Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/03/2008 R April 3, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 3, 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 (Absent) Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .. FEBRUARY 21,2008, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT. RECAPS - JANUARY 22, 2008, LDC MEETING; FEBRUARY 5, 2008, LDC MEETING; FEBRUARY 19,2008, LDC MEETING; 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU.2006.AR.9337, Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, represented by George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of CheflY, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP; and Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, are requesting a Conditional Use of an earth mining operation and related processing and production of material within a Rural Agriculture with a Mobile Home Overlay (A.MHO) Zoning District, a portion of which is located in a Stewardship Sending Area 9 (BClIBCP.SSA.9), pursuant to Section 2.04.03 of the LDC for a project to be known as South Grove Lake. The subject property, consisting of 158. 7::f:: acres, is located in Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) HEARD ON 3/20/08 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Q. Grady Minor, representing KRG 95] and 4], LLC, is requesting a PUD Rezone from the Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts, to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. The +25.45 acre property is located in Section 3, Township 5] South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) HEARD ON 3/20/08 CONSENT MOVED TO 4/] 7/08 C. The 2006 Transmittal Cvcle Growth Mana2ement Plan Amendments Exhibit "A" Text Changes as per CCPC Recommendation to BCC for hearings held on Monday, March 17, 2008 for Petitions CP-2006-5, CP-2006-7, CP-2006-8, CP-2006 -9, CP-2006-]0 and Monday, March 24, 2008 for Petition CP-2006-], all prior to special BCC hearing scheduled for April 15, 2008. 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2007-AR-12668, B&B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., represented by Charlie Martin, requesting a Variance of] 7 feet to replace an automobile service station canopy that was destroyed by Hurricane Wilma; and a Variance of seven feet to relocate two fuel pump dispensers. The ::1::0.8] -acre subject property is zoned Village Residential (VR) and General Commercial (C-4)/Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) and is located at 40] ]st Street South, South lmmokalee Heights Unit, Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) B. Petition: CU-2007-AR-11394, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, represented by Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, is proposing a Conditional Use of the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-l) Zoning District with a SR29 Commercial Subdistrict Overlay (C-]-SR29-COSD) and the RSF-3 (Residential Single-Family) Zoning District for a Church/Place of Worship, pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03, Table 2. The 16.8-acre site is located at 635 State Road 29, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, ]mmokalee, Collier County, F]orida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of BD-2007-AR-]2154, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer Boat Dock Extension, to determine and put on record the reason for motion for denial. II. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSS]ON OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 4/3/08 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 " <'<e__"'._'_' .._--_.~..,.,-,,--~_..~-_..~_._~,..__.__._.._......----,----.--- April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray is absent. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 Page 2 April 3, 2008 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. We have some issues to discuss this morning. Let's start with the consent agenda items. First one is the Barron Collier Partnership LLP Earth Mining operation. We all received that information in our packet on time a while back, I think a week or so ago. The second one is the Tamiami Crossing CPUD on the consent agenda. That will have to be continued. Nothing was received. It's still being processed. We'll probably see that by the 17th of April. And C is the Transmittal Cycle Growth Management Plan amendments. CP 6-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 and 6-1. That one I have a real concern about I want to weigh in with the rest of the planning commission on. Like some of you, most of us probably -- I had to work yesterday. When I got home last night around 7:30 or 8:00, therein lies a package full of all the corrections from our stipulations on those amendments. I did not have time last night to address those corrections to know if they were right. In David's e-mail that we all received the day before notifying us they would be sent out, he asked that if we could at least look at one of them in particular, the one he's got scheduled for the April 8th meeting with the Board of County Commissioners. I did look at that one. But that's it. And I don't know what the rest of this board thinks. We've set a policy a long time ago, basically no excuses. Stuff doesn't come in that late. I don't care what staffs reason is, I don't care what schedules they have. They work for us, we work for the Board of County Commissioners. That's the hierarchy. They don't set our schedule, the board sets our schedule. And when the board doesn't have a preference, we set our schedule. And we've told everybody clearly that we want paperwork in advance with reasonable time to review it. I don't care about the applicant's needs to get it done in a certain Page 3 April 3, 2008 time, I don't care about the GMP amendments having to be done at a certain time, I care about one thing: Full disclosure to the public and complete analysis of applications to make sure they're right. The consent agenda was started for a purpose. The purpose was to make sure it's right because of mistakes from the past. So at this point I would certainly request that the planning commission continue Item C, 8-C. And in deference to David who I know works hard and tries to get things out to us as best he can, that one item that he asked to look at, I did look at that because he specifically said that one was the time table he would certainly appreciate us to consider separately. But it's up to this board as a whole what you'd like to do. Any comments from the planning commission members? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing other than that I'm in full agreement. I think we set a policy and if we keep making exceptions to the policy, then there's no sense having a policy. And I think we've been pretty clear. And it is difficult. I was out all day working as well yesterday and did not get back until late and didn't have a chance to review word for word against our former book. So I don't feel comfortable in voting on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I parrot the same thing that you both are saying. It's very difficult to attempt to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? And if you make a motion to continue Item 8-C, I ask that you either separate out 2006-1, if you are prepared to look at that, but if you're not, then just include it in the blanket motion and this will all be put off to the 17th of this month. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley? Page 4 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To continue 8-C, with the exception of CP-2006-1. I think I'm pretty well scheduled to review that. And until the -- I don't know about the next one, but it will have to be May -- help me with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: April 17th. Isn't the next meeting April 17th, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: April 17th meeting. Be on the consent agenda on April 17th. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Will we have time to review it at that point? It's a busy day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we'll have time. This should be the first thing on our agenda once we immediately thereafter of the regular meeting that it's logical we receive it at. It's just that we need time to review stuff. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Until April 17th then. With the CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, seconded by Ms. Caron. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 5 April 3, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that leaves Item 8-C to be just reviewed today for Petition CP-2006-1. The rest are continued until the 17th of the month. Petition 8-B, the consent agenda on Tamiami Crossing, staff has not been able to get that to us. I know that's a -- they have a lot of issues with that. They're working on. Is there a motion to continue that till the 17th as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion, Mr. Vigliotti seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move into planning commission absences. The 17th of the month is our next meeting. It's our next regular meeting. I have been communicating with staff concerning that Page 6 April 3, 2008 meeting. Unfortunately something got out of hand for that meeting and, as we have experienced over the past few meetings here, our items have been very light. We get a couple in the morning and generally that's it with new hearings. Well, for some reason on the 17th of this month they scheduled -- they scheduled originally nine. One is continued, so that's eight new hearings. And the new hearings they've scheduled are not light matters. These are matters that I'm sure the public is going to be interested in and want to participate in. For example, Moraya Bay Club in Vanderbilt Beach. Vanderbilt Beach, any time something of any size comes up in there it's pretty well attended. And we need to listen to the public. We've got one dock thing. But then the next thing is Ave Maria, an amendment to their DRI. The DRI is 825 pages long. So if you really want to understand it, you're going to have to thumb through a lot of pages of material to take a look at it. There's all kinds of things. Standing Oaks, LLC; Livingston Professional Center; the Shoesop Properties, and then the update on the annual inventory report for the AUIR. I don't know how this happened, but as of yesterday I've requested from now on no more than six items go on our agenda unless that -- unless the items are of a manner that can be easily recognized to be completed in the day. Because that's just too much. So on the 17th I need to know who's going to be here. It will be a long day and we will need to be here all day. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll be out of state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I won't be able to attend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's two out, so we'll still have Page 7 April 3, 2008 a quorum. That sounds fine. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21,2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes from February 21st regular meeting. Has anybody looked at those? Everybody okay with them? Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items at the last board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. I think I've vented as much as I need to. Page 8 April 3, 2008 It's been a frustrating couple of days, just so you all know. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2006-AR-9337, BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP, LLLP CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First thing on our consent agenda is the Barron Collier Properties, LLP, the earth mining operation on South Grove Lake. Has everybody read the enclosed consent item? We've got some handouts that were provided for two pages that didn't get time to be put into the packet. They basically are the site plan of the excavation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It looks as though they were in there except there were some changes. And I've been trying to go through and find the -- what did you call it? I've been trying to find the changes in the Waldo thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you look at the two that were in there, there's a notation with arrows pointing to each excavation talking about a berm and a wall that was required. That was requested to be removed by -- recommended to be removed by the planning commission. So the notation on the plan needed to be removed as well. And that's what these handouts are about. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes, questions, concerns about that consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend -- or is there a motion for approval of that consent item? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 9 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think in the future, Mark, they don't need to copy all the conditional use forms in my resolution. Let's save a tree now and then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you wholeheartedly. That would be great. Usually what you guys give us is just the text of changes. We don't need a copy of our sign-off forms back with it. We know what we signed. MR. BELLOWS: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point, sir. Item #8C PETITION: CP-2006-1, 2006 TRANSMITTAL CYCLE GROWTH Page 10 April 3, 2008 MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is item-- on the consent agenda is Item 8-C for Petition CP-2006-1. And this particular one is the item that we reviewed in Immokalee. Are there any concerns about the corrections made by staff on that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. I guess I need, David, to ask you one question. When we voted on this, we voted to recommend staffs recommendation with some changes to Item H-2 and some changes to distances from Immokalee Road. The staff recommendation had strike-throughs on it. We voted for the one with the strike-throughs. But I notice one of the strike-throughs didn't succeed -- didn't prevail in the writeup that we have in front of us. I don't think it's a mistake, I don't think it's a bad thing. You probably made a mistake in putting it as a strike-through the first time. But I just want to verify that for the record. And that is Item 2- E, the second line -- and I've got the original book with me -- had the letters PUD on the second line struck through. On the copy we just received as the one to go forward, they're not struck through. I think it reads better the way you've presented it here today than it did in the writeup that was presented to the planning commission in Immokalee. But I wanted to make sure that wasn't any kind of purposeful change or significant change of any kind that has an impact. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. And Mr. Chairman, you're correct. The striking through of the word PUD was inadvertent. It was unintentional. And if we remove moved it, the sentence would not read correctly. Page 11 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because our vote was very specific and I didn't want it to change our vote at all. As long as the county attorney doesn't have a problem with that, it's a good cleanup, not a bad one, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: Just trying to get it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, thank you. I didn't see any other errors or changes that you hadn't caught. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had one thing. At one time didn't we discuss that the motor vehicle dealers would only be accessible from the internal roads of the PUD? I mean, I know we're doing something to keep them away from Immokalee Road, or at least some of them. But I thought we had a concern that you would only access them through the internal roads versus off of Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was expressed, I remember, Brad. But then Nick came up and said that they would have to adhere to the access management plan, and so he didn't see that as a concern. So I don't believe it ever -- my notes don't show it ever made it into a stipulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can I ask a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly the same thing, except that I think there was going to be two entrances, just to clear that up. And I think all of the lots were only going to be accessible via those two entry points in the internal roads. But my question is -- and I misplaced my book, my industry standard book -- is 5521 used car dealers? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I was just -- I couldn't find it. Page 12 April 3, 2008 And then the 5511 is new car dealer. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. I thought so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions or concerns about that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve the consent agenda item for CP-2006-1? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Mr. Vigliotti didn't say he made the motion, but he raised his hand. She has a hard time recording raising of the hand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. I was reading something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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. Thank you. Page 13 April 3, 2008 Item #9 A PETITION: V A-2007-AR-12668, B&B CASH GROCERY STORES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on the agenda is our regular advertised public hearings. First one is Petition V A-2007-AR-12668. It's the B&B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. on 401 First Street South in Immokalee. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', after a long time of calling John-David the wrong name for a long time, he finally corrected me and I thank him for that. And when I say please rise for the court reporter, are you a reporter or a recorder? THE COURT REPORTER: A reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A reporter. Got that right. THE COURT REPORTER: Not a tape recorder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a tape recorder. Life might be easier if you were, huh? Okay, are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the applicant's presentation. MR. MARTIN: This concerns one of our Handy Food Stores in Immokalee where the projects are about just changing out our underground gas tanks to comply about the new 2009 regulations to have double walled piping and double walled tanks. Page 14 April 3, 2008 And in our long-range forecast, we hadn't anticipated Hurricane Wilma coming along and taking down the gas canopy that was existing there. So that being the case, we started looking at the site plan and seeing how we could possibly improve the utilization of that property, the egress, and make some improvements to the site. What we're planning -- what we're asking to do is to be granted a seven-foot variance in order to relocate our gas pumps further away from the existing location from -- that's First Street, I believe. And right now they're very close to the road. We're proposing to bring them back closer to the building and do a larger canopy with a walkway going back to the building. Not attached to the building, freestanding. But this would provide customers filling up in rainy weather or whatever to be able to access the store. It would also provide some additional lighting in this area of Immokalee, which is a higher crime section of Immokalee. Also, as part of our plan, basically we have a sea of asphalt out there right now. Weare suggesting that we remove approximately 10 percent of the asphalt, create some landscape areas and basically make it a greener site. One thing that we got from feedback from the residents there is that they would prefer not to have real tall hedges, but lower, you know, three or four-foot type hedges in order to prevent people from hiding in the bushes. Because again, it is a high crime area. So we're requesting a seven-foot variance to be able to put this gas canopy in. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, I'm Charles Martin with B&B Corporate Holdings. I'm director of construction and facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. Page 15 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Martin, I'm looking at your sketch PE-04. It's on the last page of our packet in reduced form. And in there it's discussing that the encroachment is actually 17 feet. So where does the seven come from versus the 17? MR. MARTIN: I believe there was a determination made that the setbacks should -- in this particular case should be from the column instead of the extent of the overhang. So we were requested by John-David to amend that to seven feet versus the 17 feet. This will be to the edge of the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'll ask him that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my question as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We'll-- oh, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, from what I read through over and over again, it seems like most of the supplies that you do need are already there. MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry, most of the supplies? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Have already been -- the need existing, all of a sudden it's there. And over here is the same thing. So I think you've got everything you need right now. MR. MARTIN: I don't quite understand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you in a position now to actually put this together with enough items that you need to use on this item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They need a -- the only thing they need, Mr. Adelstein, is this variance so they can re-erect the canopy that already blew down. Page 16 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right, but that's a variance. I'm talking about the actual things that are there that they did need and then -- MR. MARTIN: Oh, we have not upgraded the tanks yet or the piping yet. We were going to do it in conjunction with the gas canopy, if that's what you're asking. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. MR. MARTIN: Okay. But we do have a deadline by the State DEP to get this completed prior to December of 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm sorry, one question is, is why couldn't you push it back? Looking at the layout, looking at the dimensions, why couldn't you push this back the seven feet? Why does it have to have -- MR. MARTIN: We're trying to maintain some internal egress between somebody filling up and deliveries and other vehicle traffic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how much do you think you need from the pump to the edge of the paving alongside the building? MR. MARTIN: I think that we had a -- I don't know exactly without referring to the plan, but about 24 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After staff presentation we may have some. Thank you, sir. J.D., I got that right. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As Mr. Martin stated, this -- approval of this variance would be Page 17 April 3, 2008 an enhancement to what exists now. The applicant actually has the right to rebuild the canopy in its existing location. But if he is able to build it, if this variance is approved in the location that he'd like, it would actually be set back much further, 44 percent better than where it is now. I believe that equals about 19 feet further away from Immokalee Road than where it stands now. I would like to also point out that Mr. Martin has agreed to enhance all of the landscape buffers, some which don't even exist on the site now, in order to bring them up to code as much as possible. As noted in the staff report, this gas station was built in 1972, so obviously the development standards were very different then. I'd also like to mention that two similar variances have been granted in the vicinity just north along Delaware Avenue -- or excuse me, along Third Street South, north of Delaware Avenue. One of them permitted a 20-foot front yard setback variance for a church and the other permitted a 14-foot front yard setback for a single-family home. And regarding the question about the measurement of the setback, initially I had interpreted the setback to be 17 feet, measuring it from the edge of the canopy. But Ross Gochenaur, our SDP manager, determined that it actually should be measured from the support columns rather than the edge of the canopy, and that's why there's that discrepancy from the original application to what you're seeing now. So the variance is for just seven feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a minor correction. Since we're in Immokalee, that road is not called Immokalee Road, it's called South First Street. MR. MOSS: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And where in the code does Ross get that? Because I've looked -- studied over, had things Page 18 April 3, 2008 recently on something else and I don't see that. MR. MOSS: I don't know if that's just a policy determination that Ross makes. He says it's very convoluted and that they examine them on a case-by-case basis. And he said in this instance he determined that it should be measured from the support column. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: If this board would agree on a 17-foot variance, it ends the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I think that would be safer for the applicant in any kind of change of interpretation as we go down the road further, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me continue on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This policy stuff every now and then comes up. Is there two codes? Does the Land Development Code -- is there some policy code somewhere that we could have a copy of? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There's official interpretations that are done by the zoning manager, but there are also staff clarification memos that are prepared in conjunction with the zoning manager, and they are contained in a book. Some of them eventually wind up as future LDC amendments, but we can get you a copy of that. I thought we gave you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a copy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You gave us a copy of a series of documents. You might want to check and see if they're in there, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I think if you do actually use one of those in one of these hearings, you should actually copy it for the hearing. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just so that we're clued into that. So you're saying somewhere that you don't measure setbacks Page 19 April 3, 2008 from supporting columns, you -- so I could cantilever a building as far as I wanted to and -- MR. BELLOWS: The code has, under accessory structures, it talks about roof overhangs. Roof overhangs can protrude three feet into a required yard. I think maybe part of this determination was that this is a -- the supporting structure would be like a wall of the building, and the top part of the canopy is the overhang. And that could go three feet into the required yard, but the rest would require a setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then that doesn't-- COMMISSIONER CARON: This is 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this doesn't work then, you don't want to go there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, you don't want -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, that's not a good idea. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, that's where I was. MR. BELLOWS: There was some interpretation that it's measured from the pole, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, you swear somewhere there's an official policy that allows this to not be 17 feet. But maybe Jeffs advice is wise. Another question: In -- you reference that this could be built back where it was in 9.03.03(B). But I read that and I don't see anything in there that exempts. MR. MOSS: Can you tell me what page you're on of the staff report, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on Page 4 of 8, Item C. Even the stuff you're quoting -- MR. MOSS: Right. The information -- the LDC subsection that I quoted there, it does make it appear that this would not be able to be rebuilt in the location where it was destroyed. And that's why I wanted Page 20 April 3, 2008 to make you all aware of it. We actually -- Susan Istanes published a memo after Hurricane Wilma that did allow for applicants to rebuild their canopy, ifit was destroyed by a hurricane, in the location where it existed previously, even if it's a nonconforming use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another stealth code. Okay. And actually, you know, I have the section in front me. You're not even quoting it right. I mean, it's -- so is this -- again I used the Internet version of the LDC. Has that been revised in the last couple of years? MR. MOSS: I really don't know. I would believe -- it's my understanding anyway that the Internet version is the most accurate version. And I don't know if I quoted this actually from the book instead of the Internet and so maybe that's why there is a discrepancy. But nevertheless, the whole purpose for my putting it there was just to let you know that there is this policy that says you can't rebuild, but I just wanted to make you all aware that in this instance it doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit, J.D., when you talk, because she's trying to type everything you're saying. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. Would you like for me to repeat what I said? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I mean, what can I say, I don't have the stealth code, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we may not be done with that issue. Mr. Schmitt and then Mr. Kolflat has a question. MR. SCHMITT: And for the record, the reference to stealth code, there are very explicit codes in the Codes of Laws and Ordinances that describe what can be done in the event of declaration of a disaster or disaster area or federally declared disaster area. Page 21 April 3, 2008 Under civil emergencies it clearly defines the powers and authorities that are vested to both the -- my position, the zoning director's position and the building director. And those are usually approved through the board. Under civil emergencies, it's the recovery task force and there's other powers that allow for rebuilding of certain structures. I'll be glad to pull up the code. It's in the Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That I know. But -- so in other words, during that time period a decision was made that, you know, service stations can quickly or -- MR. SCHMITT: The decision was made at that time -- I have to go back and look at the record, but decisions were made at that time nonconforming structures simply could be rebuilt. We even waived requirements, because of the number of pool screens that were destroyed, that as long as you built a pool screen on the original footprint there was no spot survey required. We just didn't even have the assets available in the county to do the number of surveys that were required. So there were other measures that were implemented and put in place at that time two years ago, or whenever it was, two and a half years ago now, in regards to the amount of work and requirements that we were faced with and through the recovery after the Wilma event. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But didn't we have variances after Wilma for screens? But anyway, I mean, Joe, if that exists, then that should -- you know, don't reference something like it's out of the LDC if it's not out of the LDC. And when does it stop? How long does a person have to -- I mean, I know there's emergency procedures -- MR. SCHMITT: Again, I'd have to pull the -- there was two different resolutions that were passed by the board. I'd have to pull the record. Some extended for six months and then there was another version that extended for another six months beyond. Page 22 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that publicly available somewhere? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. I would have to pull the records from the BCC. There were ordinances that allowed certain things to take place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My question has been answered, Mark, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have anything you wanted to follow up on? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Because I think we need to be really clear about this. If decisions are being made on an ordinance that was put in place for Wilma, then that should have been the discussion in the staff report. And I don't understand why we're relating to codes that say just the opposite when we should be stipulating an ordinance that was put in place to handle something like this. MR. MOSS: I made the decision to do that. I was hoping to clarify things. I didn't know if you all were aware of this provision in the LDC and that's why I just wanted to acknowledge that it existed and explain to you why it didn't apply. I should have put, as Mark suggested, the memo from Susan into the staff report. But it's very confusing. And so I was hoping to avoid confusion. But obviously I achieved the opposite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, I think that you were being-- trying to be proactive in anticipating what we were going to ask. 99 percent of the time that would have been a good position and I still think it is. But I think you should have also included even more. Because the questions that you anticipated we certainly would have gotten to, but we got to even more than that. And one of those I think we need to summarize is that there is a Page 23 April 3, 2008 -- the policy that Ray quoted I'm familiar with, three feet for a roof overhang beyond the structure. This one is 10 feet beyond the structure. The justification for that, from what I understand now, is because it was a nonconforming use to begin with -- or it was an allowable use to begin with -- MR. MOSS: In 1972. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When it got blown down by the hurricane a policy was established or an ordinance was allowed that provided them the ability to rebuild in the place they were in before. So the judgment you got from Ross was based way back on that event and the outcome of that event, not necessarily on some interpretation of the code today. Is that a fair statement? MR. MOSS: Yes, it's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on that then, what you'd be looking for are two variances, really. Same thing but said two different ways. A variance for the canopy to remain at the -- going to be reinstalled at the 17- foot distance, and for the structure support columns to be at the seven-foot variance distance. That covers the applicant under both regards so there's no dispute in the future as to what he does or does not have. Does that seem to coincide with the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. If what Joe said is true, why are we even here? Why didn't he just build it as it is here? MR. MOSS: Because he doesn't want to rebuild it in the place that it was located before the hurricane. He wants to move it. And so in order to move it he needs a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In your staff recommendations you just talk about the variance itself which now will -- the language will Page 24 April 3, 2008 change slightly. Why were there not stipulations for this enhanced buffering and the ADA access and all the other things that are supposedly promised by this -- MR. MOSS: Because normally the applicant just submits a surveyor conceptual plan. This applicant has actually submitted a full SDP. We have everything that he's proposing to do already submitted to staff. There's an SDP that's basically running concurrently with this vanance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that would have been nice to have that information as well. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we finish, I want transportation to please address us in regards to the future widening of that roadway and any language that would be needed to assure that when they do that there's no concern over further, let's say, nonconformities. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, transportation. Transportation doesn't have an issue with the variance request for the canopy itself. But the fact that they're tying in, upgrading or replacement of the underground piping and the pumps with this is cause for concern. That portion of South First Street in Immokalee or Immokalee Road is in the long-range transportation plan for improvements, capacity improvements, widening. And we request that the applicant would enter into a hold-harmless agreement with us for the pieces that they're planning on upgrading that are addressed in this variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your hold-harmless -- explain to me how you think that fits. I understand where you're trying to go. I just want to make sure that you're going to get there in a way that works. MR. GREEN: The idea is that if they are granted the variance Page 25 April 3, 2008 and they construct these items closer to the road right-of-way, and they should be impacted in the future with our road project, we don't want to be hit with business damage claims or any other damages because they've been granted the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're really looking for a hold-harmless for any future business damage claims as a result of the anticipated widening of First Street South; is that a fair way to put it? MR. GREEN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, is that phraseology enough to get us to where we need to go so that if we were to stipulate such and that such an agreement be entered into and executed before the BCC heard this that that would get us there? MR. KLATZKOW: I'd like transportation and the applicant to sit down to see if they can't hammer something out between now and then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at, yeah. Does that -- I mean, if we stipulate what we just suggested, is that enough to force that to happen before the BCC hearing? MR. KLATZKOW: Usually we'll get before the BCC and then the BCC can decide whether or not they want that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think that in order for the BCC to know what they're getting, they would need some kind of draft document, would they not? MR. KLATZKOW: That's going to have to be done between now and then. We don't have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was-- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't mean for us to do it, I mean us to stipulate that it get done. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're saying the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Mr. Midney? Page 26 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't that a four-lane road now at that point? MR. GREEN: I believe it's a two-lane. There could be an extended median through that section, but it's identified as a two-lane road right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how wide is it anticipated to go? MR. GREEN: It's anticipated to be four lanes, possibly a four-lane divided road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And do we know if it's a four-land divided road right now that it will conflict with these plans? MR. GREEN: If it's a four-lane divided road as identified for its future improvement, it's possible that it could be done inside the existing right-of-way. You notice that there's a very large area between the current edge of pavement and where the sidewalk is located. But there could be some requests for a slope easement or something that's right at the property line. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is a variance. Was there-- what kind of public advertising was required prior to coming here today? MR. BELLOWS: There's a requirement for a sign to be posted on-site, a newspaper ad, and letters to the surrounding property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the zoning properties were duly notified. Page 27 April 3, 2008 Did you receive any letters of objection or anything like that? MR. BELLOWS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of either the applicant, staff or transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I vote that we forward Petition V A-2007-AR-12668, Handy Food Store, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations that staff has made and that transportation has made. And are there any others that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like -- if you just make your motion and we get it seconded, during discussion I can articulate my notes, or someone can, and then you can reaccept those, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Midney made a motion, subject to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- discussion. Mr. Adelstein seconded the motion. Okay, now let's have -- I have three stipulations down here. One is that there would be a hold-harmless -- yeah, hold-harmless would be -- hold-harmless document will be created prior to the BCC hearing to address the business damages that could result from any of the upgrades along First Street South would be number one. Number two: That the staff recommendations would be accepted as supplied to us in the e-mail from J.D., which came out on -- I don't even have a date on this. Oh, March 30th, it looks like. And I'll read that to you all. Page 28 April 3, 2008 It says, staff recommends that Collier County Planning Commission forward petition with recommendation of approval subject to the following condition: One, the seven-foot variance granted should be limited to the front yard encroachment for the property gasoline dispenser islands along the eastern property boundary, as depicted in the applicant's submittal included as Exhibit A. And also to that, we would want to add that there'd be a variance allowed for 17 feet for the canopy. Those are the notes that I have. Does anybody else have any that need to be clarified or added to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the motion-maker accept those stipulations? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both affirmative. Any further discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. This is one of the most unattractive businesses in Immokalee right now. I don't even feel safe going there. And I go everywhere. So it's way overdue in terms of need for improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 29 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Does staff have the stipulations as clearly as they need? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And on the consent agenda, could you also include those two inter-staff memos? Item #9B PETITION: CU-2007-AR-11394, THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up for today is the next advertised public hearing, is a conditional use Petition CU-2007-AR-11394, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And it's on State Road 29. This is a petition that we had heard before. We did not get a complete picture, there was a lot of questions. We voted for denial. The applicant has done some further research and went back to the BCC and is now coming back for reconsideration of -- I shouldn't say reconsideration, review of what they have now got as possible answers to our concerns. Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Lewis. Page 30 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke to Mr. Lewis also about my concerns of property rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also spoke to Mr. Lewis. And before we get into Mr. Lewis's presentation, I have to ask J.D.; and J.D., I know you probably already know what I'm going to ask. We don't really get the staff report that goes to the BCC, but this time because it came back to us again, we got it in our packet the staff report that went to them. And I really am concerned about a reference in the characterization of this panel's vote last time. And what it says is we recommended denial. The planning commission was concerned about abridging the property rights of one commercial property owner whose property is located 330 feet from the subject property and therefore would have its potential use of a bar restricted once development -- due to it being within the 500 (sic) radius of a church. J.D., I wasn't concerned about a bar. I want to at least clarify the record from my perspective. And I'm not sure where the rest of it stood. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That wasn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a prohibition ofliquor sales of any kind. And the gentleman that was here said, you know, if I have a restaurant I couldn't serve beer and wine with the restaurant. If I have a grocery store he has problems. No one could answer his concerns. That kind of restriction was what I was concerned about. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's a bar -- we don't need another bar in the whole county. We could be a dry county as far as I'm concerned. So the bar wasn't the point. And I really wish you wouldn't characterize our vote based on a bar, because that -- MR. MOSS: Well, I hope -- I didn't intend for it to be an unfair characterization. The fact that the LDC says that establishments where Page 31 April 3, 2008 the preponderance of their sales are from alcohol are the only establishments that can't be near a church, that's tantamount to a bar. And that's why, that's really what it amounted to was a bar. I didn't mean to mischaracterize it, but that's the way that I interpreted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted the record clear. Because if you had said this guy couldn't put a bar in if a church went there I'd say good, put a church on every corner. But a bar wasn't my concern. It was what seemed to be a further spreading of someone's individual rights based on someone else's use nearby. MR. MOSS: Well, I apologize, I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just wanted to make that statement. Okay, now we'll go on. Mr. Lewis -- oh, I'm sorry, the court -- she's not a recorder, she's a reporter -- needs to swear all of you in. Please rise. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', thank you for reminding me. Okay. MR. LEWIS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Doug Lewis, I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. Bruce Anderson and I are partners. And I'm here today representing the corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on this item. I'm also here with Robert Sanford of RS&H who's the project manager. At the conclusion of my remarks I am happy to address any questions that you have for myself or Mr. Sanford, and ask that you hold any questions until the end of my remarks. On February 7th, 2008 the planning commission voted to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a Page 32 April 3, 2008 recommendation for denial. On March 11 the, 2008 the board continued this item and remanded it back to you for rehearing today. Subsequent to the February 7th, 2008 planning commission hearing, RS&H and I were engaged by the applicant. We have reviewed the transcripts from the initial planning commission hearing. And for purposes of this rehearing today, I wish to incorporate for the record the information presented to the planning commission at the February 7th, 2008 hearing. Additionally, I wish to offer the following new information for your consideration. At the February 7th, 2008 hearing you may recall that a property owner, Mr. Royals, who owns the Okeechobee Inn limited parcel -- and there's a map up here that hopefully you can all see it; I'm not sure if you're able to see it from where you are. The parcel that I've just pointed to you that's in blue is the site. Mr. Royals objected to the church use, and you were concerned that approval of this petition would adversely impact existing property rights of Mr. Royals and Okeechobee Inn, Ltd. In addressing this issue, please note the following items: First, Section 5.05.01(A)(7) of the code provides a blanket exemption for any, quote, restaurant deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. As such, restaurants which serve alcoholic beverages and derive the majority of their gross revenue from the sale of food and/or nonalcoholic beverages may be constructed within 500 feet of any established school, church, public park, playground, et cetera. In reviewing the transcript of the February 7th hearing, it appears that there may have been some confusion with respect to this exemption. To be clear, the 500-foot requirement under section 5.05.01 of the code only applies to bars or establishments having a primary purpose to provide alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. Second: Project Manager Mr. Robert Sanford and I met with Mr. Page 33 April 3, 2008 Royals at the project site. At the meeting Mr. Royals confirmed that he has no intention of establishing any bar use on his site and that such use is not consistent with his prior shopping center developments. We provided Mr. Royals with a written confirmation that the 500-foot requirement does not apply to restaurants serving alcoholic beverages where the majority of the revenue is derived from the sale of food or nonalcoholic beverages. Further, I have provided Mr. Royals with a letter confirming that our client does not object to a bar use on his property. That letter's been provided to you this morning. Based on our meeting with Mr. Royals, we believe that we have satisfactorily addressed Mr. Royals' property right related concerns with respect to this petition. Third: A proximity study by RS&H confirms that the Life Church of Immokalee -- and if you look on the map, it's in red -- which church existed prior to Mr. Royals' acquisition of the Okeechobee Inn, Ltd. parcel is located within 500 feet of Mr. Royals' property. As such, his property is already located within 500 feet of an established church parcel. This is new information that was not available at the prior hearing. Fourth: Our client has gone well beyond the minimum notice requirements in the code and has contacted or made efforts to contact the owners of the Collins Plaza parcel, which is in between our parcel to the south and the Okeechobee Inn, Ltd. parcel. The owner of the Okeechobee Inn, Ltd. parcel. The owner of the Royals Consolidated Properties, Inc. parcel, and the owner of the William E. Lynn-Weber (phonetic) parcel, which is to the north. As noted on the original staff report, the Growth Management Plan encourages church use on this site. I wanted to point out that we have a few members of the applicant's church that have come here today from Immokalee to Page 34 April 3, 2008 support this petition. The applicant currently rents a small inadequate building from the Collier County School Board located at 908 Roberts Avenue West in Immokalee. The church has been part of the Immokalee community for well over five years. They have an active Boy Scout program. They've been very involved in community activities, including hurricane relief efforts to repair damaged roofs in communities after Hurricane Wilma and other earlier hurricanes. With respect to the site plan, your packet includes a revised site plan. In submitting the revised site plan, our client is showing the initial building to be constructed, together with all proposed or contemplated future development on this 16 plus acre parcel for the sole purpose of avoiding the need to come back in the future five, 10, 20 years for a conditional use approval in the future. The revised plan relocates the additional parking and reconfigures the building envelope. Staff has no objections to my knowledge of these changes. For purposes of the staff recommendation number three in your packet, it would be item number three, our client requests that the site parking be limited to a maximum of 170 spaces to accommodate -- not 106, 170 parking spaces -- to accommodate all future anticipated build-out on the site. Further, if you note staff recommendation number two, there appears to be a typo on the square footage of the primary structure on the revised site plan. That number should actually be a bit smaller. 9,850 square feet, not 10,850 square feet. At this point I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have with respect to this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Let me just make sure I -- on number three you say it's not 106 parking spaces, it's 170? Page 35 April 3, 2008 MR. LEWIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just to make sure, you're requesting approval of the future 7,000 square foot expansion as part of this? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know what the setback that is to the property line on the north? MR. LEWIS: On the north side? MR. SANFORD: For the record, Bob Sanford with RS&H. The north side setback is approximately 75 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. I'm talking about -- you have a future expansion in there that's going to be less than that, so -- it looks like it's something like 35, 40 feet or something. Just -- MR. BREWER: It's well within the minimum. It's roughly 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to state your name for the record. MR. BREWER: I'm. Allen Brewer, RS&H. I'm the civil engineer of record. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell you name, please? MR. BREWER: Allen Brewer. B-R-E-W-E-R. It's well within the minimum. It's roughly 35 feet. I apologize that's not on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it okay if we lock that in at 35 feet? MR. BREWER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, what I don't want you to do is show something here and then go to the zoned setback. Page 36 April 3, 2008 MR. BREWER: That's perfectly fine; 35 feet would be fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, you had said there was a letter handed out to us from Mr. Royal? The letter I got is not from Mr. Royal, it was from Mr. Thompson. Do you have one from Mr. Royal? MR. LEWIS: It was addressed to Mr. Royal from the church. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I got that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got that. But I thought you said you had one from Mr. Royal. MR. LEWIS: There was a second letter that I referenced in my petition which you do not have from my firm, confirming that the exemption for restaurants would allow Mr. Royals to put a restaurant on his site. The letter which you have -- there are two letters. The letter that you have is the letter from the church indicating that they have no objection to a bar use on his site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you do not have a letter from Mr. Royal. MR. LEWIS: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. Okay, I understand. The fact that Mr. Royal isn't here and he's well aware of what's going on, I'm sure he would be if he had a concern. Are there any other questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me understand so we have all the facts clear. The staffs conditions, you have no objection to number one. MR. LEWIS: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, you're saying that the 10,850 needs to be changed to 9,850. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. I believe that's a typo. Page 37 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do we add in the future expansion? Because -- does the 9,850 include the future expansion? MR. LEWIS: One steeple shall be permitted on the 9,850 square foot primary structure. The primary structure would include the expansion, so we could add reference to as expanded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 9,850 square feet includes the expansion area. MR. LEWIS: No. No. Just so we're clear, there's a future expansion area of7,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now you're really looking for 16,850 square feet; is that right? MR. LEWIS: The primary structure as expanded could equal 16,680 square feet, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a staffs perspective, Ray, would that be needed to be in this somewhere? MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a primary structure right now shown on the plan that they intend to do of9,850 square feet. But they're trying to get a conditional use that fits their future expansion which is an additional 7,000 square feet. And they've already corrected the parking spaces to accommodate the addition. It would seem that we would need to correct the square footage to accommodate the addition as well, would we not? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 10,850 doesn't go back to 9,850, it really goes up to 16,850. MR. LEWIS: What we may do, if! may make a suggestion, we could do that or just refer to: A steeple shall be permitted on the primary structure. In your site plan exhibit there are square footages that are listed for the initial structure and the future expansion. So if we remove the reference to square footage and it read, a steeple shall Page 38 April 3, 2008 be permitted on the primary structure, I think that addresses your concern, if I might suggest that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that, that takes care of it. But I also still am concerned about where do we address the amount of square footage you're trying to lock yourself into. So you haven't -- MR. LEWIS: It's listed on the site plan. If you look at the square footages on the site plan, they're listed. And that's very unusual, to be honest. We typically don't show square footages on a conditional use site plan. However, they've done that here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well-- okay, I'm not -- well, I'll let you guys go first. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. I've got to follow up on my question, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. Go ahead and follow up. I was just going to make a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to say, I'd rather see it in text. And if we went so far as to put the parking spaces in text, it sure seems logical that we should put the amount of square footage in text. Ray, do you have any objection to that? MR. BELLOWS: I was just -- point of clarification, though. There could be a problem if it was advertised for a certain square footage. And I'm looking over the advertising right now and there was no specific square footage in that regard, so I don't see a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how would you like to see it worded for the square footage in number four of the -- it would be under development conditions. And while you're thinking about that, Brad, did you have a follow-up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my question was, I'm Page 39 April 3, 2008 looking at all the documents and it doesn't match the square footage. I mean, you have a 7,000 -- or 5,730 square foot proposed initial building, and then you have 7,000 for future. That comes up to 12-7. So I think if anything was advertised, it was this site plan, which none of these square footages they're talking about match the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Lewis, you had said you needed 9,850 as the correct square footage to the primary structure. So in reference to Brad's question, how did you get to your 9,850? MR. LEWIS: That was my mistake. The -- there was a change in the site plan with the client. They've gone to a smaller building. So that was my mistake. The square footage, as you've pointed out, Mr. Schiffer, is 5,000 MR. BREWER: 5,730 is the new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you are? MR. BREWER: I'm sorry, Allen Brewer, RS&H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So to sum it up then, the building graphically as drawn and noted with -- that square footage is correct. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's just go over those figures one more time, at the risk of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the total square footage, including the expansion would be 12,730 feet; is that correct? MR. BREWER: Allen Brewer, RS&H. Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: 12,730. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the parking they're asking for is 170 spaces; is that correct? MR. LEWIS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to wants to put the Page 40 April 3, 2008 steeple on the primary structure with a maximum height of 67 feet; is that correct? MR. LEWIS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on a roll. Now, Ray, it all boils down to whether or not this legally can be done based on the advertising. MR. BELLOWS: I'm looking at the advertising in the agenda, and it should be similar to what was advertised. John-David can double check that and we'll verify what was actually put in the newspaper ad. I don't have that in front of me, but if it's the same as this, which it should be, then it is not going to be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't believe that I put the size of the church. I just said a church in the advertisement. So this shouldn't be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody comfortable with that? Any other questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I met with Mr. Lewis and I just all of a sudden got very confused. So I guess you straightened it out when you articulated right at the end the number of spaces and the actual square footage of 12,730. With expansion; is that correct? MR. LEWIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions, concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Lewis, thank you. We'll see what staffs got to say now, if anything that they could add to help confuse the matter more. MR. MOSS: Thank you. John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Page 41 April 3, 2008 I just wanted to say that I did speak with the owner, Scot Royal of the property to the south, and he doesn't have any objection about the bar issue that existed before. But he still said he was opposed to it, because he felt that a lot of the land in that area was getting converted from commercial to other uses. However, I would like to point out that in the compo plan it does say that the commercial uses should be anchored by uses such as schools and churches, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the bottom line of concern that we had before was that this facility going in here does not further cause him any rights that he hasn't already been -- that are already taken away or whatever based on the other church across the street. MR. MOSS: Right. And so he's retracted his objection based on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't think that's exactly true. The -- if he builds a mall building, you would measure to the wall of the bar in the mall building. MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So therefore he could have designed a mall type structure on here that would have put the bar within it further than 500 feet from the Life Church. MR. MOSS: Right. But the applicant has submitted a drawing that was included in your supplemental staff report showing that there's already a church that's close enough to his property that would preclude him from building a bar anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, I know that. And that's -- isn't that the one that's on the screen now? MR. MOSS: Oh, yes. Page 42 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My point is, though, ifhe builds a mall, that 500 feet, it's 460 property to property. So alls he'd have to do is put that bar 40 feet away from the edge of the property and he would be allowed at the -- today. The church couldn't stop him today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the code per the property edge or per the actual functioning useful part of the building? MR. MOSS: It is per the property edge unless it's a mall, like Mr. Schiffer pointed out. Unless it's a mall. Then it's measured to the facade of the mall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of the mall used for a bar or just the foremost part of the facade of the mall? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The wall of the bar. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I think the wall of the actual bar in the mall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I've been through this. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't been, and I needed to understand it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing too is that you can't put a bar within 500 feet of a church. But you can put a church within 500 feet of a bar. Do you think this letter would, you know, give anybody who wanted to develop that property that, you know, comfort that they could put this -- in other words, normally the bar's there first. Since the bar -- and I'm kind of with Mark, I don't know why we're fighting for this future potential bar. But could that -- do you think that letter would waylay any concern people would have with that? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we got a letter today stating that they have no problem putting a bar within 500 feet of the church -- MR. MOSS: Okay. Page 43 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- since the church came first -- MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the bar could potentially come second. Do you think that would be an issue? Do you think that letter would waive any concerns that -- MR. MOSS: Oh, gosh, I really don't know. Maybe that's a better question for Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it doesn't waive it. But certainly a future Board of County Commissioners would consider it. MR. BELLOWS: In addition, the property owner can apply for a Waiver. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the? MR. BELLOWS: The distance requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that be this process, a variance kind of process? MR. MOSS: No, it's through the BZA. They can apply to the BZA for a waiver. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other point is, you know, when we do shopping centers and stuff, we don't worry about the fact that the guy could have a bar, because there's the 500 feet requirement from bar to bar. So in fact in the past we've never noticed the fact that we've been, you know, stopping what people could do on neighboring properties. Thank you. MR. MOSS: Just one more thing that's come up. Mr. Royal doesn't do bars anyway, so that was never a concern of his. He's more interested in something like a Chili's or a TGI Fridays. So this is really a non-issue as far as Mr. Royal is concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm glad to see that you took out the condition about how many people can go to the services and how many people can work there. But why is the soil sampling Page 44 April 3, 2008 results still in there? MR. MOSS: I made a comment at the end of those recommendations to explain that. That's something that can only be waived by the BCC and so I wasn't able to take it out. Since it's a requirement of an EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute. I didn't come prepared to debate that with you, but I have not -- I don't agree with you on that statement. I can't remember all the -- I went through that thoroughly, because we actually sought to have that removed in other applications, and it was -- I think it was up to staff determination. But the problem is the code doesn't provide the specificity for the site soil samples, and there is nobody on county staff who would know how to analyze them anyway. So I'm not sure what good it is to force that additional cost on people for no gain whatsoever. And especially when you're giving it to people who won't know from heads or tails whether it means anything. MR. MOSS: Maybe that's a question for Mr. Klatzkow again. I was advised by the environmental services department, who added that stipulation to begin with, to keep it in because it couldn't be waived. They couldn't waive it, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, for the record, let me just make a clarification. Any reviewing department, if they disagree with the recommendation of the planning commission, we would note that in the executive summary. But the resolution or ordinance that's carried to the board can be as the planning commission stipulates. It's just the board will be alerted to the fact that one of their county departments disagrees with planning commission recommendation and it will be debated before the Board of County Commissioners for their final resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 45 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And is that why it is not listed on Exhibit D? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- and Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm not continuing with the same subject. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care, I think we're done with it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. What is the height of the -- did you call it a steeple or a -- MR. MOSS: Sixty-seven feet. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sixty-seven. Okay. It just appeared to be a little higher than that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. MOSS: Susan Mason wanted to add something to the record. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. I did want to clarify the discussion about the soil sampling requirement. It is in the LDC Section 10.02.02(A). Under one of the requirements for an EIS is that for old agricultural fields, golf courses and any area where it can be reasonably assumed that there's some potential contamination on site, that soil sampling is required. Staff does have a complete policy that's been written out on what parameters are to be tested. There are staff currently employed with the county that do have experience and ability to evaluate the results of the soil sampling, and we only require the minimum necessary to ensure that there's no potential contamination on-site. We don't -- in the case I believe of this property there's no evidence of like a cattle dipping pond or any kind of pesticide processing type areas that had gone through. So arsenic sampling Page 46 April 3, 2008 would be required as a minimum with the -- and that will be determined at the SDP level if they don't want to provide it with the EIS. And there's -- it is a requirement for this type of property in the LDC section of the EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does soil sampling -- is it free? MS. MASON: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it costly? MS. MASON: I do not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that when you add levels to it it becomes more costly? MS. MASON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The policy that you believe someone implemented as a result of some language in the EIS that was apparently not as specific as somebody wanted it to be, was that policy endorsed and reviewed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and approved by them? MS. MASON: No, it was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we put a cost on the public by someone's whim within the department without reviewing it by the BCC simply by saying these are the soil samples you want. MS. MASON: I would not characterize it as a whim. Staff uses their technical experience in consulting with both state agencies and the pollution control department, which is what is required in the Land Development Code on determining what testing is necessary. And that is all that we do. In the upcoming EAR-based amendments, we're redoing the EIS section and it will go into really codifying the protocol that we've been following for many years. And of course everyone has an opportunity to comment on that and it will be approved by the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be. So they're going to approve it. I didn't know -- Page 47 April 3, 2008 MS. MASON: Well, whatever changes are made will be approved by them. So I'm not saying that this version is the version that will be approved; however, whatever version makes it through all the hearings and they approve will be the final version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, is it acceptable that policy of this nature can be set with a cost that would incur on a private owner without going through the Board of County Commissioners? MR. KLATZKOW: I'd fight it if! was a developer. How's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: But I don't think it needs to be in this document anyway. If it's an LDC requirement, it's an LDC requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would like to move that we forward Petition CU-2007-AR-11394, again I guess, with a recommendation of approval -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- subject to what we've been talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll articulate that. Ms. Caron did you want to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. Page 48 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Commissioner Midney, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Do you want to do them or do you want me to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You can do them, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The stipulations recommended by staff with the following additional changes: Number one remains unchanged. Number two would be the last sentence would read, one steeple shall be permitted on the primary structure and shall have a maximum actual height of no more than 67 feet. Number three would read, all parking shall be contained on-site and limited to 170 parking spaces. And number four would read, a total square footage of the proposed and future buildings would be 12,730 square feet. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think there was a fifth I'd like to add, and that that the expansion not get any closer than 35 feet to the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you, sir. Expansion shall not get any closer than 35 feet to north property line. North property line. Okay, does anybody else have any other additions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have that language clearly? MR. BELLOWS: I'd like John-David to repeat it, though, because I didn't get it all myself when I went -- MR. MOSS: I do. Thank you for asking, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll always ask, John -- J.D. MR. MOSS: The first one remains unchanged. The second one we're just scratching out the square footage so that it reads one steeple shall be permitted on the primary structure. The parking spaces are limited to 170 spaces. A total square Page 49 April 3, 2008 footage of 12,730 square feet after the expansion. And then there'll be a 35-foot setback on the northern side for the addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds like it. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, on that last one, why don't we -- could we change that to side setback? I wouldn't want somebody to think the northern property line is the northmost property line. So just say the side setback and that will -- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem. Everybody okay? Does the motion-maker-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made, stipulation's been accepted by both. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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 8-0. Thank you all. It's been an enjoyable experience. And Mr. Lewis, I certainly appreciate the clearing up of this matter. It was a relief to have the answers you provided today. Thank you. Page 50 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we doing okay? Because I think we can finish up before break. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. Item #10A OLD BUSINESS - PETITION: BD-2007-AR-12154, SAUNDRA CLANCY-KOENDARFER BOAT DOCK EXTENSION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have one item of old business. This was an item that was remanded back to the B -- not remanded, it was requested back to the planning commission from the Board of County Commissioners. That's concerning clarification on a motion to deny for a boat dock extension for the Clancy-Koendarfer boat dock, BD-2007-AR-12154. And basically, from what I've been reading of this, it's going to be an issue really for the motion maker, which was Mr. Schiffer, and the second, Mr. Murray, who's not here, to confirm that the motion-maker's reasoning for the denial was supported by those who got -- who were involved in approving the motion. Now, since myself and Mr. Adelstein were not part of the motion to deny, I don't believe we have much to participate in. So Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I can take it. And I think the BZA showed great wisdom in wanting to know why the planning commission -- and we should have been more clear. I sent out via e-mail a couple of days ago, you may have read it. This is I think what I sent out. And these are my reasons why I made the motion. So, I mean, I don't think we should rehear it. I think it's essentially what the BZA wanted is why did you guys make that motion. Page 51 April 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wanted to find out from Mr. Klatzkow -- the applicant is here in the audience, I just noticed. Are we able to entertain anything from the applicant? Are we hear to hear anymore? Or are we here -- what exactly are we allowed to do at today's meeting? MR. KLATZKOW: My recollection is that the board simply wanted you to delineate the reasons for the denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would it be inappropriate, appropriate or does it matter to have the applicant say anything, since they obviously are here? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think it would be irrelevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So unfortunately the purpose of the meeting is strictly to clarify the motion and go forward from there. And no new information is really necessary or should be provided. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. In essence, the BZA wants to know what criteria was relied upon in the denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Schiffer has indicated he's provided a memo to the planning commission members, which I know was received by all of us. Those that participated in this and the ones present today would be Ms. Caron, Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Midney, along with Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Murray's not here today, and Mr. Wolfley wasn't on board at that time. The four of you really need to confirm that Mr. Schiffer's memo is consistent with your reasons for voting on the motions so that can move forward to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's an odd situation, Mark, because we -- and we should have stated conditions. I mean, so the mistake was made back then. I mean, how would anybody know what each other had in their minds when they voted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the confirmation needs to-- the others -- if the motion-maker makes a motion and the others Page 52 April 3, 2008 support it, I think they're making -- they're supporting the motion-maker's reasoning. Mr. Klatzkow, can you-- MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I think the key here is the motion maker would delineate the reasons. But I think for purposes of the BZA, if each one of the members sitting today could just give forth the reasons why you voted the way you voted, I think that might help the BZA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for some of them who have not read anything but the memo, you simply could say you support the memo Mr. Schiffer -- MR. KLATZKOW: I support the memo, that's the reason why I voted. If there was an additional reason, then you can state the additional reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with Mr. Schiffer, you're the motion maker; you provided the information in the memo. So with that, if it's okay, Brad, I'll move on to Ms. -- the second person on our minutes was Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I support the memo that was written. I also think I made it pretty clear in the minutes my concerns of both the size of the decking and the fact that there was water depth to support both the current dock and the boat that the petitioner owns. So just as additional notes to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, do you have anything to add? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, nothing. I agree with the memorandum that Brad put out and also what Donna had said about the water depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For the same reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the same reasons what, you agree? Page 53 April 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That I agree with what Brad had written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- and Mr. Klatzkow, is that sufficient enough? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think so. I think that's what the BZA was trying to get at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would ask for clarity to the BZA that the two members of the planning commission that did not support the motion did not participate in this action here today. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Jeff. Jeff, I think that all of the exhibits from the hearing should go before the BZA. There was some stuff that were handed out by a neighbor that never made it into the BZA -- MR. KLATZKOW: And it should have gone to the BZA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And also, Mark, I think that, you know, when staff at the hearing, they kind of just said that they accept it. I think at the hearing they should actually testify as to why they approve the thing, not just say we approved it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the BZA can instruct staff in how they want -- they receive an executive package and all the staffs stipulations and recommendation are in the package, Brad. But, I mean, I -- how they want to hear it at the BZA, I don't know if we want to interfere with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? But I think, you know, you've provided your memo, you've got the support from those that backed your motion, so I believe that's as much as we need to handle. Page 54 April 3, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next item would be new business. Does anybody have any new business? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment. Is there any public comment? MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: Can I comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You certainly can, ma'am, you're a member of the public. I know you want to talk on your specific issue, but we can't rehear your issue. But you're more than welcome under public comment to come -- you'll have to use the speaker. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. And please identify yourself for the record. MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: I am Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer. I am the owner of the property. I've lived there about eight -- a little over eight years. And I bought my property for my View. The gentleman who objected to the property has never lived in that house. Not one day. And yet he came here, from the minutes that I read, which was at the variance that I went to. He said untruths. And I feel so -- I feel really bad that I couldn't come to begin with. And that wasn't even stated. I had a funeral and I had all intentions of coming here and giving you pictures that can confirm at low tide I can't take a boat in and out there. I'd have to wait in order to put it in. And I have the pictures with me here which show the rip-rap or Page 55 April 3, 2008 the coral that was dumped in front of my home was done by the previous owner, supposedly to save the seawall. I am the only house on that property that has that problem. And the tide goes in, the tide goes out. It moves the rocks out to the middle of the 20- foot easement that I'm supposed to put a boat in. And I have pictures to prove I cannot do it. The pictures you saw were at high tide. So it's as clear as putting your hand in front of your face how I have to have the lift on the outside of the dock. The reason I asked for it to be elevated and to put it out five feet more than what it was, was I have an autistic grandchild. You put him on the boat, he bolts out of there. My father was a double paraplegic, I've had foot surgery, knee surgery. It's very difficult to go down as deep as this dock is. And I would have liked to, as long as I was going to put a new dock in, make it handicap accessible. And that extra five feet would give enough room for everyone to unload the pontoon and load it up and hold onto the grandchildren. We have 15 of them. They don't all come at one time. But anyway, I do have them. And you also granted down the street from me, which I have a picture of it here, of a dock that went out 32 feet because they had a problem going around the bend. They're in the channel, going right into the channel. And theirs is extended out 51 feet. I was asking for an additional five for what the neighbor, if they lived there, looked at. He said he got in the water. I've never seen that boat that he bought in the water. Because he's never there. And I don't think he likes looking out at the boat dock right in front of his face, and he's got a big red tarp on it. That's all he can see. So he wants to look over and take my view. I paid for my view, he paid for his view. He bought it for resale, I live in my home. I homestead there. I don't want to live anywhere else. I just remarried and I have to do, you know, at least four months Page 56 April 3, 2008 up in Michigan for my husband. But other than that, we hope to totally retire in my home. And my home is all my expense. And I have paid $3,000 to, you know, apply for the variance. And when the funeral came up, Mr. Nelson said, you go because you've met all five criteria of six, there's no reason why you should be denied. You go to your aunt's funeral. So I went up there. And I said, boy, you better not let me lose this, because I really want this dock and lift. I want the security of having the lift put up when I leave that my boat's going to be safe. Everybody else has that right, why shouldn't I? I mean, I just -- I'm so sad that I wasn't here for that meeting. But it was -- I was encouraged to go because we met all the criteria. And if you would care to look at the -- in fact, I left big pictures and a letter stating all this for you to look at. And there's no way you could say no to me if you saw it. And I felt bad that not one person on the committee, with how adamant that owner was, that they didn't say, you know, well, the other person isn't here, why isn't she here? He could have told you and maybe he should have said it, I don't know, but he knew why I wasn't there. And I have a real need for it. And I'm willing to do whatever I can, but I really don't want to put it in the middle of my view. Mine was there first. And I don't need to extend it way out. I had no reason to have a canopy, I don't want a canopy, I don't want the insurance of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I'll have to ask you to wrap up, okay? MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: Okay, I'm done. You heard mme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate the input. We're in a situation where we're not by law allowed to further review this issue in a manner that we can render any kind of decision here today. Page 57 April 3, 2008 So thank you for your time and input. That's the best we could provide, though, for you today. MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk to you about it. I saw that this gentleman came back twice because it was denied. How did he get to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was remanded back -- oh, he went to the BCC and requested to come back with new information. I'm not sure of the process, but I'm sure that staff could tell you or the county attorney could tell you how you could bring your situation back to us for re-review if you -- MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: Does it cost me again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, ma'am. I think you've already started a process with the BCC. We have to now send the findings of the majority of this panel to the Board of County Commissioners, or BZA. And I think you ought to go there first and seek your answers, and then whatever comes out of that, then you can make a decision. Because if you don't succeed with them, there's little chance of trying to come back to us again. MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: Yeah. And I think the house next door has been sold already, because a surveyor was out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we thank you for your time. MS. CLANCY-KOENDARFER: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment, but it's not about this case. So I understand that thing. But Ray, remember when we did -- you know, you had the scoring system that staff has for criteria. And when it came into the code I knew this disaster was going to happen where people were going to assume that if they meet it they got it. Page 58 April 3, 2008 But that's -- I mean, do you think -- I'd like to look at really pulling that out. I mean, it was on your application for years, it was something that you guys did within interoffice, but -- and this case is a good example, that the person felt that just by meeting that criteria they were allowed to have this extension. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we could look at forming-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to look in the next cycle of pulling that out. Because, you know, the criteria were established obviously for guidelines to look at it. But they weren't a score card. If it is, it's an administrative process and keep us out of it, because we don't want to be in these situations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go and pull something out, I don't understand what Mr. Schiffer's getting at. And I'm not saying that's because he's right or wrong, but I think maybe he needs to get with you and you guys figure out what it is you're talking about, provide the documentation to us and show us and let us all make a decision on whether or not we should recommend to staff that it be modified or not and then we go forward from there. Is that fair enough, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, it's -- I think it's pretty simple what it is, is in the last cycle or I guess it's 2006-63, it's in the report, that we added the staff method of scoring criteria which has caused misconceptions that alls you have to do is meet the score. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't -- myself personally, I can't sit here right now and agree I remember it, so I'd certainly like to be refreshed before we direct staff to do something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll deal with Rayon it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else under any of the business items? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Nods head affirmatively.) Page 59 April 3, 2008 Item #13 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti silently made the motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I did. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're adjourned. Thank you all. ***** Page 60 April 3, 2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:54 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 61