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) Page 49 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor of the motion to approve, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-1. And with that, we will take a break until five after 10:00. Thank you all. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we can continue with the meeting. Item #9B PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723 The next petition up is PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11723. It's Amy and Tammy -- no, Amy Turner and Tammy Turner Kipp for a location on Vanderbilt Beach Road, quarter mile east of Livingston Road. Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of the applicant please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Page 50 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I had a very brief and not in-depth conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding the matter. Superficial, completely. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've had discussions with Mr. Y ovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a brief discussion in the hallway with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- you know, I think I had a discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold on this one. And I know a young lady I came up with in the elevator who said she is involved in the project, I talked with her too, but I don't even know her name. So that's the best I can tell you. I'm an old man with a bad memory. So we'll go on with -- go ahead, applicant's presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. And that individual was Amy Turner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Hi, Ms. Turner. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I introduce the two of you. With me today are Amy Turner and Tammy Kipp, who are the current property owners, as well as Tim Haskins and Kate Spiller, who represent the contract purchaser on the property; Wayne Arnold and Andres Correa and Heidi Williams from Q. Grady Minor and Associates, to answer any planning and engineering related questions; and Reed Jarvi from Vanasse and Daylor to answer any transportation related questions. On the visualizer is an aerial that shows the property location. Page 51 March 6, 2008 As you can see, it's an approximate eight-acre parcel about a quarter mile east of the Livingston Road/Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection. To the north of us is the Tiburon Golf Course. Immediately to the east is a portion of Wilshire Lakes. Adjacent to the west is -- it's the farm, right, horse stables. And to the south is Village Walk. This property is currently zoned PUD, which would allow 200 assisted living facilities -- facility units or a combination of up to 180 ALF units and up to 50 skilled nursing care beds, as well as a child care center. Hopefully this looks familiar to you. A couple of years back we went through the Growth Management Plan amendment process to establish the Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood commercial sub- district. That sub-district contained two parcels: The parcel immediately adjacent to the intersection of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road was parcel one, and that went through the rezone process not too long ago and was rezoned the Bradford Square PUD. The other parcel is our parcel. The Growth Management Plan specifically allows ALF units, independent living units, a continuing care retirement community, or a nursing home, or all the above to be requested on this particular piece of property. It limits it to a maximum of 200 units, and it allows a floor area ratio of .6. And a couple weeks back we -- in another petition that I was involved in, the Land Development Code currently allows a floor area ratio for these types of facilities of a .45. When we were going through the comprehensive plan amendment process for this particular piece of property, we explained that that was an outdated standard based upon the amenities that people who live in these facilities expect and the size of units that they expect. Page 52 March 6, 2008 So we came through with on this particular piece of property a .6 floor area ratio to address the current market and the level of amenities people expect to live in these types of communities. At this time it's anticipated that we will be building an independent living facility on the property. Although we're asking for assisted living, independent living, continuing care retirement communities and skilled nursing on the site, at this time we expect it to be an independent living facility. The comprehensive plan requires that if you're going to do an independent living facility, it's got to be age restricted to people 55 years and older, which our PUD specifically requires. The county's Land Development Code does not define what an independent living facility is, although it does refer to it in the group care category. And Wayne will get into the master plan, as well as some of the deviations. But in the Land Development Code, the reference to independent living facilities is just that, independent living units. And it has a parking standard of one unit -- one parking space per unit. And Wayne will get into explaining why we're asking for a deviation for the clubhouse. So there's a reference in the code, it just doesn't define what it is. In speaking to one of your colleagues on the Planning Commission, the question came about, Rich, what's the difference between these types of units and just a regular old apartment complex or a regular old condominium project? What I -- and we've talked about this in the past on other projects, but what I'm going to put on the visualizer is a list of the operational amenities we provide to residents that live there -- we need to zoom in on that, Kay -- that distinguishes our type of community from a -- you know, I'll call it the garden variety complex or garden variety condominium project. What we will provide -- and if necessary, we're happy to include Page 53 March 6, 2008 these operational criteria in the PUD document itself -- is we provide on-site dining for the residents so they don't need to go off-site to get their food. We will provide group transportation for residents to take them to the grocery store or to other shopping. For individuals who have other needs as far as going to a doctor or other, you know, kind of specialized trips, you know, that don't readily serve themselves to group transportation, we will coordinate for them transportation to get to those trips. So they don't need a car if they don't want a car, but obviously they'll be allowed to drive themselves to these places if they want to. There'll be an on-site manager that also serves as kind of an activities coordinator. And what that person does is assist the residents there to coordinate different things that they might need for their individual needs, and will also coordinate off-site, as my kids call them, field trips, but off-site trips to the Phil or other things like that that they might be interested in attending, as well as bringing lectures and entertainment to the residents on-site at the clubhouse. So that person will provide opportunities for people to be entertained on-site to meet their needs and not leave if they don't want to leave, and provide them opportunities to go to other places off-site, if they want to do that. There will be an on-site wellness center and there will be exercise and other fitness programs provided to the residents coordinated by this activities coordinator who will be providing the servIces. Each unit will have an emergency pull cord that will immediately contact 9-1-1 if there's a medical or other emergency. And each unit will be designed so the residents can age in place. For example, the kitchens will already be designed that if, you know, they come in and in the future they somehow need a wheelchair, the kitchen could be easily retrofitted to lower the sink and other things so people can age in place and not have to move out just because they Page 54 March 6, 2008 now need to use a wheelchair. The bathrooms will easily be retrofitted with grab bars, if they need those things in the future. So we're providing an opportunity for people to age in place. Their aides will be allowed to obviously come and live with them if they need to. So it will be an independent living unit, but people will be able to age in place and continue to reside there. We think that these additional services are not something you typically find in a normal apartment complex or a normal condominium project. The purpose of this type of housing is really to serve people who are getting older but they're still very -- they're fairly healthy. The average age usually for people who move in here is kind of the early to mid seventies. They can, if they had to, probably could take care of themselves in a condominium, but it's probably not really what they want to do. They want to move in and be with other people their own age. They're usually single, so they have an opportunity to have companionship with others in a similar situation. My grandmother lived in one of these things. She moved in when she was 80 and she stayed until, you know, she needed to go to a nursing home. But it was good for her, and I jokingly said if they'd have had this for me when I got out of college, it wouldn't have been so bad to have that kind of an environment, and then she reminded me that was what my dorm life was while I was in college, so I did already have that experience, so it was her turn to have that expenence. Your staff is recommending approval. We have so far received positive feedback from our surrounding neighbors. Village Walk has, I believe, written a letter of support. I don't know if you have that or not. We haven't really received any real negative feedback from Wilshire Lakes. We've met with representatives of WCI, and I think that they Page 55 March 6, 2008 generally support what we're doing. Wayne's going to take you through the master plan and the requested deviations. And then if you'll let him finish that, then we'll be open to answer any questions you might have regarding the project. I think that will go quicker and smoother if we can just do it that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Briefly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then all of us then should have the same opportunity. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, minor point on number five. I just wondered if that would be a C, D or E flat cord. I wasn't sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do you need it to be? MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. And as Rich indicated I think what I'll do is just start by briefly introducing you to the master concept plan. I have a colorized version I'll put on the visualizer for you. Give you an -- put it in an aerial photo, just to give you some visual perspective with our neighboring properties. But essentially what we're proposing on this master plan, and to distinguish from the original PUD that was approved here, if you look at that, it was one of the old type of master plans that had very little detail on it. It had a big development envelope and showed the buffers and an access point. And with this particular property and working with our neighbors through the compo plan process and then now through the zoning, we've given a much more definitive picture of what and how the development is going to occur on-site. The access point that we show on Vanderbilt Beach Road was a defined access point that occurred with the widening of Vanderbilt Beach Road. There was a settlement agreement in essence when an easement was given by the -- by Amy Turner and Tammy Kipp for the property. So the access point, the stub-out's being provided now as part of the road construction. We're working with a contractor to go Page 56 March 6, 2008 ahead and facilitate the right turn lanes as necessary here, et cetera. So that's moving forward. And that's one of the driving forces of the layout of the site, because our access point was known. What I don't reflect on this colorized version that is on your master plan that's in your document is the potential to interconnect with the horse stable to the west. There's been no expressed interest by either party, but we've provided for that, and our site plan's designed to accommodate it, should they desire to do that. We have a directional median opening. It's not a full median opening. However, if that facilitates some better transportation movements on Vanderbilt Beach Road then we're happy to provide that. The layout we're showing, we have our preserve area that is predominantly to our eastern boundary. We made a commitment during the comprehensive plan process that we would have at least a 30-foot wide buffer adjacent to the Wilshire Lakes neighbors that I think the minimum width on our preserve is around 40 feet, and we've worked with your environmental staff to make sure that it's in the most appropriate location, it buffers the residences to the east, and I hope they're satisfied with it. We have water management that's going to be shown as a small wet detention lake on-site. That will be designed to be closer to Vanderbilt Beach Road. We discharge ultimately to Vanderbilt Beach Road system, so that works for that purpose. And then we have two proposed unit type buildings on here, as well as a clubhouse facility. The structures are being designed to house the parking underneath the buildings, and I wouldn't call it a garage, but an open covered parking area below the living units. And the orientation has been laid out. So obviously we do take advantage of some of the golf course views to the north. There will be open views internal to our Page 57 March 6, 2008 courtyards and the clubhouse facility, as well as our water management lake. And there are some units that will take advantage of the horse stable, which we think some people will actually enjoy looking at that as part of their amenity package. As Rich said, we don't -- as far as I know we don't have objections from any of our immediate neighbors. There was one letter in your packet from somebody, and that letter was written some time ago. It's something I think we saw during the comprehensive plan amendment process. And I think the one distinction that I would make, just to point out on that letter, the property has been zoned PUD since 1999, and it has provided for nursing homes, skilled nursing, assisted living since that time. I think they pointed out that this was vacant and, you know, we didn't need more development. But in fact development has been approved here since that original PUD was approved. We're asking for four deviations related to the project. I understand in speaking with Kay Deselem that one of the deviations where we were requesting to go from a .45 FAR to .6 may be unnecessary. We were asking for that I think out of caution. Rather than to be here and someone question it and then have to add a deviation from the floor, we didn't think it was necessary, but we added it at the time. It seemed to be easier to delete something than to add it. So if it's deemed not essential by the Planning Commission, we're happy to withdraw that deviation that refers to our .6 FAR. The comprehensive plan that was approved for this property references that we can have a maximum FAR of .6. The zoning document references a .6 FAR, and the intent was simply to note it as a deviation from the Land Development Code standard, which is .45. If it's unnecessary, we can delete it. There are a couple other deviations that are specific to the site. One was related to the parking standard that we should use for an Page 58 March 6, 2008 independent living unit or retirement community type use. It's our understanding in working with staff that the most comparable impact fee related category that we are would be a retirement community. And that retirement community we've referenced in this as well. And we think that relates very closely to an independent living facility that requires one parking space per unit. As Rich mentioned, the average age of these residents are in their seventies, most likely, and they probably have one vehicle. So we're accommodating at least one vehicle in the parking garage for that use. And we believe that's consistent with what the Land Development Code requires for an independent living facility. It's just we were looking for a certainty as we move forward in our site planning, that somebody didn't say, well, wait a second, you're not really an independent living facility of sorts, we want you to have two parking spaces per unit. So we're asking for -- I don't know that it's really a deviation. It's really a parking standard that I think we can establish ourselves. It's just I think getting your acknowledgement that we are allowed to have one parking space per unit. The other deviation that we've asked for is one that would require a Type B landscape buffer between our clubhouse structure and any of the unit buildings on-site. I think there's a discrepancy in your code between the landscape provisions of your code and the fence and wall section of your code. The fence and wall section says if you have any nonresidential use adjacent to a residential type use, you're required to put in a masonry wall. And I think that in our own community, this is one of the first proj ects I've seen where that became an issue, that internal to your own project you were asked to put in a masonry wall. I think our deviation points out that if we're putting all of our units above parking, a six foot high wall doesn't do anything to shield and buffer a residential person from the view of a clubhouse. And in fact that's part of the activities here, people do like to see Page 59 March 6, 2008 activity, and we wouldn't want to buffer that from them. So we've offered in the alternative of a wall to have an enhanced landscape package that would go around the clubhouse facility. And we think that staff is supportive of that and we're happy for that. The other deviation that we had requested was related to -- let me find the exact language in the staff report here. It was related to our overall clubhouse parking requirement. I think it stems from what I thought was a fairly new interpretation of the code. The code talks about getting reductions for parking for clubhouse type facilities when you have residents in close proximity to them. And staff has said that the exception is it says clubhouse -- it says golf course/clubhouse. And staff is saying that if you have a clubhouse or a golf course, you don't qualify for that reduction. And in the past I can tell you that it has always been held that the golf course clubhouse did not qualify for a reduced parking standard, because residents typically aren't in walking distance of their golf course clubhouse. But in a community such as this where every resident is within 300 feet of their clubhouse facility, to provide parking for the standard of one parking space per 100 square feet on a 10,000 square foot clubhouse seems awfully excessive. To provide nearly 100 parking spaces for that clubhouse seems totally unnecessary. We think the reduction to the 25 percent that would normally be allowed for units in close proximity to their clubhouse is appropriate and works. We do have access parking on-site to accommodate employees, guests, et cetera, but we don't think the clubhouse should have a designated allocation of the full amount of parking. Staff has recommended approval of that; we hope you do, too. I think all the deviations that we've requested are very specific and related to what we're hoping to achieve here. These people will have a transportation package available to them, as Rich mentioned in Page 60 March 6, 2008 our commitments. To provide additional parking for a clubhouse facility at the full rate that the code might require is excessive and we don't believe necessary. I think that's our point, and I'm happy to answer questions. Or if you want to hear from staff and then we can answer any questions, I'm happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll get questions of the applicant. Mr. Midney, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, my first question is why are you calling it an independent living facility instead of an assisted living facility? The assisted is better defined. Would you consider renaming it or naming it an assisted living facility? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the difference is, under the statutes, an assisted living facility requires state licensure, there's a state licensure process. We will not be providing those types of services that would require state licensure for independent living units, and that's why we've elected to go the independent living unit route, versus an assisted living unit. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what extra services would those be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Generally I think you've got to provide additional medical services to become -- for assisted living. And we're not going to be providing medical care for these residents. It doesn't mean we won't coordinate that for them, but we will not be providing that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Will these units be owned or leased? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now they're anticipate to be leased, but it could go either way. But right now they're anticipated to be leased. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On condition number one where Page 61 March 6, 2008 you said meals would be provided, could you put those up again, please? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many meals a day will be provided? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have a meal plan that will provide for two meals a day. They can go for a third if they prefer, but generally it's two meals per day. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that's going to be anybody who lives there will always have those two meals a day? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They will have that available to them, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what if the owner decides to drop any of these amenities? If he says well, we're not getting too much, you know, response to this, you know, people are not coming to the wellness center or they're not coming to too many trips, does the owner have a right to drop any of these once the permission to do this is given, or is this somehow defined that it has to be always offered? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what I had suggested, because we are always going to offer that, is if you want to include that as a requirement of the PUD document, we certainly have no objection to do that. I mean, this concept is not a new concept. People expect these level of services and level of amenities. So we know that we're not going to be dropping those uses. So if you want to make it a condition of the PUD, we don't have an issue with that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you put the overhead again that you had up there, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which, the master plan or -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The master plan. Page 62 March 6, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understand is that is all the parking is under the -- or on the first floor of all the buildings; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, not all of it. Not all of it. For the units, yes. There'll they're be some parking here, and then you can see there's also some parking here on the loop. So there'll be some additional parking for visitors and for staff that is not under the building. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there is parking both outdoor and indoor? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And the outdoor is also for the residents? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'd be able to utilize it as well, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is there any possibility of relocating that outdoor parking closer to the clubhouse so you then could have more up around the clubhouse? MS. ARNOLD: If! could jump in. One of the things that the way we've arranged this, the loop does provide, and this level of detail doesn't really highlight how much might be there. But there are some other opportunities where we could create 90-degree parking off of the loop to increase the parking in that area. The larger parking area that you see closer to Vanderbilt Beach Road was really designed to accommodate some of the services that we have and also any overflow in any of the events that one may have, if there's a function at the clubhouse. Keep in mind, that clubhouse is no more than 300 feet away from any of those buildings. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, I think you indicated you had questions, then Mr. Wolfley. Page 63 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let Mr. Wolfley go, because I think the parking issues were dealt with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Two things. Mr. Y ovanovich, you stated that this is an independent living facility? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I must have been misthinking all the way through this, because it says ALF all the way through, assisted living facility. And I may have missed -- unless I'm looking at the wrong document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you looking at Exhibit A, which is the list of permitted uses? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm looking at the main part of the document. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's the staff report. But the PUD document says as principal uses, assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over age 55, continuing care retirement communities, retirement communities. Those are the things that we're asking as permitted uses. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So are you not going to have 50 skilled nursing care beds? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the old document I think you're reading from. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is it still then -- my second question is, is it still going to be no more than 62 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. If you look at the development standards table, which is Exhibit B, the zoned height is four stories over parking, not to exceed 50 feet. And the actual height is four stories over parking, not to exceed 62 feet. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that's -- those are the -- that is the development standards for this particular project. Page 64 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For this PUD. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So it's going to be fairly much like directly to the north, that Aston Gardens, I believe it's called, off Immokalee Road? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I think that's probably right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I've got to put my hat on different then. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you not then have a question or did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Maybe a remark, because, I think Tor covered the parking area issues that I had. But I was amazed at the number of square feet not -- wasn't amazed until you said most of them are going to be individuals who are going to occupy those spaces. But that's neither here nor there. It sounds like a great place from that point of view. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want you to say everybody's going to be single. I mean, there's going to be married couples living there as well. But, you know, our experience is that the majority are singles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and it's on the PUD document, Page 1 of 10. And it's principal use one. Would you have a problem putting in, all uses shall be permitted at a -- and then add the word combined maximum of FAR .06 just to avoid-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to avoid temptation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. Page 65 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'll ask the height and setback questions. Why the differences from the previous PUD? What MS. ARNOLD: The original PUD was prepared back in 1999. And we reflected in that a three-story maximum building height without a reference to the specific number of feet that would be. And I remember going through that in some detail back whenever, and I think we always had in our mind that that three stories probably would be over parking. We didn't express it that way but your LDC allows under-building parking for any use. And I think we had told the people back then, and Tammy and Amy can refresh my memory because they were there with me. But I think we always said it was going to be around 50 feet is what we thought that height would be to support a three habitable story building. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was what was stated in the hearings at the time? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's my recollection. I didn't go back and look at the minutes, but that's what I've had in my mind since the time of that. To reference the setback, we have made some modifications to the setback. And, you know, hopefully the fact that our neighbors are here supporting us means that they are supportive of it. We've given them I think in lieu of -- at the time we had a commitment on a buffer, which the buffer's been increased and the preserve area's been committed to being closer to the Wilshire Lakes Fieldstone Village Condominiums. So I think that helps them. The orientation of the one building puts the narrow side to them, so the view of that's minimized. And that was done very consciously and I think with their input, too. The other thing I would say that we've asked for, originally we had 100- foot setback from our eastern property boundary, which is Page 66 March 6, 2008 probably the one setback that you're most concerned with. And I just looked at the site development plan that we prepared, and I think we're around 80 feet from the property line with that building edge. And I think our neighbors are okay with what we've shown them. And I guess to the extent we can increase the eastern setback to something greater than what's expressed in the PUD document, we certainly could do that. But I think there were several factors that drove those changes. COMMISSIONER CARON: In our code -- and this is actually for Jeff -- we don't have a definition for retirement community, do we? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe so. But I don't believe that's necessary. I think you would use the common usage of what a retirement community would be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And we also don't have one for independent living either, right? MR. KLATZKOW: With the same response, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why I was the commissioner that asked that a list of commitments be brought to this board. Because without that, this is nothing more, according to their permitted uses, than an apartment building and/or a condo, because they could convert the day after approval to a condo, with a density of 25 units to the acre. With no commitment to anybody other than that they must be 55 years of age. The commitment list, which I'm hoping that we'll get a copy of, that goes toward making this actually a retirement community in the most general and common use of the term, or independent living community in the most general and common senses of the word, I think we all need to get a copy of that from you all. But that went a long way toward providing the information that I require. Certainly that it wasn't just a condo waiting to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the Page 67 March 6, 2008 applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, we get to go through my questions. Did you provide a modifiable electronic format of this PUD to staff? MR. YOV ANOVICH: To my understanding we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got the affirmation from staff. I want it on record. So that's going to be a question that we ran into before. Your point about the GMP amendment. I had questioned that on staff. I have a list of my questions that I gave staff earlier so they could have the ability to come better prepared to answer them. That was on there. And the response I got was the following: This issue is under discussion with Susan, Ray and Corby, David Weeks and Margie Student and Jeff Klatzkow. Initial discussions seem to be leaning towards the same conclusion. I will advise of the outcome. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What was the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the .6 needs to be a deviation to the LDC. I understand you're looking for clarification. But if we start doing that, because our GMP is a dominant document we might as well start going into every PUD and doing the same thing, believing that we have to reclarify everything that's in the GMP. I'm always trying to make our documents less cumbersome and more plainly read. So I'd prefer not to see that there, if it's legally not needed. And I'll have to turn to Mr. Klatzkow to respond. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I don't think it's legally needed. It's just a question of -- it's ease of access of the information is the issue, that you're able to pull the PUD and it's right there and you don't have to go back to the GMP. If you want it in there, it's fine. If you think it's not necessary Page 68 March 6, 2008 because it's redundant, that's fine, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the PUD. But I don't think they need to list it as a deviation in the PUD as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. MR. KLATZKOW: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So deviation number one, ifno one objects, I would like to see that removed, just to keep it less cumbersome. Okay, the other item is -- well, I'll just walk through them as we get them all laid out. I'm going through parts of the staff report first. Richard, the time frame on this, because our transportation department can't get ahold of their contractor on that particular job in front of your project, and that's been an eyesore in this community for so long, not the project but the road, do you have any objection withholding your permit applications until the road is C.O.'d? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're going to C.O. the road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accept into the road. You know, the standard language. And by the way, if you recall, I asked for this when Vanderbilt Beach Road, before it started, on your projects up closer to 951. Everybody assured us that Vanderbilt Beach Road would be done before your project was done. Well, your project's done now; Vanderbilt Beach Road is not even close to be being done. And I just don't want to see this compounding itself again and again. And I'm talking about the section from Oakes Boulevard to Livingston Road, which would be the section affecting you most. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we are basically in with our site development plan. So we would like to be able to continue processing the site development plan and get our building permits and start building the project. So I would hate to wait until a road that's already under Page 69 March 6, 2008 construction actually gets finished. Plus I don't know even when that date is or anticipated to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should say that in past tense. It was anticipated to be a while back and we're still not even there yet. I was driving on the road two days ago, and the backlog to wait in line there was ludicrous. And I just -- I'm having a hard time with that point, Rich. And I had that repeatedly with projects on that road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And realistically we probably wouldn't C.O. any units until-- how long? How long before we have a C.O. for units? A year, at least? About a year? And plus it's a retirement community, so it's not going to generate a lot of trips anyway. So I would hope that we wouldn't have to be held up until the completion of the road. I understand the issue, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two timings. There's one that could -- involving the issuance of a building permit and there's one of a C.O. of a building permit, and each one would generate different demands on the road system. Mr. Klatzkow, if we were to issue a building permit, could we hold a C.O. up if a stipulation was added that the road had to be completed before C.O.'s were issued to the buildings? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have any problem with withholding C.O.'s until that road is substantially completed. And I think that's the term you want, substantial completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we may have a problem with that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe then somebody ought to put pressure on the transportation department to get that road done. I'm tired of it. Was that Nick clapping? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And honestly, I don't think that this is the Page 70 March 6, 2008 best economic times to be telling people don't go hire contractors and put people to work. I mean, you've got someone who's willing to go out here, invest a lot of money in Collier County and employ people who need employment. I would hate to see us hold this up for this type of project. I think this is a different type of project than others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Richard. And that road system is a disaster. I just don't know what to do with it. We're only making it worse every time we add more to it. Your previously projects added a pile. And they're all partially finished. Some of them are all finished. I know your buildings are somewhat empty, or the one in front of the projects you brought forward. But if they were all occupied right now, it would be even worse. You can't get -- it took me three miles yesterday morning -- three miles to transverse that road, it took 30 minutes. I was so mad I text messaged Nick, but he didn't respond. I'm sitting there in this line typing up notes because it was so frustrating to sit there. And I have to do that repeatedly each week, and it shouldn't be that way. And I'm not the only one sitting in these lines. And so at some point we've got to say okay, we've got to control it a little bit better, and that's all I'm asking. And I understand your point, I'm just -- unfortunate you're here at the timing of this road. Nick's walking up. I think he's finally figured out maybe he can respond to us. Nick, you got a time frame on that road? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, he's going to quit his job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, don't do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation. Mark, I always enjoy the comments you have for transportation. We're actually moving quickly now. They're building out over a Page 71 March 6, 2008 million dollars a month. They moved traffic to the north side of the road. Most of the utility work has been completed. The portion by I-75 has already been -- the curb returns have been done. So we expect to be done by the end of this year. While late, they are moving quickly now. So by the end of December of 2008 we expect to be completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How confident do you feel in that date? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very confident now, because the eliminations of the utility conflicts are gone, and the north side of the road is paved, and so they'll be able to work quickly on the south side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. I always enjoy coming up and explaining. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were clapping about the road. Richard, if you went in for a building permit at the time you got your second submittal ready for your SDP, because you'll have many submittals, you got your building permit and then you started construction, you couldn't get this building built, what, in less than 15 months, maybe 20, 24? Have you got a time frame on your construction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sixteen months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you had a restriction on your C.O.'s, no C.O.'s issued until prior to the end of2008, that wouldn't affect you then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you put a date certain that says December 31, 2008, let us think about that, I -- the open-ended issue for us is once we start going, you know, we need to be able to let people move in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: In the past, just as a reminder, we have staggered C.O.'s over time so that you can get like one-third in one Page 72 March 6, 2008 year, another third the following year, you know, or until the road is substantially completed. It's another approach. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can't do one-third of a project here. We need to be able to just go do our project and get people moved in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a 16-month construction date, which I doubt if you'll hit. But even if you do, that puts you well beyond the end of 2008. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which argues against having to put any restriction in here at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just to be safe. Anyway, that's -- I'm leaning in that direction. I just wanted to have the conversation. Under Exhibit B, PUD findings, let the record note that there's been some changes to the PUD findings. They were sent -- passed out to all of us this morning, and the court reporter has one for the record. They involve some clarification of staff issues on there. And I don't think we need to go into them. They weren't critical, they're just cleanup of the document. There is a consistency review memorandum in our package. I asked staff to verify that the changes to the project that are currently proposed do not change the outcome of that consistency review memorandum. I've got an affirmative from staff that that is the case. And I'm sure staff will reverifY that when they come forward. Brad, just so my notes are right and I word the stipulations correctly, what was the change you asked for in the page -- I think it was Page I of the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 1. It was 1-A-1. Put the word combined before maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. On that same page, I asked staff, and I guess the applicant was contacted, that items 1-B-3, there be a reference in there that those particular facilities would be restricted to residents only. I understand Page 73 March 6, 2008 there's no objection to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was just going to say that. Residents and their guests, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would their guests create more of a parking problem? You're asking for a reduction in parking because -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're not going to have a lot of people there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you basically going to tell me that if I go visit my grandmother, I can't go eat dinner with her on site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more concerned about the beauty shop and I couldn't figure out why you'd need that, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, every once in a while I need a little trim. I know it's a little short right now but, you know, you never know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem, residents and guests, and that's fine. I just didn't want it opened to the public before it becomes -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. I just didn't want to get caught on something. MS. ARNOLD: In might, just to clarify the point, I think in the industry they're considered private amenities, not public. And if there's a reference to -- and if the concern is that I can call up and go get a salon appointment there or something, that's certainly not the case. So I don't know how best to reference it. But it's not the intent to have these open and available to the public. Residents and guests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understood that. I wanted to make sure the language didn't allow any change that could have been Page 74 March 6, 2008 modified. COMMISSIONER CARON: Probably saying private amenities is a good thing to do. I mean, that's what they are, and let their be no question about it in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Okay, development standards table. I guess I got a response from staff that probably fixes it. On the double asterisk, you're going to remove the words per subdivided lot; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next one -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question about that. Explain to me what that means then, the maximum floor area ratio, excluding parking areas under buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's our understanding that you'd never included under building parking anyway under the floor area ratio calculation. We just wanted to make it very clear in the PUD document that the below building square footage doesn't count against our .6 floor area ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8 of the PUD, Item B-3. And staff did respond to my concerns on this. And I'll read you what my concerns were, so then you may be -- maybe the rest of the panel will understand why I suggest it might be struck. Seems that it's poorly worded, should someone actually exercise the option. If the developer does not have any costs, what happens to the landscaping that is removed to build this wall? Is a berm needed as well? Who pays for the wall, the required landscaping, the irrigation, the perpetual maintenance? And how is all this handled by this paragraph? Obviously it isn't. I'm concerned that by just putting a broad sweeping statement in a PUD like that, it might end up being more confusing than just letting the language of the GMP stand on its own. And should someone want Page 75 March 6, 2008 to come in and put a wall there, it's permitted by the GMP and they can deal with the process through staff the way it has to be instead of referencing it in the PUD. And I don't think the applicant had a problem with striking it, and if I remember staff didn't seem to have a problem with it. As long as the panel doesn't, then I think it would be better if it wasn't there. Strike. COMMISSIONER CARON: What number is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit F, B-3. Okay, and I think that's -- oh, one other question on the transpor -- fun thing for Nick. I know this has been affirmed, and staff or somebody can probably just tell me. In the old PUD they had a transportation commitment providing a right-of-way. I want to make sure before we approve a new PUD the old PUD commitments were satisfied. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, they've been satisfied. But you can check with Nick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want it for the record so that there's no question that that's already been done and that's why it isn't in the new one. Okay, with that I'm done with my questions. And if nobody else has any further of the applicant, we'll go to staff. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, I am a principal planner with zoning staff. And you have already gotten the full force of the applicant's presentation. He's gone into detail about what's being proposed. You do have the staff report that was sent to you that addresses staffs Issues. We did talk about the deviations and what is proposed. We did go into the information about the surrounding land uses and zoning, the growth management consistency. And then some questions came up with that again today. Page 76 March 6, 2008 And we do have someone here today, Corby Schmidt is here. He is the author of Exhibit C, which is the full comprehensive plan amendment memo -- or comprehensive plan analysis memo, and he can address any specific questions you might have that I can't answer. But staff is recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the elements of that to include but not limit to the future land use, the transportation and the coastal area management plan as well. We did provide a zoning analysis and a staff analysis that included environmental transportation, utility, emergency management, housing, and parks and rec. staff, as well as a lengthy . . zonmg reVIew. We went into detail regarding the consistency of the project with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE, noting, as was discussed earlier, things like the building orientation and the location of the preserve area and how it helps to address compatibility issues. And we are recommending that this particular project be found compatible, therefore consistent with that particular policy. We did discuss the deviations, and we are in agreement as noted with the withdrawal of the first deviation. Weare recommending approval of the other three deviations, and the staff report includes the discussion and an analysis of those deviations. In summary, we are recommending approval of this petition, and recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there's a -- one on page -- on your staff report, Page 10 of 12. It's the -- let's see, call it the second paragraph up. Page 77 March 6, 2008 On the third line it says, these buffers will be placed in available planning areas to provide filtered screening. And I just wondered, is that a common term? I looked at it and I said it seems almost redundant. I didn't know what filtered screening was. MS. DESELEM: Well, it's not a total opaque screen. I think the terminology is just to understand that there will be some filtering. But it's not a total screen. But I can see where -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that something that we accept, that we typically use? MS. DESELEM: Yeah. If I understand it, this is common terminology -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm asking. MS. DESELEM: -- used in the landscaping field. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if it is, then I'm comfortable with it. That's fine. The other question, which is more serious by a long shot, is Commissioner Caron raised the question about 25 units per acre. And for the record, what is it that we have -- were this to be approved, what is it we have that would preclude conversion to condominiums and establish a 25 unit per acre situation? MS. DESELEM: I think in addition to the limitations of the uses that we have, along with the commitments that were offered today by the petitioner as far as what amenities will be provided, I think that's going to maintain this particular project as this retirement community that they spoke of. And I don't think it was ever intended multi-family units that would be available to the general public. That's not listed as a use. It is clearly for the retirement community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what I'm establishing for the record is that in order to have it converted to a condominium, they'd have to come back for a PUD revision, if that were possible, correct? MS. DESELEM: That was my understanding, it would require Page 78 March 6, 2008 an amendment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I guess there's public speakers. Kay, would you like to call the public speakers. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I ask that the public speakers try to limit their discussion to five minutes, and use either one of the microphones. MS. DESELEM: We have one speaker, Paul-- I'm going to spell the last name -- I believe F-E-L-I-E-R. MR. FELIER: I wasn't planning on speaking, but I heard -- I'm the president of Village Walk Homeowners Association. We have about -- not about, we have 850 homes, about 1,700 residents living there. And the proposed project is directly across from our development. What I'd like to do is just let you know that we did send in a letter supporting this project. But more importantly, I think the way the project was handled. I believe the family, the Turner family, sets a standard with the way most developments should be handled. To begin with, this project originally -- or I should say prior to this project being submitted there was the intent to put in storage facilities directly across from our development. We were of course upset about the idea of a storage facility there. We asked to meet with the Turner sisters. We did. Mr. Y ovanovich was there at the time. And what they basically said is we're going to be your neighbors and we want to do what's best for you. You tell us what you want. And we did. And they worked with us. They kept us informed from day one. And right now as we see it, they've done exactly what we were hoping they would do, and we fully support it. Thank you. Page 79 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Kay, that's the last public speaker? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I don't imagine you need a rebuttal, because nothing seems to be going against you, but you can certainly try to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not going to try to do that. I just wanted to see if we can agree on the language for the PUD document itself so we know what to expect if it has to come back. I understand the change that Mr. Schiffer was talking about. And we thought that we'd address the private amenity comment in Exhibit A, b-l- 3 by adding, before that starts, private amenities such as, and then, you know, the beauty and barber shops continued on. So we thought that that would help explain. That's all I wanted to -- see if we can agree on that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. With that we'll close the public hearing and we will entertain discussion before the motion. Is there any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Actually, I just -- I need to speak to staff on two issues. One, Corby is here, and I'd just like to speak to him. Corby, the list that the petitioner is providing that actually defines what a retirement community is, I'd like to know what compo planning has to say about that list. MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. Compo planning is comfortable with those commitments. The list of six helped define the continuing care facility. And we're comfortable with those being a part of the PUD package and guaranteeing that it meets the intent of the compo plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, then I'm going to ask you. You said it defines the continuing care portion. So it doesn't help Page 80 March 6, 2008 define the retirement community portion? Because it says here retirement community or continuing care communities. So do they only need it if they decide to be a continuing care community? MR. SCHMIDT: No, it is not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to be very specific about this. MR. SCHMIDT: It is not for one or the other. We would ask that those commitments be included, regardless of what terminology is used. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. That's all I had for Corby. And just, Kay, one of the -- just a question here. This retirement community is going to be housing seniors. And the petitioner has said starting mostly in their seventies and going up from there, as long as they're at least somewhat able to take care of themselves. There is a note in the staff report that says that this development, as do a lot of them here in this community, place some stresses on our emergency management. It's my understanding that in communities like mobile homes we require their clubhouses to be hardened so that their people can shelter in place. Would that not be a good idea for a community such as this, to have their clubhouse be hardened -- MS. DESELEM: As a professional -- I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- so that they could shelter in place if -- MS. DESELEM: As a professional planner, it sounds like a very good idea. However, we don't have any Land Development Code or other regulation that requires it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'll just ask the petitioner if that might be something they would consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, let me make it clear. We've reopened the public meeting because I didn't want to close it. I Page 81 March 6, 2008 thought we were having discussion on a motion. So we'll continue with the testimony and then we'll go back and close it again, in case anybody else has to comment on it. So go ahead. And the petitioner I think was asked a question. Was that it, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe we're within any real hurricane zones, if! remember correctly. I think it's Category 3, or-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Three. So I don't think we planned on building this to be a hurricane shelter. Now, I don't think that it's really necessary to do that. I mean, as far as stressors on the emergency management system, we're paying impact fees just like anybody else, and I'm sure that the impact fee schedule has factored that in as far as EMS goes and the sheriffs office and all those other uses. So I think we are paying for our impact, and I don't think the requirement to make this a hurricane shelter is necessary for this project in this area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, if we have another Wilma, your people will have to evacuate, and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe have another Wilma, I think we're all going. So I don't know that we want them to stay there. We probably all want to go a little bit further away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, a comment. First of all, Wilma was not a strong storm. So, you know, the storm you've got to fear is not Wilma. The fact that these units are raised up and everything, they're going to have to go through the building code regulations. So, you know, I think the people would actually be safer above ground than they would on ground in the clubhouse. Page 82 March 6, 2008 So with proper construction of the buildings up, to a Category 3, when they're going to have to evacuate anyway, they're in good shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are any other questions from the applicant? Any questions from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other public speakers? MS. DESELEM: There are no public speakers. I just wanted to make sure that we clarify the motion when it's actually made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still going to close -- now we're going to reclose the public hearing, and now we'll entertain discussion on a motion and then go to the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, the only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thing that's come up that I'm -- is the putting a restriction on their C.O.'s. If they had a permit in hand and they could build this by the end of the year, the traffic problem would be the spectator parking watching them do that, I think so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, Brad, with Nick's guaranteed, absolute, positive assurance, as he put his life on the line, Nick said that this will happen, that at the end of the year we will have this road completed. I have no doubt now. And I wasn't even going to bring up a stipulation involving traffic. Nick carries that much authority with the board. So I'm sure that it's not going to happen. Add a little pressure to Nick. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read the stipulations I was thinking of adding to this when we got it read, and then we'll go into theamotion. Page 83 March 6, 2008 The six criteria for operational services that were presented by the applicant will be added to the PUD. That we will change -- we'll add a word under Section l-A-l, the reference of combined -- the word "combined" in front of "maximum" for the FAR. The deviation number one will be removed. Under I-B-3 we'll add the words private amenities such as in the beginning of the paragraph. Exhibit F, B-3, that paragraph will be struck. And the stipulation would include approval of the remaining three deviations. Is there any stipulations or thoughts that were missed? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At one point we said residents and guests only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was replaced by private amenities such as. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, so that's out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Did you get the double asterisks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, the double asterisk. Thank you, sir. The double asterisks removes the reference to the subdivision, that language should be struck. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Minimum 40-foot buffer on the eastern border and the interconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is not showing here, but the interconnect shows on the master plan, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. Anything else? Mr. Y ovanovich? Page 84 March 6, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- and just so we make sure we put the six operational things in the right place in the PUD, we anticipated adding that under Exhibit A, creating a new I-C. And that way it would be in a location where everybody would expect the operational standards instead of later in the document or the development commitments, if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Permitted use is where it should be. I would agree. Does everybody agree with that? Okay. Now, with those stipulations, does staff understand the stipulations? MS. DESELEM: Would you repeat the first one you said, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add the six operation criteria to Exhibit A-I-C. MS. DESELEM: And the second one, something about Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add to Exhibit A, item A-I, the comment that Brad had, add the word "combined" before the word "maximum" . MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is staff clear on all of them now? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, could we just get those six additional ones on the screen? COMMISSIONER CARON: And we'll need copies of those as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. MS. DESELEM: If I may, I just had one question for the record. There was some discussion about two meals maximum per day. Is that included? It's not listed on here. Page 85 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it needs to be. MS. DESELEM: I just wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to get into how they do their laundry and all -- I'm not sure we need to get into those kind of operational details. This is plenty to protect the intent of what the question was. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, so we would say at least one meal a day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that's an issue we need to get into. The concern was to make sure that this was being used as an independent care facility, not as an apartment. I think these six clearly do that. I mean, to add more, where do we stop? MR. KLATZKOW: And just for clarification, what this is is independent living facilities. Are we including the retirement community? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, we're -- continuing care retirement communities, assisted living facilities and skilled nursing are all licensed by the State of Florida. And they're defined terms. So I don't think you need to add the -- we don't object to it, but I don't think you need to. It's the only -- the only term that's not regulated by the state is the independent living facilities. And that's what I heard was the issue, please make sure you got these operational levels of things for independent. We can do it all, but you really don't need to. It's kind of overkill, if you will. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is they could put in a retirement community and it will have none of this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it says on this thing, it says for independent living facilities. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But it doesn't say retirement community. Page 86 March 6,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what he's suggesting is independent living units and retirement community. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. That's fine. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good point. I get it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: To me on-site dining is kind of ambiguous. That could just mean that they eat on-site. I mean, the idea is that meals will be offered to the residents on a daily basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's great, but why don't we just tell every PUD they -- I mean, I don't understand why you would single this one out for that purpose. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because this is not any PUD, this is an independent care facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you want to do is just make sure that in their clubhouse they actually have a dining room and they serve meals to these residents every single day. That's part of what these people will be buying into. That's part of the care that these people are offering. Why would you not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Well, we're in a different tact then, because originally I thought the intent of the clarification was to make sure they weren't going to just have apartments in which they leased out to people. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're saying it's okay, you can have your independent living, but now we want to tell you what amenities you have to provide to your people. COMMISSIONER CARON: They said that, not us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I know that. But putting such things in the PUD is a little more, I don't know, detailed than we may Page 87 March 6, 2008 want to get into. We're going to set a precedent in that kind of stuff and I'm not sure it's needed. If they don't -- if they do three meals a day or they do one, what difference does it make? The people who live there will pay for the service that they're getting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What do you think, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have an objection to having a meal plan being provided to the residents. If you feel that you need to put that in the PUD, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know what you're going to serve at each meal. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What time is breakfast? COMMISSIONER CARON: He'll provide you a menu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it gets into that kind of stuff, because your meal could be a box of cold cereal. And I'm sure Paul doesn't intend that. I'm just worried where this can go if we get into that kind of detail in a document that's a record like this that's a zoning document. The amount of meals a person gets is not a zoning issue. And if we've got it locked in so they can't be anything but what they've claimed to be under a permitted use, that seems to me the extent the zoning ought to apply. We get into health and how organically they're eating or not, then I think we've got a whole realm of issues that we need to further define if we want to put it in this document. And that's my only concern. I'll go with what the majority feels is necessary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Strain will approve it if you put a Starbuck's there, so don't worry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you wouldn't have anybody living there, because they'd be out flying around. Mr. Schiffer? Page 88 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Rich, number five, the -- what you're stating there is that there's going to be a pull cord that will immediately trigger -- and I guess since it's 9-1-1, it will go right to the rescue station. Which most alarm systems don't really do that, they go to central and stuff like that. Is there a -- the concern I have is you may not even be able to get that service. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. If it needs -- we will provide -- we'll get to 9-1-1, okay? Maybe I should just strike the word immediately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, just strike the word immediately and leave it will contact -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Will contact 9-1-1. So if it goes in between -- if there's someone in between. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because I don't think you're allowed that privilege. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments to the stipulations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now I've got to ask a really tough question to staff. Now do you understand the stipulations? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You. Do? Okay, does legal understand it? Because I understand that you guys are going to be the ones that actually rewrite these documents to accommodate all this. MR. KLATZKOW: We do that. And I've got everything on the tape so that we can carefully go through each and every one of the comments to make sure we get it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was this discussion clear enough for you to be right? Page 89 March 6, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: I hope so. I mean, I can't imagine it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you're going to come back on a consent agenda anyway and we can double check it at that time. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have to do this on a consent? This one's simple enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everything -- policy said everything comes back under consent. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Everything, yeah. I'd rather have another look. MR. KLATZKOW: It keeps us honest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I think it's a good thing to do. Okay, with the stipulations acknowledged by everyone -- Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, I just want to make sure we're not going to lose our -- you don't think there's any chance that this consent agenda thing is going to make us lose our board date of April 8th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the next meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be two weeks from today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that maybe you ought to make sure you get a draft or you go over to county to make sure it's written like everybody talked about today, and if you have a discrepancy, you certainly discuss it ahead of time and you look at the tape to see who was right and make sure it's right. I mean, that's the way I would approach it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We don't want another-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You come here unprepared, that isn't our fault. MS. DESELEM: If! may, you may not get this particular PUD document with the rest of the information you get for that agenda. Page 90 March 6, 2008 Because my understanding, that stuff goes to the printer today, and so it might be a few days later that you get this PUD document. Just so you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, on the consent agenda it's been set up the same way. We've gotten them all along. MS. DESELEM: Okay, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we don't get executive summaries, it's just the document. MS. DESELEM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's fine. That works. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve. I was going to -- with all of our changes, stipulations and language changes. I was going to add January 1st, 2009 C.O.'s, but I'm really confident that Nick will deliver for us. And I really don't think we need to tell them what kind of food they have to serve, when they have to serve it. We have enough problems with our own zoning issues rather than worrying about operational issues of a business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion was recommendation to approve -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pursuant to-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the stipulations read into the record? Mr. Schiffer had his hand up. Is that the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll second it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any further discussion? Page 91 March 6, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you all. We have another couple of issues to go through. I really think we can work through lunch and be done right after our normal lunchtime, if the board favors that. With the instance we'll just take like a 14-minute break right now. Is that okay with everybody? Okay, we'll take a break till 11 :30. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, if you'll please take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. Kay, do you know how to turn -- Mr. Kolflat's having trouble hearing on his end. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think I'm hearing it now. Item #12 DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA Page 92 March 6, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you. You probably didn't know how to do it anyway, but I thought I'd throw it at you. We're going to change the agenda just little bit here. Because of the discussion on the GMP Amendments, I was going to ask Joe to provide us with some times that we could meet in the evening for the Golden Gate ones, and then he would look into the Immokalee ones. Joe said that -- he just left and he said prior to his leaving they haven't responded back to him yet. They're still working on dates. But he did say the evening of the 17th is open. Now, let me talk about the possibilities there. It's important for the applicant in particular, because they have people coming in apparently from all over, and if they came in on the 17th expecting a morning meeting, they could still do the evening meeting on the 17th. I know the evening meeting would work better for possibly the residents in Golden Gate. Now, we start at 8:30 in the morning on the 17th. So what I'm suggesting is why don't we consider starting in the morning, stopping at 3:00 and resuming at 5:00 or stopping at 2:00 and resuming at 5:00, and at 5:00 stay in here and do just the two Golden Gate items, and then do as many as we can from the morning until after lunch, or however the board feels it might want to split the day up. If that works. I think it would be a good accommodation if we could do it. What do you all feel? Anybody? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The Immokalee you're not addressing, you're just addressing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just the Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- just B, and C is the Golden Gate for at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A would be off the table for the 17th. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Band C we would move to the Page 93 March 6, 2008 evening, starting at whatever time we decide, 5:00,6:00, whatever. And then what we would do in our regular agenda, we would start at D and work our way through to whatever time we decided to cut off. And we would do -- we'd set the cut-off date and times now. Does anybody have any suggestions? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Question. You're talking about 6:00 for something like this. We get done with a meeting, and then basically I have a way of going to dinner with my wife at 6:00. Or be there at 7:00, it would be much easier to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean start at 7:00? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're starting -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm suggesting we start at 5:00 or 6:00. Ifwe start at 7:00 we'll be here till 10:00 or 11:00. We don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, so when do you have dinner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're going from one to the next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, I just suggested that we set a cut-off date earlier in the day, whether it be 12:00, 1 :00, 2:00, 3:00, and we come back here at another time in the evening, so you eat in between. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, I didn't hear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any thoughts on the matter as far as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 6:00 would be better, because you'd be breaking -- you need to have your dinner if you of diabetes issues and so forth. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I was worried about. Page 94 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you'd have to have something in your -- so you can function and work effectively. So 6:00 would be preferable. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what about the rest of the board? So we can start in the evening on the 17th with the two items in Golden Gate at 6:00. Now, what about the break point during the day? We would be starting at 8:30 on Item D. How long during the day do you all want to go before we stop and then resume in the evening? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about 3:00? This was we'll have from 3:00 to 6:00. Three hours. That will give us plenty of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Adelstein. Anybody-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- else have any comments on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Kay or Jeff, or I don't know who's taking notes for the county now, but on the 17th we will start at 8:30 in the morning, we will start with Item D on the agenda. We'll go until 3:00. Wherever we stop, we stop. Or as close to 3:00 as a convenient cut-off is, which will be prior to that, maybe at 2:30, if we finish up with something. Then we resume at 6:00 with Items Band C only, Golden Gate. And that's the only two we do at 6:00. And then of the two that are coming up, are you involved in any of those, or is that comprehensive planning, Kay? MS. DESELEM: I'm not involved in it, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because when we resume at 6:00 that night we'll probably go by the number in the audience as to which one we take first. More than likely it's going to be the second one. Page 95 March 6, 2008 So does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with that schedule? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's the way it shall be. Mr. Klatzkow, are we legally okay on all that? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're very fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Approximately how many agenda items do you think we can get to? Because I'm going away and I'm trying to figure out how many I should bring. I know we're going to do the Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to do the Golden Gate in the evening, so you've got two there. And I would not do A, because we know that's going to be postponed. But I would do the rest. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, wonderful, thank you. You've answered my question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, Bob, I don't know. It's hard to say. We could get a good presentation from staff, we could get a good presentation from the applicant. We might find they all make sense, we might find they don't. We might find out -- I just can't say. I'd at least be prepared for at least four or five. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I just figured you might have had a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't. I don't have a feel for them yet. I haven't read them all myself, so I haven't got into them myself yet. After I would have read them I could have given you my own opinion, but sorry. Page 96 March 6, 2008 Item #lOA OLD BUSINESS - OUTDOOR SERVING AREAS' ORDINANCE Okay, with that we will move on to the item under 10-A, old business. And this is a review of the proposed ordinance for the outdoor seating issue that came up before the Board of County Commissioners. I guess it's been through our board, their board, they finished with it and asked us to re-review it before final conclusion; is that right? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't really think they've looked at it. I think they want to make sure that you're comfortable with this before they actually sit down and go through it. Because they know you've had a look at this before, as it were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've -- generally we go through these documents page at a time. And if no one objects, we'll just start doing that the same way with this one. And that gets us on Page 1, which is mostly whereas's. Anybody have any concern with Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 2, there's some strike-through changes on Page 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This would be section 3-A, applicability. What happens to areas of food where we carry food out to it? In other words, if I go to an establishment, buy something and walk outside to eat it, is that considered serving food in an outdoor area? MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't think it would be. An outdoor serving area to me is someplace where you'd have to be able to sit down. Page 97 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, if I go to an ice cream parlor, buy an ice cream cone and I sit on their bench out front, it does not apply to this? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that would apply to this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the fact that I carried it out, it wasn't served to me out there meets this definition. MR. KLATZKOW: That's how I read this, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Brad just brought up a good point. And I had -- and Brad, I don't mean to jump in, but it might help your answer. In section two, definitions, we've got two definitions. But I thought one was missing, and that was the definition for outdoor serving area. Do we want to add a definition? That may actually have answered Brad's question. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's an excellent idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. It's just that -- well, and my only other comment about the serving, you know, based on what generated this thing, you know, I would just like to bring up the thought that maybe we limit this to alcoholic beverages being served, rather than just food. Because if you read through this whole thing, you know, you can't even have breakfast outside until 11 :00 in the morning. And did this thing kill more than we were supposed to -- with the concern? But, you know, if we want a definition of outdoor service area, what is it? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to have to sit down with the people who drafted this and get it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I did not draft this ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: This would also go to a Burger Page 98 March 6, 2008 King or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- anyone that has a table outside. And they serve breakfast foods. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they couldn't eat out there till 11 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did we at one point talk about minimum number of people, maximum number of people before this thing kicks in? I know we talked about it but I don't see it here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been all over the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: First iteration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we can't keep talking out of turn, the court reporter can't take our comments. So please, let one person finish before the next starts. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I felt much more comfortable with, you know, minimum of 10 people, something like that, where the little mom and pop wouldn't be affected. Where here everybody is affected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe that's something that can be further defined when you define outdoor serving area as having a quantity -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, is that the recommendation of the Planning Commission that we have a minimum number of tables, for example? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before it kicks in? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we do that, then okay, what is the minimum number? How do we find that out. And does it apply to a Stevie Tomatoes minimum number or just to an ice cream parlor minimum number? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would say a minimum of 10 Page 99 March 6, 2008 or 12 people. I know in the city over nine or 10 people you need two bathrooms. So nine is a cut-off between small restaurant and larger. So I'm happy with nine or 10 people. Anything smaller than that, I don't think it's an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know another -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another concern, too, the way this is written is that, you know, even somebody who puts seating out back for employees might get -- because there's -- you know, I mean, they're not actually operating something that's serving food. But this could be really a disaster on controlling and really make every little outdoor seat that we see benches and everything to be pulled into this resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we approach it this way: Jeff, the zoning department has had a lot of experience with this, and undoubtedly code enforcement. Why don't, when you come back with a definition of outdoor serving area, include input from them into the sizing and the way that's defined so it only -- we have a certain limitation, and then let us chew on that. That might be the way to approach it. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, well, this is coming back to you, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have some additional comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on Page 2. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm on three, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just stay with Page 2 till we're finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some more twos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, we call this thing-- Page 100 March 6, 2008 we get a one-time permit and then we call it a temporary use permit. But isn't it just a permit? I mean, why are we dragging the word temporary in all the time? Does that make it easier to get rid of it or to yank it or -- a permit's a permit. If you violate the conditions of the permit you can get it removed. I mean, the -- calling it a one-time permit, then a temporary use permit. Why isn't it just a permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, who wrote this? I mean, obviously -- you said you didn't. So maybe -- MR. KLATZKOW: I didn't write this. This is zoning staff that wrote this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who should we be addressing our questions to and who should be here answering them today? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be zoning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why aren't they here? Okay, well, this is simple. Let's just table this issue until they show up and we'll have it another meeting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be a waste of time and we're going to go nowhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is everybody in agreement with that? If we are, we'll move on to the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next business is new business, which I had the GMP meetings, we already discussed those. Public comments. Richard, are you here to comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying to get some work done. Page 101 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the last commission meeting, Susan Murray was testifying about something and she noted that the records for the county are only kept for 15 years. Is that true? I mean IS-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what she meant -- well, at least to my understanding, Brad, is from '79 back they don't know if they have all the records. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She said 15 years. So that's, you know, in the early Nineties. Is that right, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Got my attention. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's serious. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I don't know what the issue is now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't heard that before. This is -- MR. KLATZKOW: But it got my attention. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I wasn't wrong in -- okay. The concern I had, especially like in this last case, this guy would have no proof of what was happening to his property. Code enforcement should take note of that too, maybe. Also, there was mentioning a concern that the SIC codes weren't sufficient enough to define fast food restaurants, stuff like that. Is that true? Is there a better way we could be noting these things? It was mentioned that the SIC codes are just some way to track, you know, employment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're talking -- the other code is NAICS, you're probably familiar with that. And I've asked staff, why don't we look at implementing that, since the Tax Assessor Office uses it anyway and some of the other departments do. But staff didn't feel that -- they feel it's more of a metropolitan code and -- at least that was the input provided to me -- and it wasn't one that was necessarily workable for Collier County. I didn't push the issue, but I'm sure we can bring the suggestion up when zoning staff is Page 102 March 6, 2008 here next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if they're actually describing using the SIC codes as the problem they're having in defining bars and restaurants and stuff then maybe they should be the one recommending we change it. MR. KLATZKOW: If the issue is you want to limit fast food places, one approach you can take is to not have take-out windows. These drive-through windows? I think if you eliminated drive-through windows as a permitted use, I think that takes out the people you want to take out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. That's how they serve their food, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other issue is that they were discussing something as if there's some kinds of memos or codes other than the LDC we have. And I was curious. In other words, there was an issue that while the code said one thing, staff did another thing, based upon historical or legacy, you know, decisions. Is there a lot of that out there? And if there are, shouldn't we be privy to it as the Planning Commission? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that when staff has a practice that's contrary to the code, then it's unintended and it's -- it's unintended by staff. I don't think they have a list of this is what the code says but this is what we'll do. I think they're just misunderstanding sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are OI's in which this board, every member here, was issued a book of OI's. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've been issued updates as it's been modified all along. MR. KLATZKOW: But the OI should really track the code. It's just like -- it's sort of like filler where you're not quite sure which way to go. Page 103 March 6, 2008 But I really don't -- I truly do not believe the staff is intentionally violating the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the testimony was that even though the code says 75, we use 10 or something-- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think staff just had that for some reason they think that's what the code said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't think there's a lot of those sleeping around where there's memos or -- because that's what they were looking for is this memo that would authorize it, and -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think that it's pervasive. I will tell you, though, that I do think that some planners may interpret the code differently than other planners. So I'm not entirely sure that there's been consistency over the years. So if you've got the same LDC provision over 20 years, you've had different zoning directors, you've had different planners. I'm not entirely sure that every time they've interpreted it the same exact way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any new business? No discussion. Then I'll look for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 104 March 6, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :45 a.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 105