CCPC Minutes 06/05/2008 R
June 5, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida June 5, 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" ofthe Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolf1at
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. W olf1ey
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Svs.
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Dir. of Real Property, Collier Cty. School District
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRJTTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRJATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERJAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AII~ABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 17,2008, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - APRIL 29,2008, GMP MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwasse pun to revise existing
development standards, transportation requirements and property ownership information. The +/-12.52-acre
subject property is located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road,
in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/1/08
(Coordinator: John-David Moss)
B. Petition: BD-2008-AR-I273 I , Jim Fountain, represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates,
Inc., requesting the addition of a boatlift to an existing dock. Proposed change includes adding a boatlift and
removing an existing floating swim platform on an existing fixed wood dock approved by SDE resolution
2000-18, allowing a total protrusion of 48 feet /Tom MIIW. The additional boatlift would not require any
further protrusion into the waterway, but the proposed additional slip constitutes a significant deviation from
the plan approved with the original extension petition. Property located at 208 San Mateo Drive, Lot 27,
South port on the Bay, Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15, pages 51-53, Section 6, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
1
C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and The Empowerment Alliance of
Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation, represented by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile
Home Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District, to be known as
Esperanza Place RPUD. The 31.6H acre site is proposed to be developed for affordable single-family and
multi-family residential use. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive,
approximately 1/2 mile west of SR 29, in_Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East. Immokalee,
Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143, Standing Oaks, L.L.c., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural
Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as Standing Oaks PUD.
The 41.1:f:: acre Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit 164 single and multifamily residential
dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject site is located at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane, 6400
Standing Oaks Lane, and 6565 14'h Avenue N.W., in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-I3059, Stock Development, LLC, rcpresented by Christopher Mitchell of Waldrop
Engineering, is requesting a sign variance to permit a 54 square foot ground monument sign bearing the
Edison College logo. The subject property, consisting of 3.93 acres, is located within the Lely PUD at the
southeast corner of the Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock intersection, in Section 21,
Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown)
B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-10805, Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., rcpresented by Robert MuIhere, of R W A,
Inc., is requesting conditional use of an earth mine and asphaltic and concrete batch making plant in the
Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District. The subject property, consisting of 967.65 acres, is located ~ of a
mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) / Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of
Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Willie Brown)
C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Mission
Possible Ministries, Inc, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development, Inc., are
requesting a rezone from the RSF-I Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)
Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly MPUD. The approximately l5.93-acre site is
proposed to permit existing churches, associated schools, day care facilities and other related accessory uses.
The subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block formed by Trail
Boulevard, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road and West Street in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier
County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss)
D. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-I2321, MDG Lake Trafford, LLC., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Arrowhead PUD
Ordinance Number 02-40, as amended, Section 8.5 Transportation subsections B., K., L.3., M. through P. and
to add Section 9 Deviations to revise transportation commitments to construct project turn lanes at Lake
Trafford Road and Carson Road project entrances within one year of approval of this ordinance; to construct
turn lanes for the commercial tract and the shared north Carson Road entrance at the time of commercial site
development plan; to require acceptance of Carson Road extension from Lake Trafford Road south to
Immokalee Drive and the westerly 450 feet of Immokalee Drive by the Collier County Road Maintenance
Department; to construct intersection improvements at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road within one year
of approval of this Ordinance; to contribute funds for a bus stop, to remit funds for turn lanes and signal
modifications, and to receive credit for a turn lane; and to add Section 9 to seek a deviation from a
transportation requirement of sidewalks on both sides of Lake Trafford Road to allow a sidewalk on the north
side of the road only. The property is located at the southwest corner of Lake Trafford Road (CR 890)
and the proposed extension of Carson Road in Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, and Section
31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
2
E. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12842, Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of HoIeMontes
Inc., is requesting a rezone of the easternmost 10:1: acre portion of the First Assembly Ministries Education
& Rehabilitation PUD from the Planned Use Development (PUD) zoning district to the Agricultural (A)
zoning district. The subject property is located along the northern side of the extension of The Lord's
Way, in Section 14, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
Companion to PUDA-2007-AR-12043
F. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12043, First Assembly of God Naples, Inc" by J. David Mallory, president; and
MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, William L. Klohn, president of MDG Capital Corporation, managing member;
both of whom are represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, Hole Montes, Inc., are requesting an amendment
from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) zoning district for a 69'" acre project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and
Rehabilitation MPUD, to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church-related uses. The
subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
The Lords Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Kay DeseJem) Companion to RZ-2008-AR-12842
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
A. Scheduling of Adoption hearings for Growth Managemcnt Plan (GMP) Amcndments - 2006 Adoption
Cycle GMP Amendments (6 petitions), Petition CP-2006-1, Silver Strand Commerce Park in lmmokalee;
Petition CPSP-2007-7, School Public Facilities Element; and Petition CPSP-2007-6, 10-Year Water Supply
Plan (Potable Water Sub-Element).
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
6/5/08 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/sp/mk
3
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, good morning. It's June
5th. We1come to the Collier County Planning Commission Meeting.
If you'll all rise to be sworn in -- by the court reporter (laughter)
-- for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This will probably be the only
funny moment of the day.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Take it while we can.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. 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?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And also, our representative from
Page 2
June 5, 2008
the school board, Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
We're going to get into the addenda to the agenda. This has been
a -- this meeting, as well as the several going between now and the
Board of County Commissioners' meeting at the end of July, which I
believe is the 26th or the 22nd, something like that, I want to give
everybody an idea of what's going to happen for the next two or three
regular meetings.
The board is leaving on vacation for the summer; they're not
coming back till September. There's a lot of effort on everybody's part
to see that they can get as much on their agenda on the 22nd that they
can possibly fit. That obviously backs things up for this board.
So we're going to have a very hectic agenda for the next few
meetings. And we'll have to probably make some concessions on how
we manage those meetings to make sure that the applicants can get
their issues on time to the 22nd or 26th meeting of the BCC.
This won't happen often, but it's probably going to happen once
a year. And when we have to accommodate, I hope we all are in
agreement we will.
So with that in mind, we'll talk about addenda to the agenda. I
may miss something on this, and if any of the Commissioners have
anything that I may have not brought up, please feel free to bring it up
as well.
Today's agenda had one item seeking a continuance and that is
the -- I'll read the number. It's the Heavenly PUD. Petition
Page 3
June 5, 2008
PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, the Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples
and the Mission Possible Ministries, Inc., also known as the Heavenly
MPUD, which, by the way, is a CFPUD.
That one is being continued to some point in the future. I don't
even know what date for sure. But if anybody's here for that petition
today, it will not be being heard.
As far as addenda to the agenda, I don't know if there's anything
else that the Commissioners can think of. That's all I can think of for
today's agenda until we get into the approval of the minutes and the
Planning Commission absences.
Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item on the -- well, let's
take a motion on the continuance of that Heavenly PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray,
seconded by Commissioner Adelstein.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Page 4
June 5, 2008
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Okay, the Planning Commission absences. During this time, I'd
like to first talk about our next meeting, which is, I think, June 27th,
Ray; is that right?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Friday, the 27th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Now, it's non-typical. Instead of a
Thursday, it will be Friday, the 27th. So will all the Planning
Commissioners who -- plan to be here? Everybody?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody will be here. Okay.
Anybody going to be missing?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, no, but this shows that it
terminates at 12:00; is that correct --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- 8:30 to 12:00?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll never get out of here at that time.
Mr. Schmitt, do you know anything about that?
MR. SCHMITT: What's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat indicated that his
correspondence says the meeting will terminate at 12:00 on the 27th.
That can't be right.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's what this sheet says that's
included with the packet.
MR. SCHMITT: I show on my calendar 8:30 to 12:00. I need to
find out ifthere's somebody in this room after 12:00. But--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we set it up, we had the whole
Page 5
June 5, 2008
day.
MR. SCHMITT: We had the whole day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It will be a whole day meeting.
You know that one's getting booked, so --
MR. SCHMITT: I'll confirm that. I believe we have the whole
day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat.
The next thing is Mr. Weeks had to discuss with us some agenda
items. And David, now's probably the best time to do that.
Item # 11
NEW BUSINESS: SCHEDULING OF ADOPTION HEARINGS
FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS -
2006 ADOPTION CYCLE GMP AMENDMENTS (6 PETITIONS),
PETITION CP-2006-01, SILVER STRAND COMMERCE PARK IN
IMMOKALEE; PETITION CPSP-2007-7, SCHOOLS PUBLIC
FACILITIES ELEMENT; AND PETITION CPSP-2007-6, lO-YEAR
WATER SUPPL Y PLAN (POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT)
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive
Planning staff.
And thank you, Commissioners, for agreeing to let this be heard
first.
We have several Growth Management Plan amendments that
have been through transmittal hearings and that are now ready for
adoption hearings. I hope you all received your hard copy.
I e-mailed you a few days ago a memorandum identifying the
different plan amendments and also the staff preferred date. And then
-- dates, plural. And then also a spreadsheet that showed alternative
dates because certainly we wanted to have options available, should
the Planning Commission not be able to meet on the staff preferred
Page 6
June 5, 2008
dates.
As I noted, the amendments consist of the 2006 cycle of
petitions. And there's a total of six of those. You heard seven at
transmittal, but one of those, based upon board action, will not be
heard with the 2006 cycle.
There's the 2006-1 petition, Silver Strand Commerce Park,
which I noted is the petition in Immokalee, and you held your
transmittal hearing there. But we are proposing that it be heard here in
Naples for adoption.
And then there are the two, 1'11 call them special amendments.
The water supply plan-related amendment CPSP-2007-7 -- excuse me,
6. And then the Schools Public Facility Element, which is
CPSP-2007-7.
And that school element you might recall from your transmittal
hearing was rather lengthy in discussion, and we expect the same
thing at adoption hearing.
And you can see specifically that staff has not recommended that
we hear all of these petitions on the same day; specifically that we
hold the schools petition on a separate hearing. And staffs
recommended date is August 29th. And then the balance of the
petitions, the other three or three batches, to be heard on August the
19th.
I would like to note one thing, as Mr. Schmitt reminded me or
pointed out to me, that in addition to the fact that you have an LDC
amendment hearing on August 28th, you also have one on August
27th. They are meetings number four and five for the 2008 cycle one.
The point here is that I failed to mention the 27th because I was
not aware of it. Shame on me. But that you may in fact complete your
LDC amendment review on the 27th. Therefore, the 28th might be a
date for consideration to either hold the GMP amendments alone on
that date or if you have some carryover LDC amendments then to hold
the GMP amendment hearing after you complete the LDC
Page 7
June 5, 2008
amendment.
And the purpose of mentioning that is if you should finish with
the 27th LDC amendments, might you want to meet on the very next
day, the 28th, or do you want to skip a day and go to the 29th?
Staff has no preference in that regard. But I certainly wanted to
point that out to you because you may have it on your calendars
already, presumably you do, that you would be meeting on the 28th,
so you might want to stick with that schedule.
But 1'11 stop there and see what you all want to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take the August 19th date
first. Does anybody have a problem with that date?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. The building
commission's meeting that day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The what?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Florida Building Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a problem?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that was good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a quorum then.
How about the 29th? Does anybody have a problem with the
29th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then David, I think we ought to
leave it at the 19th and 29th.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And hopefully we won't need all those
days for the LDC, but it would be nice to have a break instead of --
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And just for your -- Mr. Chairman, just so your
calendars sync, I show a 1 :00 to 5 :00 p.m. on the 27th for meeting
four LDC and an 8:00 to 5:00 p.m. meeting five.
And like you, I do not think you will need that meeting five. But
don't know. You just don't know.
Page 8
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you never have any controversial
LDC changes anyway.
MR. SCHMITT: We never have any controversial LDC --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a breeze.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What about time on these? Will
they start at regular time, 8:30 --
MR. WEEKS: Thank you for that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and will they be in the
boardroom?
MR. WEEKS: All in the boardroom and at 8:30 a.m. as usual.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. I think we gave you
what you needed. We appreciate it. Thanks for the heads up early.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: APRIL 17,2008, REGULAR
MEETING
Okay, the approval of minutes from the April 17th, 2008 regular
meeting.
Does anybody have a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr.
Adelstein.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 9
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Ray, you have BCC reports?
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 29, 2008, GMP MEETING
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On May 27th, the Board of County
Commissioners approved the development order amendment for Ave
Maria. That was approved on the summary agenda.
Then on May 13th, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the PUD amendment for Vanderbilt Trust. That was a 4-1
vote, subject to the Collier County Planning Commission's
stipulations.
And there were two variances approved on the summary agenda
on that same meeting day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, I want to make everybody
understand, the Ave Maria was on the summary agenda, even though
it went from here with a stipulation concerning the DCA.
The reason it didn't get discussed is because they pulled their
request for the time extension from their application, so it just
revolved around the one issue we didn't have an issue with; is that --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a fair statement? Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, and I just want to for the record
Page 10
June 5, 2008
so everyone knows, that was clearly pointed out in the executive
summary to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: As with the transportation issue, though it
wasn't thoroughly laid out, that issue will be addressed when we do
the five-year review of the fiscal impact analysis of that project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, the only hook there at the
time was the extension of the con -- the extension of the DRI. And if it
wasn't up for discussion, then one kind of negates the other, so -
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chairman's report. It's been a long week to get this far so we're
going to have a long meeting today. We will be taking a break every
hour and a half for Cherie' and for Kady. We'll certainly have lunch
today. It will be about quarter to l2:00 we'll try to take a break. So if
anybody's in the middle of a presentation, that's kind of where we
want to break off, just to let you know ahead of time.
Item #8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
And with that, we'll go into the consent agenda. We have a
lengthy consent agenda this time with some changes to the first one
right off the bat.
Let's just take them in order. The first petition on consent is
Petition PUDA-2007-AR-12322.
Now, the way I understand this is to happen in the past is if we
want to discuss something, we remove it from the consent agenda;
Page 11
June 5, 2008
otherwise, we just vote on the consent agenda.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are two items that need
some discussion that I myself suggest we pull. One is A, the petition I
just announced. And the other is the Esperanza. Is that on here?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, number C. And that issue has to do
with a setback that I'm not sure was clearly articulated at our meeting,
so I wanted to clarify that.
MR. BELLOWS: And I just had a clarification on 8.D, that's the
Sterling Oaks one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're actually going to pull three of
them.
MR. BELLOWS: Mine is just a comment to let you know what's
happened since the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only one that remains is
the boat lift. Does anybody see a need to pull the boat lift?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank God.
Okay. We'll probably go through, and after we get done
discussing them I'll ask for a motion on the consent agenda subject to
our discussions and we'll go from there.
Does that work, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
Item #8A
PUDA-2007-AR-12322: LIVINGSTON PROFESSIONAL CENTER
LLC. HIW ASSE PUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first one is Petition
PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC. And it's
Page 12
June 5, 2008
an amendment to the Hiwasse PUD.
There is some history behind this that I certainly would like to
explain to the Planning Commission.
It seems that even when we think our motions are clear, they're
really not. And somehow I have got to do a better job in seeking out
all the differences that words may be interpreted by.
Rightfully so, there were some differences in understanding of
what our motion was to be made in regards to removal of the south
entry on the Hiwasse PUD.
The applicant started out with a plan that would have moved
substantial amount of activity into the FP&L easement. They resolved
that that was the wrong thing to do pursuant to our motion and they
came back with a plan that we were e-mailed just recently -- e-mailed
or mailed -- that showed a diagonal piece of the roadway coming
across the FP &L easement in order to retain the one southern entry --
or the one entry that was allowed by the GMP.
They actually removed the southern entry that we had said was
doubling up what they could do. That would have left just the
northern. The northern entry being closer to the intersection isn't as
preferred as the location they show on the plan that was mailed to us.
Now there's some debate over whether or not how much this
matches up to what we said in our motion. I've read the minutes to the
meeting. There is some latitude in the way the motion was made.
I didn't have a problem with it after this plan we got mailed to
us, and I know staff was aware of it, was generated. So from that
perspective I didn't see a problem.
Another issue was the width of the bike path in the FP&L
easement. During the discussion by staff with the applicant, they said
they would do it at 10 feet. The plan came out at six feet. The
applicant has now said that was a mistake, it should have been
basically 10 feet. We also failed to put that in our motion.
So again, it's one of those areas that needs to be cleaned up as we
Page 13
June 5, 2008
move forward in the future.
But those are the two things I saw as discrepancies. And I think
they're resolvable, based on maybe action today, but certainly on the
intent of the motion from prior, unless there's an objection from
someone on the commission or the county attorney.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see none.
So for the record, we're willing to then on the consent agenda
accept the Hiwasse PUD with the master plan that was mailed out to
everybody.
And Ray, I don't know if you've got this one for the record. I'm
sure --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this is the one I've seen circulated. It's
not the one that was in our packet --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, John-David just showed it to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're all talking from the
same page and the 10 feet on the bike path.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How will we make certain that
the new plan is the one that's seen by everybody and understood to be
the one that is approved?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should we not mark it in some
fashion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just asked Ray if that's the one
that they're working with. That's fine. If you've got a --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's noted as Exhibit A, and
I believe the earlier one was Exhibit A as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think our motion will be to
substitute this Exhibit A for the one that was sent out in the consent
Page 14
June 5, 2008
package.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But should it be called A-l so that
again it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's the fact. You need
to designate it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think you need to -- I think
he's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far on that, the
text that is written in the ordinance refers to Exhibit A. We'd have to
change the text in the ordinance.
If we just switch out the exhibit with this one that was now on
record, leaving it Exhibit A, it matches then the language in the
ordinance.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. We can date it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to say, put a
parenthesis and date it then.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And it's the one on the visualizer, and
we can date that one and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the new master plan --
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you put it on the visualizer.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, the date?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It will be 6/5? Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the consent agenda for the
Hiwasse PUD, we'll entertain a motion to recommend approval, with
the exception that we would substitute in the new Exhibit A dated
6/5/08 and the lO-foot in lieu of the six-foot on the bike path going
through the Florida Power & Light easement.
If everybody likes that, could we hear a motion to that effect?
Page 15
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made the
motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron made the second.
Any discussion?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one other item here that
I'm not sure should be corrected or not. But under Page 3, item two in
the bottom, it indicates that it will not exceed 150 feet in either
direction. And later on in that same paragraph they stipulate that to be
north to south direction.
The first one is more general. Since it would be four directions,
it could be extended theoretically. But the second sentence indicates
just north or south.
I think practically it's the north to south. My question is whether
it's worthwhile correcting that so that it would be consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., you want to -- since you're the
planner on that, they're looking for 150 both directions. Could they
even put it in the east-west direction?
MR. MOSS: No, I don't even think it would fit in the east-west
direction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Kolflat's point is well
taken. It has to be referenced only to the north-south direction.
Could you make that correction?
MR. MOSS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the motion maker accept
that as a correction?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second? Mr. Caron?
Page 16
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute. Mr. Kolflat
wants --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think transportation may have an issue
here that they might want to address.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because they sent a memo saying
that it was a better result.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
transportation.
Just confirm, Mr. Taylor, that the intent is to put the pathway in
FP&L. And the only reason it would not go in there and go along
Livingston is if they couldn't get permission from FP&L to put it in
there.
So -- but it wasn't the applicant's deviation or choice. It's FP&L,
no permission on Livingston. But first choice is FP &L easement.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were going to turn it
upside down on us, Nick. Thank you.
Okay, anything else from anyone?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll call a vote and a motion. All those
in favor for the consent agenda item, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
Page 17
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of Hiwasse.
Item #8B
BD-2008-AR-12731: ADDITION OF A BOATLIFT
Why don't we take the boat lift and we'll just go in order. Is there
a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda for --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- BD-2008 --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- AR-12731?
Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Kolflat.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Page 18
June 5, 2008
Item #8C
PUDZ-2007-AR-12581: ESPERANZA PLACE RPUD
Item C is the Esperanza Place. That one looked fine. There was
one issue that I had, and that is when we said we wanted -- we
requested that the side setbacks be zero feet and six feet. In the
stipulations it wasn't specifically stated it should be for the principal
and accessory structures. In a discussion it wasn't either.
But in pointing it out on the principal structure table, that I
thought applied to both. We generally have always applied it to both.
Ifthere's no opposition from the applicant to leaving it at --
moving the accessory structures to side at six feet, then I would think
that meets more the intent of what I thought the stipulation was, unless
this board disagrees.
Mr. Arnold, you represent the petitioner?
MR. ARNOLD: I do. For the record, Wayne Arnold. I'm here
representing the applicant.
I just heard about this comment this morning. And honestly, I'm
not sure if there are unintended consequences. I know that is different.
I looked back at the information I had and I didn't see that as
being an issue. I know there was discussion on principal but not
accessory. And we had no separation of accessory structures on our
table that establishes a side, rear, front setback, et cetera, for those. So
there's not a separation as there is on principal structures.
And I think the only issue I would find is that there may need to
be a reduction on those, for instance, on the single-family side of this
project. For instance, somebody who might want a storage shed or
something like that, which maybe could vary from the principal
structure separation setback.
I think if you apply the setbacks we have, we always end up with
at least a lO-foot separation, based on a five-foot and five-foot side
Page 19
June 5, 2008
yard setback, for instance.
I would only be concerned that we've created some problem. I've
not -- I haven't talked about this with the developer. We have two
different developers of this. I'm hesitant to say I accept it, because I
just don't know those consequences.
I know we're on the board agenda for Tuesday. And obviously I
don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. We have some grant
deadlines that we're trying to meet, so it's important that we continue
to move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, just for sake of
disclosures on the consent agenda, I forgot to ask about those, You
and I did have a conversation yesterday. At that time I actually forgot
to mention that I had noted this. And I was going to bring it up, so I'm
sorry I didn't.
But what does the board feel on it, any --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, say it again. I'm
not sure. Right now in the chart it says that the accessories are the
same as the principal structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that what you're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Exhibit B. If you turn to Exhibit B
and Page 5 that was provided to us with the consent agenda. It shows
five feet for the side. But on Page 4, which is the principal structures,
we had recommended a change in that from zero -- I mean, from five
feet to six feet, consistent more or less with our standard six-foot
mmlmum.
So I'm not sure if accessories are that big of an issue at this time
for this project. Probably not. The applicant isn't -- doesn't have
enough background information with the -- I mean, the applicant's
representative doesn't have enough information with the applicants to
know if it's going to cause them problems or not. It was ambiguous in
the way we made our motion, so I guess it's a --
Page 20
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, wouldn't the table
override that? I mean, which is -- on B-2, the table for accessories
notes it the same as the principal structure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B-2. Page B-2, Table 1, down at
the bottom, accessories.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, yeah, that's--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you on Esperanza?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Gosh, I'm on 8.D. Is that the
wrong place?
MR. BELLOWS: We're on 8.C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 8.C.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I'm on 8.D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: A big never-mind.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me assure you there's
no problem on 8.D with this.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that we're back all on
the same page. Thank you, Brad, for that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I had --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- I've been trying to
figure out what that would imply. I can't see that that's a significant
difference, based on accessory.
We want to make sure that there's enough room separating
people in their bedrooms and such. But accessory I think we could --
inasmuch as we weren't as clear as we might have wanted to be, we
should let it be as it is presented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted it clarified for the record,
provide discussions. So I don't have a problem with it at five, although
I would like to see us be more consistent at six in the future for this
Page 21
June 5, 2008
one project.
And the reason we started this is for access to the rear. Ten feet
for if vehicles or something have to get back there, that makes it kind
of tight. And we've always set a standard at 12 feet. But I don't have a
problem leaving it like this. Does anybody else?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I don't have a problem with
that.
If, Mr. Arnold, it is not a problem for your client, will you bring
that forward to the BCC on Tuesday?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, right now I believe we're on the summary
agenda. I would have to --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay.
MR. ARNOLD: -- pull myself off summary to do that unless I
could get the county manager to read something into the record.
I don't know, I guess I would defer it to Mr. Klatzkow. But I
would hate to pull myself off summary if we're otherwise in
agreement.
MR. SCHMITT: I think -- and I'll, Jeff, for the record, I mean,
I'll answer.
Our intent, we discussed this yesterday, we would just note it on
a change sheet and leave this on summary. It's a minor change. We
would just note it on the change sheet.
If the members of the board want to pull it, they could pull it.
But I don't -- and I'd defer to the county attorney, but I think just
simply noting it as a change, we would note that it was a change as of
today's meeting.
The agenda's already gone to the printer, so it would just be on
the change sheet that we would notify the manager and they would
hand it out at Tuesday's meeting. So I think we'd be okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we leave it that -- well, from
our purposes we'll leave it at the way that it's been presented, at five
Page 22
June 5, 2008
feet, with a caveat that if it can go as a change sheet and your
applicant doesn't have any problems with it, that's how it will go.
MR. ARNOLD: Is that understood, I guess, with Mr. Schmitt,
that your motion is to keep it as is unless we consent to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's exactly what we're
saymg.
Does that work for you, Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
And if, Wayne, if you could let either me or Ray know so that --
MR. ARNOLD: I'll let you know later today.
MR. SCHMITT: Because by tomorrow afternoon we need to
send something to the manager's office so it will go on the change
sheet.
And all we'll do is note it as a change. If it's an insignificant
change, it will stay on summary.
MR. ARNOLD: I can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that caveat in mind, is there
a motion to recommend approval of the PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 on the
consent?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Vigliotti.
Everybody clear on the motion? Staff? Everyone understand?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signifY saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 23
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #8D
PUDZ-2006-AR-9143: STANDING OAKS PUD
The last one is Standing Oaks. And other than what -- Ray, you
may have something? Let's go forward.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I just wanted to let you know the -- after
the Planning Commission hearing, the ordinance has been revised per
your recommendations. However, the applicant -- or the Utilities
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department have decided
not to support or continue with their recommendation for stipulation
for well field sites, and they withdrew that. And the Parks and Rec.
withdrew the request for the playground equipment.
So we're revising those documents to remove those conditions. I
just wanted to let you know that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank, you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Ray.
Ray, in the table we refer to setbacks and everything. But the
way they do their site plans, you know how they have -- they cull out
different tracts?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
Page 24
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would the perimeter of those
tracts ultimately be property lines that setbacks would be measured
from?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand the question. Could
you repeat that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, we're referring
to setbacks, and setbacks are obviously measured from a property line
or --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know, the code
easements and things. But there's nothing in this that would ever
require those tract perimeters to become property lines, which would
require setbacks to be measured from them; is that right?
MR. BELLOWS: I think that depends if they're platted and those
become --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And otherwise, they're phased
condominium lines --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which aren't platted. But if they're
platted it becomes a different matter.
Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere.
The other situation that would cause a little bit different is if
adjacent to the perimeter tract boundary you had a landscape buffer.
Then you're not going to have a principal setback because the
setback's going to be from the edge of the landscape, the platted
landscape buffer.
So, I mean, this is the way it's always been done.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if there is a buffer
shown, which there is, that will ultimately become a platted line that a
setback would be measured from.
MR. MULHERE: That's typically the way it's done, yes.
Page 25
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion to
recommend approval on the consent agenda ofPUDZ-2006-AR-9143?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murry made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Adelstein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for initiating the consent
agenda process. Because this is exactly the operations that happen -- I
mean, think of the things we just discussed. If we weren't -- if it wasn't
coming back to us, someone would have made assumptions that would
have gone on to the BCC, some possibly on summary, they'd become
law, and they may have been misinterpreted by what we had intended.
So I think it's a very good process. It does take a little longer but
it certainly has been rewarding to date. So I appreciate all your efforts
Page 26
June 5, 2008
to put it in place. Thank you.
Okay, now we'll get on with our regular advertised public
hearings.
Item #9A
PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13059, EDISON COLLEGE
The first one is Petition SV-2008-AR-13059, Stock
Development LLC. It's for -- it's with the Edison College concerning
the Lely PUD, and it's for a sign change, sign monument change.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of
the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward with
the petitioner's presentation.
There's no petitioner here? That would be different.
MR. MITCHELL: For the record, Chris Mitchell, Waldrop
Engineering.
And our client, in relations with Edison College, is relocating a
sign that's existing at the intersection of Lely Cultural Parkway and
Collier Boulevard.
Because of some sales of property and a sign easement not
existing for that, they will lose that sign. And so we're adding a
monument sign at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and
Grand Lely Drive, which was recently completed last year. So that's a
new roadway, new access to Lely Resort.
The sign is located in a piece of property that currently has an
easement for drainage water management for the county for the
Page 27
June 5, 2008
expansion of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And that piece of property
and the sign is located approximately 1,100 feet from the Edison
College property.
The variance request is to have a sign monument that exceeds
the 12 square feet per sign area, as well as the distance of 1,000 feet
for an off-premise sign.
The sign is a two-face sign in a V shape that fronts Rattlesnake
Hammock. It's 27 square feet on each side. It's consistent with ground
monument signs in the area, as well as all throughout Collier County.
Because it's an off-premise sign, you're limited to the 12 square
feet, which makes it very difficult for a monument sign and that face
area.
The 1,100 square feet is -- or the 1,100 feet is just a sure result of
where the property is located in relation to the PUD entrance.
So there really are no issues with any of the adjacent
landowners. And the property that also has the drainage easement will
be deeded with covenant restrictions to the college so that they have
surety that that sign remains in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you show me on this
overhead where the 54 feet is that you just referenced?
MR. MITCHELL: The 54 square feet is the actual -- the 54
square feet is actual sign face, which would be Collier Campus and
Edison College. It's the lettering of the sign. That's what they consider
the 54 square feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just the lettering?
MR. MITCHELL: Just the lettering.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if you take this entire
monument sign, it's 16 feet wide and eight feet high, and each wing
has 128 square feet, a total of 256 square feet of signage. I mean, this
is more like a billboard than it is a sign.
MR. MITCHELL: The definition of the signage is only on the
Page 28
June 5, 2008
sign face, which is the lettering of it. So it meets the code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you could have the
enormous sign monument with just a small sign on it?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, I don't know if that's
correct or not. I'd have to ask the staff whether that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know they do sign -- monuments
can be huge, but the sign text is all that they count for the part of the
signage. I know that to be true, because all the -- if you go across most
of your private communities, they have a lot of -- they have big
monuments in front. Only the portion of the sign is counted as text.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't there be some
requirement as far as the sign monument size as well as the sign size?
MR. MITCHELL: There's the height requirement of eight feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, but no width requirement.
MR. MITCHELL: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No width requirement.
MR. MITCHELL: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of times the communities are
using continuous walls, meandering walls --
MR. MITCHELL: I've got some pictures of some area signs that
actually would be much smaller than --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, apparently, staff had no
objection to this, I gather?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there wasn't.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I just want to point out -- and I appreciate
Mr. Kolflat's comments on this. This one issue we're going to look at,
where we are doing a re-look at the sign ordinance because of a recent
court case.
And we're going to attempt to clarify some of the monument
sign issue. Because exactly what you said and what Mr. Strain said,
Page 29
June 5, 2008
there may be a perimeter wall on a development and that wall also
serves as an entry feature. You don't count the entire square footage of
the wall.
In most cases, and I'm going to defer to Ray, where you see that
crosshatching and the border around, which is -- I'm sure it represents
kind of an inlaid tile. Normally that is the area square footage that is
defined as the sign, the sign square footage.
So it's that -- that's sort of been the rule of thumb. And I think
we're going to try and clarify that, because in some cases, and you'll
see where they had this other wall in front that shows Collier Campus,
that's a way of then sort of getting around it. Because you then put the
wall in front of the entry feature. And we've had other developments
do that. That constitutes the sign square footage.
So we're going to attempt to clarify it. Because we certainly --
it's an attempt -- we're not trying to regulate entry features, but at the
same time we want to make sure these things don't become the Arc de
Triomphe, so to speak, with a little sign on it. But then again, I don't
know. I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you're going to be in a peculiar
position because where do you stop? If you decide that a wall now
becomes part of the entry feature subject to the sign ordinance, what
about fountains --
MR. SCHMITT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and bridges and decorative gate
houses --
MR. SCHMITT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and all those other great things--
MR. SCHMITT: Exactly. That's the other -- that's the piece. We
get into the never-ending where does it stop, fountains, decorative
ornamental ironwork, bridges.
So that -- what we did on this one -- and I believe Ray, and I
think Nancy, wasn't it just that area that's defined in the crosshatched
Page 30
June 5, 2008
area that becomes the square footage. And that was where we
measured this sign square footage.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the petitioner indicated it
was just the lettering, not --
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. I'm going to defer -- who had this
one, Nancy or Willie?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's actually Willie's.
MR. SCHMITT: Willie's. Okay, we'll blame Willie.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, the calculation as interpreted by the
code is the sign face is 27 square feet. And that was calculated by the
sign designer, which is Outside Productions.
In my discussions with him, I believe it was the sign lettering.
And what I put up on the visualizer, if you wanted kind of a real
world, that is an existing sign at the entrance to Edison College on
Grand Lely Drive at the college property entrance.
And it's important to note that with Edison being internal to the
Lely Resort PUD, that the capture and the directional signage from
this monument needs to be at the perimeter of the PUD.
So this is something that's very similar to what we're requesting.
That's in the ground. So it doesn't really become a billboard. It blends
into what we're doing in the background.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is Mr. Kolflat --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're looking to wait to answer
his question. So staffs studying it, so I thought -- go ahead, Mr.
Kolflat, do you have more you wanted to ask or do you want to wait
for staff --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, no, I agree with Mr. Schmitt
that it ought to be looked into.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would like staff to respond
to Mr. Kolflat's -- or Joe's point about whether the text is measured or
whether the tiled background is included in the measurement of sign
Page 3 1
June 5, 2008
facing.
And then Ms. Caron had a question as well, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you forget Mr. Murray?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray. I'm sorry, Mr. Murray
first, then Ms. Caron.
You're so quiet, Bob, I just missed you. Sorry.
You might want to ask your question now while they're looking
through their resources, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my question's rather
simple, I think. I may have missed it in here. Is the sign to be
illuminated?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, it will have up-lighting on it.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Great. Super.
I will make one comment. I think it is imperative for people who
wish to attend the college and for the many events that the college
provides that they find a way to get to the college easily. That would
be my only comment. I think it's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER CARON: If you could put the picture of the
current sign up there that's -- thanks.
Where it says Collier Campus?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Collier Campus on this particular
sign could have been on the original monument. So this extra little
monument area is just really a decorative feature, correct?
MR. MITCHELL: I can't speak to that. I wasn't involved in that
sign design. It appears that it could be located on the same face.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And thus become --
MR. MITCHELL: The new design, which is a carryover from
that existing, is one slab. So it is one -- considered one sign. So they're
not individual footers on those.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it is really trying to get
Page 32
June 5, 2008
around. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just something really brief. I
myselfhave had trouble finding this place and so I'm glad they're
going to try to improve the sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Willie, it may come up.
But the way you've shaded D-l, which is the exhibit that shows the
sign, it looks like the area is not what he testified to be the text but it's
also going up, including the symbol and everything else --
MR. MITCHELL: If you look at the dimensions, it does seem
that it includes the entire hatched area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's not right either. You
see the word Edison College? You see the symbol there?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See how that line jogs up to
include that? That's what I think they figured the area to be, which
would be what I believe the sign area would be. You wouldn't want to
penalize somebody for putting a nice tiled background on it.
And see the little hatched -- see you have these little shade
stripes in there? That's kind of I think what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did staff come back with a
response to Mr. Kolflat -- or actually to Mr. Schmitt's definition of
what is actually being measured here?
MR. SCHMITT: I have to defer to Willie, because Ray and I
both -- I don't think the code is clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just -- the question was
asked, you wanted it -- you were talking about a couple different ways
it could be measured. I thought you had said staff we need to clarify it.
I just want to know who's telling us what.
Are we measuring in this particular sign starting with the E -- no,
leave that on there. We'll be starting with the E, going up around that
Page 33
June 5, 2008
little diamond, back down, including the word college, and going to
just underlined where the line under the college is. So it would be that
odd shape right in the middle. Is that what's being measured as the
sign section?
Willie, do you know, since you were the guy measuring it?
MR. BROWN: Okay, this is the language that's in the LDC.
Comes from Section 5.06.04. If you look at item number one, each
side shall not be more than l2 square feet in the area.
The language is very vague. Diane Compagnone is the sign
permitting tech. I'm sure the applicant is relying upon her
interpretation of what the sign area is, how it's defined. And I would
rely upon what's been said. The sign area is calculated based upon the
lettering.
MR. KLATZKOW: What we're doing here, which is in -- was
up on the screen before and Brad was the one that pointed it out. By
my rough math is that just -- that shaded area. It's around the Edison
word, it's around the college word and it's around that torch. That's all
it includes. Plus in addition thereto, the Collier campus, just basically
around those letters. That's how they're measuring it here. This is what
staff is presenting.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, they're saying it's 10.5.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And then yellow out the Collier campus as
well.
MR. MITCHELL: And then the Collier campus is the 10.5 by
the six feet, nine inches.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. All I'm trying to get someone to
just acknowledge, that's what's being measured. The yellow is what is
being measured. Is staff in agreement with that?
MR. SCHMITT: In this case, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I would also note we will ensure that when we
Page 34
June 5, 2008
look at the sign code we will clarify these monument signs on what is
measured. We know that's a weakness in the code, and we will address
that when we deal with the amendments to the sign code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with a 28-page sign code, I'm sure
we can add another 28 pages to it.
MR. SCHMITT: I hope it is shorter, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on this
matter?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That answers my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See what you started, Mr. Kolflat.
MR. SCHMITT: Very good question, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was.
MR. SCHMITT: Very good --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had a real quick one. I've
gone by some of these monument signs, stopped at a stop sign, and I'm
unable to see to the right or left, wherever that sign is, to the oncoming
traffic until you're committed. And that was my only concern with
that.
And I too had a question. Number two is how can you have a 12
square foot area sign but yet be less than eight feet? I mean, I couldn't
figure that out when I was going through this. Because if you have
something eight feet, one and a half feet wide, I mean, it just wouldn't
-- it's impossible.
MR. MITCHELL: It goes to what's measured as the sign face,
which --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, I got that now. But that
was -- this language is pretty bad.
My first question in any event was being able to --
MR. MITCHELL: Part of our application included a site triangle
distance so you can see that that being the sign and the location --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I couldn't -- I had a hard
Page 35
June 5, 2008
time with that.
MR. MITCHELL: -- shows that the distance is 1,000 feet on one
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is 1,000, okay. All right,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll hear staff presentation,
or at least what's left of it.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BROWN: Good morning. Willie Brown for the record,
Principal Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
As you've heard, the petitioner's presentation is consistent with
the application on file with the department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
Prior to your questions, I just want to go over with you how the
conclusion was arrived at in the staff report that you have.
I'll take just a minute to go through these various points.
Section 5.06.04 of the LDC is the section that again regulates
off-premise signs. The proposed sign is 42 square feet greater than the
maximum 12 square feet allowed for off-premise signs. The proposed
sign is also 100 feet greater than the maximum distance allowed from
the primary building use for structures served, in this case being the
Edison College campus.
Staffs assessment is that the subject property is, number one, a
narrow shaped lot, not suitable for development.
The subject property, number two, is an approved site for what is
predominantly a water management lake.
The subject property, number three, is the site of a designated
Page 36
June 5, 2008
but unrecorded sign easement.
And the subject property, number four, is proximity to a minor
arterial leading to the campus within the Lely PUD, where a
directional sign is needed most at the intersection of Rattlesnake
Hammock and Lely Drive.
The survey is what you see on the screen there. The width of the
site is 192 feet at its longest length across, and one foot at its smallest
length across.
The site plan: The proposed sign is set back 20 feet from the
north and west property lines so as not to cause a traffic hazard, and is
more than 100 feet from the nearest next off-premise sign, which is in
the right-of-way.
Staffs recommendation is that the two variances be approved,
subject to -- that is depicted in Exhibits A and Exhibit B. Exhibit A
again is -- Exhibit A is the site plan that's already been presented. And
Exhibit B is the elevation drawing.
And with that, if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to
entertain those at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Willie.
MR. BROWN: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I bring your attention to Page 5
of8.
MR. BROWN: 5 of 8, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And under B where you indicate
no, the off-premises sign code requirements of the LDC were in effect
at the time Edison Community College purchased this site. The owner
of the property is Stock, is it not?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you want to continue to call
it, this ownership, that Edison College owns this? The site.
MR. BROWN: You're correct, the property currently is --
Page 37
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So when you go forward, you
might want to modify that.
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, point well taken.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then I would like you to
qualify for me your statement --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, just a second. Go ahead, Cherie'?
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you pull your microphone
up a little closer, please?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Here I think I'm
yelling. I'm sorry.
Do you want me to repeat anything from the last?
THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. On Page 6 of 8, the only
other question I have is under D where you speak to, in the second
part or the second sentence, the petitioner could construct a much
smaller off-premises sign.
Now that we've understood that it has to do with the size of the
lettering, is that what your intent was with that statement, a much
smaller overall structure or much smaller size letters?
MR. BROWN: Very good question. I think what I'm doing here
and by answering that question, is just giving you the pro and con of
what's being proposed. The sign could be much smaller. I don't have a
preference. What is proposed is what the applicant wants and it's up to
you to approve it or not.
What's currently allowed under the existing regulations is a 12
square foot off-premise directional sign.
I will only note -- or indicate to you that I think at this location at
this intersection, as you've already said, a directional sign is very
desperately needed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're neither
advocating nor negating the need.
MR. BROWN: No, sir. I'm just pointing out to you which
Page 38
June 5, 2008
section of the LDC applies to the petitioner's application request.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, I understand. I'm just
wondering, though, based on prior knowledge you had and the new
knowledge we now have, whether that's the best answer or the best
statement. But that's okay.
MR. BROWN: I don't have a preference. A smaller sign I
suppose is -- I'll let you make that call as a commission.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir.
Okay, those are the questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Willie, could you put the second slide I
think you had up. The second one you started with. I believe it was the
one that talked about the location being ideal.
Not that one, it would probably be the next one after that then.
MR. BROWN: This one, the assessment?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't read it -- oh, there you go.
First of all, did you format this presentation with the highlighting
of the words and the assessment and the bars on the side and all that?
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good. I like it. It makes it very
organized, so that's a good thing. I just want to let you know it does
organize your presentation. It comes out well.
The last line where you say thus the site is ideal for the proposed
sign, instead of ideal in the future, could you use acceptable?
MR. BROWN: Acceptable, sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason is that I would hate to
see someone come in in another location using your same findings and
saying we said it was ideal here, so there it's ideal everywhere.
MR. BROWN: Point well taken, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than that, it's fine. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Page 39
June 5, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Is there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope the applicant doesn't want
a rebuttal on anything because it's all in their favor. But they're more
than welcome, since you're edging towards your seat.
MR. MITCHELL: I just wanted to point out that in the actual
resolution language, under the first page, item one, it should say a total
of 54 square feet, not 54 square feet on each side. It's 27 square feet on
each side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much for pointing it
out.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, there are a couple of
other issues that I had with the resolution that have been taken care of
this morning that you didn't have a chance to see. That will go before
the board. It will be legally sufficient and will reflect this board's
decision today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And was this one of them?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, there were a couple of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's already being corrected.
That works then.
With that, we'll -- since there's no public speakers, we'll close the
public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- so moved to do what?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's seconded by Commissioner
Adelstein. Motion was made by Commissioner Vigliotti.
Page 40
June 5, 2008
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Is everything clear, so we don't have any stipulations? Okay,
thank you.
Item #9B
PETITION: CU-2006-AR-I0805, RINKER MATERIALS OF
FLORIDA, INC.
With that, we'll move on to Petition CU-2006-AR-10805. It's the
Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc. for the Immokalee Road, Oil Well
Grade Road intersection, commonly known as the Hogan Island
Quarry .
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the
Page 41
June 5, 2008
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had conversations -- looking at all the
people out there; try to figure out which ones I had conversations with.
I know Mr. Passidomo, Mr. Mulhere about the -- my concerns over
the project, of which I walked through all those with them.
I also had discussion with Nicole Ryan of The Conservancy,
who has forwarded me a list of issues that The Conservancy is
concerned about for discussion today. And we will get to those as we
get towards the end of the meeting.
So with that we'll go forward.
Mr. Passidomo it's all yours.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My
address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, in the City of Naples.
Our firm represents Barron Collier Companies and Rinker
Materials of Florida as petitioners in the matter pending before you
this morning as Hogan Island Quarry conditional use.
Our environmental consultants are Turrell, Hall and Associates,
and our land use and engineering consultants are RW A, Inc. Tim Hall
from Turrell, Hall and Emilio Robau from RW A will take you through
the project at the conclusion of my introductory remarks.
Our land use planner, Bob Mulhere, the operator, the land owner
and our other consultants are available to respond to any technical
questions that you may have through the proceedings.
The application before you this morning seeks conditional use
approval for a limestone and sand quarry on some 967 acres in the
rural lands stewardship area, approximately three-quarters of a mile
north of Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard.
The reason for the application is simple. There is substantial
local demand for FDOT aggregate grade rock for 1-75 and other local
road construction projects. The cost of transporting the rock a mere
Page 42
June 5, 2008
distance of five miles is equal to the cost of the rock if purchased at
the quarry site. There is limited existing local supply of aggregate
grade rock and there is significant supply of that rock at the site of the
proposed quarry.
The conditional use application before you today is the first part,
the land use part, of a three-part approval process to authorize mining
operations at the quarry. It was recommended for approval by the
Environmental Advisory Council last month by a vote of7-1.
The second part of the approval process requires obtaining an
environmental resource pennit from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and a Section 404 permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Those permits are required to do three things: First, to approve
our wetlands assessment; second, to approve our mitigation plan for
management and protection of listed and endangered species. And we
anticipate as part of that mitigation assessment we will -- may very
well have to engage in Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service to ensure panther protection. And finally, to approve
our reclamation plan.
Finally, as part three of the approval process, we'll return to the
EAC prior to issuance of an evacuation permit. We anticipate that at
that time staff and the EAC will reassess the sufficiency of our
mitigation plan in light of agency review, consultation and mitigation.
This third part of the approval process gives the county an
opportunity to do something it typically doesn't get a chance to do,
take a second bite at the apple when it is well informed to assess
environmental impacts.
Let me begin our presentation by taking you through -- telling
you something about the property. And Bob will -- has shown you on
the overhead projector the overall RLSA map.
The property is comprised, as we indicated, of some 967 acres. It
is in active agricultural use, row crops and grazing to a less significant
Page 43
June 5, 2008
extent in the RLSA district. It is located north of Immokalee Road and
east of Oil Well Grade Road.
Agricultural uses will continue as an ongoing use during the
anticipated eight to lO years of the mining operations.
The actual size of the quarry, however, will be limited to 700
acres.
The property, as you can see, is located on an upland peninsula
on land designated as open land in the RLSA district. As you know,
open lands are lands which have been determined to have lesser
natural resource quality than lands designated as habitat stewardship
areas, flow way stewardship areas and water resource areas.
And though the property is located in the rural land stewardship
area, the proposal before you today is simply for a conditional use
under the existing baseline standard embodied in the existing district.
We're not seeking a stewardship receiving area, and no -- nothing is
anticipated outside of the baseline standards in the existing
underlining zoning district.
Bob will show you on the overhead the location of the property
and its relationship to FSA's, HSA's and WRA's nearby. And as you
can see, I think this is part of the materials that's in your packet, but
we want to emphasize that to you.
You'll note too that the property is located some two and a half
miles from the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, about four or four and a
half miles from the entrance to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
And during his presentation, Tim Hall will take you through and
show you the 12.77 acres on the property that is on-site HSA, which
we protected through a conservation easement. They'll show you some
10.95 acres in five isolated degraded wetlands on the site. They'll
show you some 32 acres of off-site mitigation and adjacent littorals.
And finally, Tim will show you 15 additional acres of littoral shelf
with littoral plantings.
During his presentation, Emilio Robau will show you how the
Page 44
June 5, 2008
processing plant and tailing pond where the quarry operations are
concentrated will be located far away from HSA's, FSA's and WRA's.
Finally, we thought it might be helpful to you to see a
neighborhood location map to give you some sense of proximity of the
proposed quarry to the nearest residences.
What you see on this overhead is the project and a concentric
circle that's two miles in diameter. And you'll note that the nearest
house is some 1.2 miles away from the nearest part of the quarry.
There are approximately a half dozen houses or so located
within that two-mile circle.
We've held two neighborhood information meetings, and
actually a third follow-up meeting as recently as last week, and to our
knowledge there are no neighborhood concerns that have been brought
to our attention.
We accept and agree to abide by the planning, environmental
and transportation conditions contained on Pages 12 and 13 of the
staff report, with two minor exceptions.
The first, we respectfully request that condition number 12, the
part of condition number l2 dealing with the proposed eastbound
center acceleration lane be revised to reflect that the transportation
planning services director has agreed to meet with our transportation
consultants prior to the public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners to determine whether that eastbound center
acceleration lane warrants mitigation because of potential impacts
imposed, to determine whether in fact it is safe, and to determine the
most effective -- cost effective and appropriate means to facilitate
eastbound traffic.
We simply request, as you've done in the past, I think you did at
Silver Strand, to provide in that stipulation that the transportation
services director can either authorize the eastbound center acceleration
lane or some alternate means that is satisfactory to him to address the
Issue.
Page 45
June 5, 2008
And second, as to the proposed staff conditions, we respectfully
cannot accommodate the public utility department request for well
fields dedications at this site.
As you know, we're located outside of the water-sewer district.
We draw water or ongoing ago operations and proposed mining
operations from our own wells. We're not creating a need for potable
water so there is no reasonable nexus between the impacts that we
impose and the request for the well site dedication.
And if there is a legal issue, we've prepared memoranda, we're
happy to submit that memoranda. We've even got a 2004 memoranda
from the county attorney to that effect. And if there's -- at the request
and the indulgence of the Chairman, we'll submit that legal
memorandum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been through that issue so many
times; I wish they would just stop it. I mean, especially in a project
like this that has no rational connection to any use of potable water.
And if they want it they can always negotiate to buy it. And this land
would be cheaper than residential land.
So I understand your dilemma. Too many people are having that
problem. We have to discuss it at every meeting. The BCC then has to
discuss it at every meeting, and we always end up in the same boat.
But thank you.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We respectfully request your recommendation of approval
subject to staff proposed conditions with these two minor
modifications.
I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have now or at
the close of our presentation. Otherwise 1'11 turn the presentation over
to Tim Hall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. But your
presentation, you're going to have your other consultants talk, which
may answer a lot of our questions, so hopefully, other than Mr.
Page 46
June 5, 2008
Murray right now, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only have one at the moment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I saw here that you were talking
about 24 hours of operation and another area of 16 hours. Which is it?
MR. PASSIDOMO: It is 24 hours of operation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And within the 24-hour
operation, are we talking about office work or are we talking about
grinding materials, stacking materials?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's mining operations that are for 24 hours.
The operations otherwise would be limited to -- is it 16 hours, Bob?
But the mining operations are extended over 24 hours.
The intention is to get in and get out in as short a period as
possible. We anticipate it's eight to lO years, but we need 24-hour
mining operations to get in and get out within that eight-year to
10-year --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So part of that would be the
noise issue, which will later come up as being -- okay, thank you, that
was for the moment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that 24 hours, seven days a
week?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Mulhere?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Actually, you know, I think it's 312 days a
year. I think it may be six days a week. And that, I think, is
uncontroversial in the submittal materials. But I think it's six days a
week, 312 days --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in your TIS that way, yeah.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir.
Page 47
June 5, 2008
MR. HALL: Good morning. My name is Tim Hall with Turrell,
Hall and Associates.
Was just here to continue on with what everybody else has been
saying about the project, try to give you a brief overview ofthe
environmental aspects and then hopefully answer any questions that
you might have later on.
The project is a total of 968 acres. It's a conversion from an
active agricultural operation to a mine. There are about 27 acres that
are considered native habitat by the county definitions. And of that,
about 10 -- almost 11 acres are considered wetlands.
The wetlands are located in five areas on the site. And I don't
know if you have that one. They're all small and isolated between the
agricultural fields. Basically the green areas that you see here, here,
here, here and here are the wetland areas.
The plan is to excavate up to 700 acres of lake, which will
impact about 15 and a half of those 27 acres of native habitat. And that
includes impacts to all of the existing wetlands.
11.9 acres of native vegetation are going to be enhanced and
preserved. An additional .9 acres will be restored, so that in the
post-project on-site preserves will have l2.77 acres of native habitat
left on site.
The preserve area is this area that comes in right there. That is
also the same area that is included in the HSA adjacent to the
property. So all of the property that is within the HSA on the site is
being preserved.
Mitigation is being proposed -- mitigation for the wetland
impacts is being proposed through enhancement, preservation and
actually some creation of off-site wetland areas shown on the exhibit
that's up right here.
There are two areas that are going to be enhanced and preserved.
Currently they are very infested with exotic vegetation, mostly
Brazilian pepper. And so those will all be cleaned up, restored to
Page 48
June 5, 2008
native habitat and then maintained in perpetuity in that state.
In terms of listed species, there's limited use by listed species on
the site because of the agricultural operations. Most of that utilization
is limited to the existing ditches and canal network going through
there.
We have wading birds, including Wood Storks that forage in the
ditches and canals and there's also American Alligators that are
resident in there. Sandhill Cranes use the fallow ago lands and pasture
areas as well. And that's the majority of the species that are currently
using the site for either foraging or nesting.
There's no large mammal use documented on the site; however,
we do know that there is panther and Black Bear utilization of the
Camp Keais Strand to the east, as well as the Corkscrew Swamp to the
north and northwest.
So the site is located within the panther consultation area. It's
also within the core foraging area of the Wood Stork Rookery at
Corkscrew. So as was stated earlier, we're going to be entering into
coordination with the Fish & Wildlife Service for basically potential
impacts associated with the project to both panthers and Wood Storks
at a minimum, and as well as any other species that the Fish &
Wildlife Service determines they may have concerns with.
The management plans that are in the works right now will be
coordinated both with the federal Fish & Wildlife Service, as well as
with the State Conservation Commission.
We've also met with the Corkscrew Audubon folks, Jason
Lauritsen and Brad Cornell, in tern1S of discussing the possible
enhancements that could be made on-site for wood storks. At that
meeting they did commit to -- or we did commit to providing a
minimum of 15 acres of littoral shelf concentrated along the eastern
boundary of the project.
This also is consistent with the meeting that has been had with
the Conservation Commission where they wanted more preservation
Page 49
June 5, 2008
or less impacts along the eastem property boundary so that there
wasn't any constriction of Camp Keais Strand, which they consider an
important least cost corridor or least cost pathway for the Florida
panther and black bear in terms of movement through this area.
The exact design parameters for these littoral shelves haven't
been completely worked out yet, but they will be done in future
coordination. And also, as was mentioned earlier, once that is done
this project will go back in front of the EAC again for the excavation
permit.
The other thing I think that's important to take into account with
relationship to species is the location of the processing plant. And the
most intensive areas of operation are located as far away from the
existing habitat where these animals would be moving as is possible
on this site.
That creates more of a separation and more of a buffer from
where all of your trucks are being loaded and the materials are being
crushed and so forth. So that's all done further away from those natural
areas instead of right up against them.
So then the only impacts associated with the natural areas comes
about through the actual mining operation itself. And that in the long
term is really -- it's not a long-term impact. Once the digging is done,
then you don't have any more of those operations going on, so the
lakes then also act as increased buffer for those natural areas.
That's about all I kind of wanted to get out. I know you probably
have some questions. If you want to wait for Emilio to go through the
engineering and water management portion and then we can do them
all at once.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless anybody has anything urgent.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a question. Could you put
that other overhead that you had, the other conceptual plan?
MR. HALL: Is it that one?
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
Now, on the conceptual plan that was in the packet that I
received, there is a solid red line going around that area. That
represents the project area; is that correct?
MR. HALL: The red line in the package -- I believe that is the
project area, yeah. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you trace that on this one
here while we're here?
MR. MULHERE: The project area is this black line.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Then there also was a
dashed red line that went around the area. What is that and where is
that located?
MR. HALL: I'm not sure what --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's on the large conceptual plan
drawings that you submitted.
MR. HALL: Yeah, I believe what the -- okay, the red line -- the
dashed red line was delineating the limits of the off-site mapping that
was done for the wetlands and FLUCCS codes. Part of the county
requirements is that within 200 feet of this site or so far off the site
they want to see what kind of off-site areas may also be potentially
impacted by the on-site. So that red line is delineating the extents of
that mapping that was done.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The solid line is the property?
MR. HALL: Yes, sir, the solid line is the property boundary.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we finish up with your
presentation, and then we'll get into all of our questions at once.
MR. ROBAU: Well, good morning. For the record, my name is
Emilio Robau. You have my card. RW A. I'm a professional civil
engineer. I've been here in Collier County since '85, been practicing
since '85 here in Collier County.
I guess my task today is to take you through some of the
Page 51
June 5, 2008
fundamental design parameters that we used to establish the control
elevation, off-site discharge locations and other things. And also to go
over some of the actual nuts and bolts as to how it's going to, you
know, operate.
We excavate for 24 hours and we process for 16, just to be clear
on that.
And I guess I should get started, if Bob can come back up here
and put on the visualizer a more regional look at things.
Perfect. I didn't see it. I'm not looking at the right place. I guess
magIc.
First thing is I do in the water management design, I take a look
at satellite type imagery, and this is close to it, at least what we
captured for exhibit. I look at the water flows that are coming around
the property. ,
As you can see, we have some water oozing out of Lake
Trafford and going through Camp Keais Strand. And we also have
water going to the west through Corkscrew.
Essentially John -- Mr. Passidomo, characterized this correctly,
this is an upland peninsula. The water splits in two directions. There's
not a lot of topographical relief in the area and so it's kind of difficult
to determine which direction. It just splits.
So we have two points of discharge. One goes into the little
finger. Bob, if you can point it out. The northeast. Okay, just
fundamentally establish one point of discharge. The other point of
discharge is over to the east, Bob. Right there.
And I just want to clarify one thing about the existing
conditions. The agricultural site is surrounded by a berm. It's -- you
know, it's generally isolated from discharging. What's happening is, is
the ago operations, they're vested operations, they're pumping into
those two areas, primarily, that are water resource conservation areas
or detention facilities, essentially, and then the water is then allowed
to ooze out. Those areas are, you know, bermed off.
Page 52
June 5, 2008
So right now the discharge from pump discharge goes in those
areas, and it's kind of controlled and then goes off site. But there are
berms around the entire site.
Second thing to look at is the control elevation. I've got to tell
you, this was a tough site to establish control. And the reason it was a
tough site to establish control is because it's really altered for
agricultural operations. And the tomatoes and the various things that
they grow out there like a certain water level, and it's pumped to
maintain that.
And what happens is when you have a long period of time, then
it's very difficult to figure out what the normalized or natural water
table condition is. You know, essentially the hydro-biological
indicators in the wetlands start shifting to a pump condition, and the
peaks that you observe out there start not really emulating, you know,
what's naturally occurring out there. So it's a tough site to establish a
control elevation.
But one thing that we did try to do and we realized very quickly
is that the wetlands that are out there, and I think Tim didn't really
elude to this that much, but are shifted to a wetter regime because
they're pumped. You know, the water has shifted. And what we want
to do is we want to get them back to a more normalized pattern of
water table and inundation.
So what we did is we went through several iterations of
establishing control. I look at, you know, topography, and the
topography ranged from 20.5 to 22.5. So, you know, I established a
20.5 at first and then we did, you know, our first round of hydro-
biological indicators and that came out with another number.
And essentially if you look -- to make a long story short, it's an
educated professional opinion, and it can vary half a foot either
direction. We're working it out with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection right now.
But the mean on the site of what we consider normalized
Page 53
June 5, 2008
elevations that were established by going off the site to try to get
wetlands that weren't altered by pumping is 20.95. There is some
historical evidence that it was slightly higher than that. That's written
in the EIS, .5. So we used a number of21.
And we're still working with the agencies to, you know, finalize
that number. We're still working with the littoral zone, you know,
designs to get that number finalized.
But this is fairly preliminary stage in the process. We've already
been through one RAI with the FDEP. And, you know, the state
permitting process will result in a good wetland and control elevation
for the site, I'm pretty confident about that.
So I wanted to touch on that, because I've been informed that
that may be an issue and wanted to touch on that in a little bit more
detail.
So let's move on to, you know, how it's actually going to work.
Establish control elevation, establish the outfall locations. They're
based on trying to go back to a, you know, pre-management condition.
The site's already bermed, it's already isolated. We're discharging a
little bit too much water. We're going to try to discharge a little less
water and we're going to try to go back to those natural conditions.
So those are the basic parameters of the design.
Now, let's go -- actually go to work. So what happens here is,
you know, we're processing rock, we're digging. And essentially the
first phase of the work is going to occur where you see the dark blue
lake -- Bob, you can point that out -- and the little dark blue lake and
the yellow area. There you go.
The yellow area is our processing plant. We will be excavating
material from the entire site. And what you see there are cells. This
isn't the final configuration of the site. We'll go into that a little bit in a
minute.
But we have our processing plant, we excavate from the darker
blue lakes. We build up the ground surface to build our processing
Page 54
June 5, 2008
plant area, which is in the yellow. We isolate that portion of it from
the rest of the agricultural operations, which are also isolated from the
outside portion of the site. And we begin our processing.
The initial material is, you know, washed down and so on and so
forth. The fines and silts essentially end up into the settling pond or
the tailings pond, which is the dark blue small pond. Exactly.
That will begin to fill. But as that begins to fill with material, the
other lake, the larger deep blue lake, will become available to accept,
you know, the finer materials that are being washed off the rock. And
again, it's isolated from the rest of the world so that we don't have any
sediment transport. It's got berms around it, three feet.
We'll be constantly expanding our berm system to where we
actually, you know, ultimately encompass the entire property. And
then we're going to move from one cell to the other.
So we'll go from -- and this is schematic -- you know, right now
the plan is to move from the dark blue to the lighter blue to the darker
blue going to the east. But it could go in other directions.
It's kind of irrelevant which way it goes operationally. It just
depends on, you know, what's more cost effective to excavate and
what's going on logistically in the plant and so on and so forth.
But the plan right now is to go from the darker blue to the lighter
blue to the deeper blue over to the right.
The materials will be brought back to the processing plant either
through conveyors or, you know, through trucks, and they'll be
washed down and then that deeper blue lake will start to fill.
The lakes are about 40 feet deep, so there will be a sediment
plume, I guess, in that darker blue lake. But it won't be shallow
enough to not achieve the minimum depth criteria pursuant to the
Collier County excavation ordinance.
So essentially that's how it works. What you're seeing in there
are little causeways. Bob, can you point out the causeways? Yeah,
there you go.
Page 55
June 5, 2008
We need to get around the site somehow. Those ultimately are
going to be taken out. What you're going to be left with here is a large
lake.
And another important element, and that's the size of the final
lake. Right there. And what you see in there in that light pink is an
access from north to south, the little sliver, that will be left in there.
And there'll be an area, a widened area, so that the lakes are
completely interconnected.
Now, put back the other plan real quick?
An important element of any large-scale excavation, any
excavation, any hole in the ground, in my opinion, is to plan for an
ultimate discharge location. During the excavation of the lake, we're
not going to discharge. There's risk for sediment plume, transport, et
cetera. So we're isolated from the rest of the world out there by virtue
of our berms.
We're going to do it gradually in order to wean the wetlands off
of the discharge they're seeing from the pumps, but also because
logistically we're not going to go out there and excavate all of it at one
time.
So what's going to happen is, is we're going to widen our area of
excavation, widen our isolation berm, and we'll ultimately achieve the
final lake that you saw there.
When we're done with that -- so up to that point it's going to be
zero discharge. When we're done with that, what we need to do is we
need to establish a discharge pattern similar to what we believe existed
pre-man. And that's why I started out with this conversation, is what I
do is I look at the satellite imagery and I say where did the water go?
It went in two directions.
How much went in two directions?
Well, nature and topography actually dictate that.
So what we did is we put it in two directions. And the way it's
going to discharge is we have a series of fairly large pipes that will
Page 56
June 5, 2008
extend into the lakes. This is when the excavation is completely
through, we have no sediment in the water column, you have nice,
clean, clear blue lakes.
We'll put pipes in the lakes. These pipes will then go to -- they'll
have control -- their control structures. They'll then discharge into
spreader swales, because we don't like point discharges into wetlands.
And those spreader swales will ooze the water out into the wetlands
that Tim is going to have some design for mitigation, removal of
exotics, some scrape-down, so on and so forth.
And then nature and topography and the regional ground water
level will dictate where the water will go.
And that's essentially the plan, that when we walk away from the
property, we've left a sizable lake with a planned discharge location
that will discharge, you know, clean water and at that point in time
will let nature take over and it will go wherever it goes regionally.
But the control elevation was tough, I've got to tell you. And
we're still working on that. And there's something called adaptive
management. You know this thing's going to be here for, I don't know,
10 years or something like that. So at the end of the day, you know, if
we see a need to modify that control, since we haven't put the control
structures in until the end of the operations, we'll probably end up
doing that. Because, you know, we have success criteria to achieve in
the wetlands and, you know, it's expensive to have to replant and redo
things, so we want to get it right.
And I think that's -- have I touched on everything? That's the end
of my presentation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the timing is good, because we
need to take a break. And we'll come back here at 10: l5 and resume.
Maybe Vanna White's going to talk to us then. Mr. Mulhere. First time
I've ever seen him play the -- yeah.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their
Page 57
June 5, 2008
seats, we'd like to move forward with the rest of the presentation by
the applicant on the Hogan Island Quarry, ifthere's more presentation.
I don't know if Mr. Mulhere was going to do more than point to
pictures.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, that's the close of our presentation.
We're prepared to respond to questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the most silent I've ever seen Bob
at a meeting, so -- that's the most talkative I've ever seen out of
Emilio, too, so --
We'll start with questions then from the Planning Commission of
the applicant, and then we'll move into staff report.
Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is let's go fast
forward l5 years down the road. What is the asset to the community
that this would be? You're done mining, you've stopped operation.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me ask Mr. Mulhere to respond to that.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, besides the obvious asset that this is
FDOT quality grade materials and that we have a very strong need for
that at a lesser price than we're going to pay if we have to import it
from somewhere outside of Collier County?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question was 15 years--
MR. MULHERE: Well, I know, 15 years, those roads that we're
building with this aggregate will be in place.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they won't sink. There's a
bunch of roads around the county that aren't sinking.
MR. MULHERE: At less cost than you would otherwise
experience. I mean, I don't know what's -- you know, this is an earth
mine. Are earth mines expected to have some sort of a long-term
benefit to the community?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I grew up in a part of the
country that had strip mining, so I could give you a long answer to
that.
Page 58
June 5, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah, but this isn't strip mining.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me try to follow up on it. Roads,
obviously, but there are others. We hope we're left with a large lake
with forage habitat area for wading birds and other critters. Significant
groundwater recharge. Restored flow ways and restored and connected
wetlands within the off-site mitigation area. We think that's what we're
going to be left with after l5 years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question about the
groundwater recharge.
Isn't there more evapotranspiration from a lake than there is from
dry upland land surfaces?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You looking around for cover?
MR. ROBAU: No. But I have an expert that can answer that.
And if you'd please stand up, thank you. With a lot of experience. But
they point to me.
MR. MacVICAR: My name is Tom MacVicar. I'm a registered
civil engineer practicing in West Palm Beach, Florida.
How much evaporation there will be is very site specific.
Typically an upland would have probably less evaporation than an
open water lake. But again, it depends on -- it's site specific.
It may be less evaporation if it was a wetland, lake may be less.
The lake has an advantage in terms of recharge by not having runoff
and collecting rainwater than not having to get rid of it the way you
have to do if you're farming the site.
So if you do a net water balance on it, you come out far ahead
with a lake post-mining than you would with a farm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just have another question.
We're going to be displacing 900 acres of agriculture and all the
people who are working in those agriculture jobs. The intent of the
RLSA land designation was to prevent the premature loss of prime
Page 59
June 5, 2008
agricultural land.
My question -- well, it's not really a question, I guess it's more of
a comment: Where will all those acres of agriculture and those people,
those jobs be displaced to? It's a comment, not a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any more
questions?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
I just want to find out what happened on the well sites. You folks
have indicated you're not inclined to go along with that idea. Was any
offer or any credit, any kind of money, any kind of consideration
offered in return for your well sites?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir. And even ifthere was, we're not in
a position to accommodate it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I just wanted to get that on
the record, if you would.
I noted that for whatever reasons the choice was made about
approximately 1,200 round trips per day worst case scenario. I don't
know why that number was put in there. You do have 198.
But with a 24-hour operation, that seemed to me a small number,
198. Now, I guess it has to do with the size of the trucks, et cetera. But
is that really where we're going with this? Can we forecast?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: We can. And again, it's mining operations
for 24 hours. It's --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but the result of the
mining operation is you've got to do something with the material,
right? You're not going to store it all, right?
MR. PASSIDOMO: But the plant is limited to l6 hours.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the 16-hour activity will
generate 198 trips a day.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
Page 60
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's a round trip, is it?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's really half of that taking
aggregate out. Okay.
There are a lot of questions that -- the one that I had was the
most significant in my mind was the noise. But 1'11 go to the wildlife
crossing versus the yellow lights. I wondered whether or not the
yellow lights was a fair offering in value compared to the contribution
you'd have to have made for a wildlife crossing. Does that have
anywhere near an equal value for your proportionate share?
MR. PASSIDOMO: We think it does, Mr. Murray. But that's the
prerogative of the county. We're prepared to do either one. In fact, we
made that offer clear before the EAC and we'll reiterate it in front of
the CCPC, that we're prepared to make our fair share contribution
towards the cost of the wildlife crossing at Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I misunderstood then.
I got the impression that you were more inclined to offer the yellow
lights as opposed to being a participant in the wildlife crossing. You're
saying it could be either one without reservation?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: There might be an immediate benefit
because the improvements won't be made for some time in the future.
So if the county perceives some benefit to the alternative, we'd be
happy to provide the alternative. But if the county wanted us to
contribute on a fair share basis to the cost of the wildlife crossing,
we'd be happy to accommodate that as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wish that the panthers
understood what the yellow lights mean, that's all. Appreciate that.
Okay, that really -- there are a lot of questions potential, but I'm
sure our Chairman has a lot more. I'm good for the moment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms.
Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The asphalt plant, is that still on
Page 61
June 5, 2008
the table?
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir, it's not. I think the staff report
makes that clear. The notice, however, was prepared based on the
original submittal, but there is no asphalt batch concrete plant as part
of the proposal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the easternmost property
line, can you put the -- one of the commitments that you had made to
the EAC was that there be 350 feet of setback from the HSA. Can you
just show me where that is.
MR. MULHERE: Right here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so that -- now, a minute ago
the other gentleman was up there saying that there was going to be a
road over there. So is it a setback from -- or is it a road?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, there's no road in that area, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, then point to me about
where he was talking about, because he said all the way to the east.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Let me ask Mr. Robau to respond to that.
MR. ROBAU: Yes, Emilio Robau for the record again.
I guess there's a misunderstanding. It's the -- Bob, can you point
to the north-south centrally located -- there it is. That causeway there
is actually going to be excavated out. Most of it.
Excuse me, there's going to be an interconnect between the lakes
and that causeway will be left. On the other larger scale copy, we just
didn't point to the right location. There are no roads over there to the
east.
You see the larger scale? Can you point to the little pink thing?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. ROBAU: That's where Bob was supposed to point to. And
he did. He claims he did. And I believe him, I guess.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You can leave that up there for a
minute, because I have another question.
Page 62
June 5, 2008
Up at the top, the darker sort of crosshatching there, is that the
145-foot setback from HSA's?
MR. HALL: That's actually going to be a created littoral zone. It
will serve as a setback as well from the actual lake proper, but it will
be an excavated littoral zone.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it will be an excavated littoral
zone.
And what's the width of that?
MR. HALL: The width right now, I believe what we have it
shown is 125 feet, I think is what's shown.
MR. MULHERE: The total width of the setback there is l45
feet, including the uplands setback and the littoral planting area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I did have an -- I can't
resist the issue of the noise, okay, because we do have an obligation to
protect our citizens. And this brought it to my mind clearly again, this
particular presentation, this document.
The -- if it's already answered correctly, that's -- the processing
is on the southern portion of the property. And if! recall from that
perimeter map, the homes are on the southern portion. I thought I saw
that. I may have --
MR. PASSIDOMO: I think you did, but the nearest home is 1.2
miles away.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize that. Well, I'm thinking
of the nighttime, lovely country out there, noise. And I'm just
wondering, do you -- I don't know if you have a wall there. What
sound attenuation do we have in that location? And I think that would
be something to talk about here.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me see who's best prepared to respond
to that.
I think we want to at first address the extent of the noise and then
Page 63
June 5, 2008
how you attenuate that noise and how likely it is to carry.
Let me see if someone can testify as to exactly what kind -- what
extent of noise we --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's your prerogative.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Our blasting expert, Jeff Straw, will
respond to that.
MR. STRAW: Good morning. For the record, Jeffrey Straw,
vice president and area manager of GeoSonics. We're seismologists as
well as noise consultants.
At l.2 miles, the likelihood of even hearing the plant is pretty
slim and nil. The operations -- the crushing operations typically have,
you know, the distribution stackers, the primary crushers there. That's
in an elevated area. But the machinery is down into -- you know, into
the actual crushing part of it.
It's a concrete structure that material falls in. It's distributed by
conveyor belts. And there's not a lot of noise produced by that itself.
The other, we have traffic on Immokalee Road. Most of that's
going to buffer that. I mean, this is not a site that we've done an
extensive noise evaluation on. But, you know, other ones that we've
done at a mile and a half, we're looking at, you know, less than what
your noise code would, you know, permit anyway. So you're within
the guise of the codes.
As they develop material and begin to stack material, that also
helps buffer the plant. So, you know, as you crush material, different
grades of material will go out from the primary crusher and they're
stacked. That kind of produces a buffer. Part of that's design.
And I think part of this comes back, you know, at the end during
part of the excavation program. Some of these things, noise and
lighting I think were things that were going to be addressed as part of
the excavation program anyway. That's why I don't have as much
detail.
But if that helps you, I think in a mile and a half the likelihood
Page 64
June 5, 2008
of anybody hearing this operation is pretty slim.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to thank you for that. I'm
glad that we had that question resolved, because I think it's an
imperative that we do in every instance concern ourselves. Now, you
knew that, I didn't know that, now we all know that. Thank you.
MR. STRAW: I appreciate it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question to follow up on
that for a minute.
Our noise code, is it the same for the urban area as it is for the
rural area?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating
that the nearest house 1.2 miles away is across Immokalee Road. And
in each of our three neighborhood information meetings, the question
of noise never arose. .
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's on the record.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a few.
You're willing to -- you're willing to accept all the EAC
recommendations?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow-up to the discussion that
just started, I wasn't going to start there but it seemed appropriate. One
of the recommendations was that the applicant proposes to provide a
lighting and noise abatement control plan. And that will be obviously
prior to the excavation permit.
Just out of curiosity, has anybody looked at how they think
they're going to abate the noise and lighting, in particular, since you
Page 65
June 5, 2008
don't think you have a noise problem now?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'll respond to it.
We know we don't have a noise problem as far as humans are
concerned. Let me see if Mr. Mulhere can respond to the broader
question.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, we did have some discussions,
and the folks at Rinker, obviously they operate sites around the state,
around the country.
There are some things that can be done. There are -- you know,
the requirement that trucks have the backup beep, beep, beep, that can
be done through a strobe as opposed to a sound. That's just one
example.
There are many other examples of how -- you know, the
tailgates, if they're banging loud, you can put some -- there are some
buffering materials you can put in to cause that noise to be reduced.
That sounds like a shotgun or a gun blast otherwise.
Lighting is a shielding question. It's really a shielding question.
You have to shield the lights.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in spite of the fact that you believe
you're going to be consistent with the noise ordinance, you're still
going to provide that abatement for noise control --
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as well as the lighting, obviously, to
the EAC at the time that you apply for your excavation permit.
MR. MULHERE: Really, it's best management practices.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just wanted to make -- Ms.
Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And because it's not only humans
that they have to worry about out there, it is actually the wildlife that
will be most affected, the Wood Storks and panther out there that will
be the most affected by the noise and the lighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on the EAC
Page 66
June 5, 2008
recommendations, in our staff report they provided a page of
recommendations.
On the second page they have a sentence, staff put this sentence
in, talking about voluntary commitments. These conditions will be
evaluated in full prior to the approval and issuance of an excavation
permit and may be considered as mandatory at that time.
When we met I mentioned to you why wouldn't we just consider
mandatory now. They seemed pretty reasonable. No dewatering, and it
goes on with typical issues. You had expressed to me you didn't have
a concern with that. Is that still true?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It is, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we had
proffered them as mandatory before the EAC, and there was some
confusion over whether they were prepared to accept them at that
level. So we just offer them as voluntary commitments, but we're very
happy to make them mandatory and do them within the conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're such standard conditions, I don't
know why we just wouldn't accept them now and that just makes it
that more solid that that'll happen. So I certainly would recommend
that we accept the one through eight conditions as mandatory, as part
of the stipulations from the EAC.
Number five talks about blasting. And it says blasting will be
limited to one blast per day or an average of two or three blasts per
week.
That leaves it ambiguous for someone to argue, well, on an
average from two or three we only meant two, we didn't really mean
three. Why don't we just say on an average not to exceed three blasts
per week. Do you have an objection to that?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I think that's an improvement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It also talks about in that same
paragraph that blasting after 3:00 p.m. but no later than 5:00 shall be
Page 67
June 5, 2008
permitted only if blasting during regular hours is prevented or
interrupted by adverse weather conditions.
And I mentioned this to you, what is adverse? I mean, adverse, if
I walk out today, someone could say it's too sunny, it's too hot, it's
adverse to us.
Do we have a way of defining that so staff has a way of
regulating and complainants have a way of saying this is not supposed
to be have been done this way?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's really electrical storms, lightning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so does staff understand that?
MR. SCHMITT: I think we would want -- I believe we want to
define that it is in the event or threat of thunderstorms. I think that's
the way it would have to be worded or, you know, through lightning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Electrical or lightning storms?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you could also have a
sudden windstorm, you know, that isn't associated with -- you know,
so you're getting into -- I thought adverse was pretty well understood.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, here the issue is with the electrical
blasting caps, the premature detonation. That's what they're concerned
about is the electrical storms that may create a premature detonation of
explosives. That's the safety issue --
MR. BELLOWS: That's not good.
MR. SCHMITT: -- that's the whole issue here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's one depth further
than I gave consideration for. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a word that we could use
better than adverse that would still meet your needs?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me ask Mr. Straw to address the
question, because I think that staff has addressed exactly the nature of
the concern. But let me ask him to elaborate.
MR. STRAW: For the record, Jeffrey Straw with GeoSonics.
Page 68
June 5, 2008
The issue that we would have is electrical storms, whether you
have -- and I hate to say severe because, you know, that again is a, you
know, definitive thing. But typically most operations will shut down
explosives use when there are electrical storms present. So that means
the onset of an afternoon thunderstorm. We all know how they, you
know, are here.
The potential for a lightning strike at or near one of the surface
connections, whether it's electric, non-electric, could set off the shot.
Now, with the caveat, we've put this in 3:00 to 5:00 so that, you know,
we're trying to stay out those late afternoon hours.
But you also need to understand, the State Fire Marshal regulates
explosives use within the state. So if they tell these guys you can't
sleep something; in other words, typically we have an afternoon -- it
gets close to 5:00, you know, they call the fire marshal and say we
need to sleep the shot over the night. The fire marshal may say no, you
will shoot that shot at some point in time before 6:00, 7:00 like, you
know, daylight hours kind of thing.
Those kinds of things come and they would supersede that. But
for a safety issue we'd be looking at electrical storms. I don't know
whether that -- you know, I can't give you a distance either,
unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would -- even to go broader, I
just didn't -- adverse is way too lax from my perspective, since I have
been in litigation that utilized that word and it becomes very
problematic.
MR. STRAW: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather see we add something
like prevented or interrupted by electrical or thunderstorms. That
covers you if it's pure electrical, but if a downpour happens that you
just can't operate, it covers you for that too, and you should be.
MR. STRAW: I don't think any operator would have a problem
with that, as far as that goes.
Page 69
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a concern?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's utilize that then.
You've answered a lot of the questions I had, so I was going to
try to get down to just the ones that are left.
Emilio, I know that you're dying to talk more about the -- your
control elevation. So come on up.
No, I do have a question. Why don't we get into that right now.
Your control elevation, you provided some lines and elevations
from wetlands adjacent to the property. And you did that on Page 27
of the EIS, or maybe you didn't, but Tim did. And I don't know if
Tim's too knowledgeable on water management as much as you are,
so 1'11 turn to you for the question.
I ran those numbers and came back with 20.5 as the average. I
know you're setting it on a highest one of those elements. And you've
set your control at 2l and your berms are higher than that, obviously.
But I keep reading throughout the EIS that the control elevation is set
to help or improve the hydroperiods of the wetlands.
At 21 your control elevation is only going to overspill during
extremely buildup of high rain events. By then the wetlands are
already at their peaks as well.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying to me it seems
to be a little bit disingenuous to say that when the wetlands are all
flooded at their highest points and your discharge is working because
it's triggered its highest point, you're helping the wetlands even more
by flooding them further.
Is that reasoning wrong?
MR. ROBAU: No, the reasoning is correct. But I don't think--
quite understand how we've designed it. Remember, I said that it's --
this is a difficult site to assess what the normalized groundwater and
wetland elevations are. By the numbers, if you take the mean -- you
took the average, and I maybe suspect that you took the average of the
Page 70
June 5, 2008
third full paragraph down, Page 27.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
MR. ROBAU: Okay. I didn't write this section, but I agree with
the conclusion that the team came to.
If I had to critique this, I think we probably threw a whole bunch
of numbers in here that didn't necessarily need to be in here, because
they are background, a database of information that we conclude
things from.
The way I look at it and the way I agree with this is that
essentially in the first paragraph you say -- we say that we took the
seasonal high water table elevations which, by the way, the District
forces us to design essentially, from my experience, to the months of
August, September and October. All right?
The basis of review says the average wet season water table. The
average wet season water table is lower, because it's June through the
end of October. And I've battled this many, many times. But the
bottom line is, is the ecologists and the environmental agencies want
to be conservative.
And in their minds they want to push that -- you know, the
control elevation as high as they can possibly justify it. But by the
numbers, if you take the mean -- in the first paragraph, the mean, not
the average, the midpoint -- between 20.l, okay, and 21.8, that mean
is 20.95. All right?
If you average the numbers that you've averaged, it is 20.5,
about.
But in the second paragraph, there's also a statement by the
ecologist, because the ecologist wrote this, okay, that says that there's
evidence that the water table off-site is as much as potentially a half a
foot higher.
So being the engineer I've got to look at all these things. I've got
my recommendations from various sources. I'm the guy who has to
sign and seal it. If I shot, I shot slightly high. That's supposed to be the
Page 71
June 5, 2008
elevation that water is achieved on the site pursuant to the way the
agencies interpret this, whether it's South Florida or DEP, in August,
September and October.
So at 21, what that says is after you've had July and June of the
rainfall events and the beginning of August, that the water table
elevates up sufficiently in a natural condition with no pumping to start
oozing off the site at elevation 2l for August, September and October,
and potentially the first part of November, if we have a real wet year.
Now, is that unreasonable? I don't think it's an unreasonable
estimate at this point in time.
Could it go down? The answer is yes, you know, it could go
down.
The other corroborating evidence that you look at is the actual
topography on the site, which ranges from elevation 20.5 to elevation
22.5.
And Tim, do you have the UDAR? LIDAR shows it without the
numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't -- I believe you. Those fields
were all laser leveled for the water and everything --
MR. ROBAU: It's supposed to look -- well, the LIDAR shows --
it's supposed to ooze off the site at elevation 2l. Could it ooze off the
site at elevation 20.5 to elevation 2l ? The answer is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've made your point and I
understand it. But what I was trying to tell you is that I keep finding
repeated statements in this EIS that says, such discharges will help
enhance the hydroperiods. But really they're not doing that, the
hydroperiods are already saturated at the time these overflow. It's the
only caveat I was trying to make.
MR. ROBAU: Yes, and it enhances it because we're also
reducing the pump discharges.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't pump discharge during
the peak overflow periods because you don't have any crops in the
Page 72
June 5, 2008
ground because you're flooded.
MR. ROBAU: Well, but they do have some --like in November,
for instance, you know, there's some situations in November where
you've planted at the end of August, you got the tomatoes in the
ground, you get a heavy rainy season and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that doesn't correspond to a peak
discharge of -- cresting over 2l, over what a lake --
MR. ROBAU: No, it just keeps them super hydrated, is what I'm
saying. We're taking those pump discharges away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Emilio, I understand how you got
there and that's fine. I was pointing out a whole different cause. But
we're okay.
MR. ROBAU: I didn't write that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. Environmentalists have a
funny way of writing things sometimes, don't they?
I want to make sure I've got everything I was going to ask you.
Most of my stuff involved that.
Depth of your dig. How deep do you plan on digging?
MR. MULHERE: The depth is estimated to be 40 feet or the
confining layer. And we have that information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too. What do you consider a
confining layer?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm going to defer to the expert. I'm not
even going to attempt to do that one, because it varies. It varies
through the site, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. STEPHENS: My name is Mark Stephens. I'm a licensed
professional geologist in the State of Florida. Also a licensed
professional engineer.
Examining the boring logs that were -- there were over 60
borings done on the property to determine the stratigraphy that's on
the property. This is a limerock mining operation. The idea is to mine
Page 73
June 5, 2008
the limestone that's there.
Below the limestone is a -- is the confining layer for the lower
aquifer below that. And it's an unconsolidated material. It's not
limestone. So that will be the determining depth on the mining, to try
to mine only the limestone and process that.
If we mine the finer materials below that, it's just going to be
material that's washed back into the lake. So there will be no mining
down into the unconsolidated materials below that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Because I checked. The lowest I can find the limerock going is about
37 feet, but it averages closer to 30 feet in that area. And the thickness
of it varies as well.
I just didn't know if you were planning to excavate below the
limerock to any depth. I couldn't see what you'd need the silt for
below that.
MR. STEPHENS: No, there's no commercial use for that.
And here's a schematic of that, just kind of a schematic showing
the bottom of the rock, the top of the confining unit undulates. Also
the top of the rock undulates, but that would make the drawing too
complicated. But the idea is to mine just the limestone material.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
John, in our meeting I asked you if you would have any problem
committing, since your EIS seems to allude to it, all the mitigation
requirements on Pages 29,30 and 31 of the EIS. And at the time you
didn't see a problem with that. Do you see a problem with that today?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Conceptually, no, but let me ask Mr. Hall to
respond to it in a broader sense.
MR. HALL: And I mean, I don't think we have any problems
committing to those requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I mean, you put them in your
EIS, and I thought you did that because you intended to use that for
mitigation. If you did, fine.
Page 74
June 5, 2008
Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: There is one caveat -- Bob Mulhere, for the
record.
The only caveat that I would offer is that to the degree that any
of those commitments are altered through the jurisdictional permitting
process, which is a possibility, maybe they're made greater or lesser.
You know, if we're required to commit to those at the county, that's n
MR. HALL: Yeah. And I guess I should clarify. I was reminded
also that I didn't actually introduce myself to you guys. I'm a wildlife
biologist. My degree is from the University of Florida. I've been
working here in Collier County for the last lO years. I've been -- I
grew up here. You know, my entire life has been spent here in the
county and on these properties. So just to get that done.
And in addition to the agencies, as Mr. Mulhere said, we're (sic)
also been having conversations with the folks at Corkscrew. So there
may be some minor modifications. But in terms of actually restoring
those and those areas being used as mitigation for the project, that's
the intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, going back to the geology,
there's no clay confining layer above 40 feet?
MR. STEPHENS: Mark Stephens, for the record.
No, there is no clay confining layer above 40 feet. We basically
have an overburden material that is sandy, underlain by a limestone
material, and underlain by a finer grain, silt clay sand material.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- one of the statements in the EIS
talks about moving the off-site mitigation areas into conservation
easements required by the county pursuant to the LDC. In the same
paragraph it talks about they're going to be an inclusion into a future
SSA. I spoke to you about this. You can't do both.
Page 75
June 5, 2008
Do you want to explain that so that we know for the record.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me ask Mr. Mulhere to give you the
specifics.
MR. MULHERE: I think we recognize that if at the time that we
place those lands into a conservation easement, if we have not already
declared them to be a stewardship sending area and had that approved,
we will not be able to go back, because you can't have a stewardship
sending area over a conservation area.
However, it's a question of timing. If it's done simultaneously or
one before the other, then we would be able to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I know we've had issues ofa
timing of conservation easements on another projects. In fact, there's
one project in particular that should have put theirs up possibly earlier
and it still to this day may not be put up.
What is the timing on the requirement for a conservation
easement?
MR. BELLOWS: That's a good question. I'm not -- maybe--
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It will be spelled out in the permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It will be identified in the permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Only reason I'm asking is do they
have the time available to make that choice? And if they didn't and
needed some kind of stipulations to that, that can happen. I don't have
a problem with that, I just want to make sure it doesn't confuse the
issue down the road.
MR. MULHERE: I think the assumption was the decision would
be made pretty quickly but that we do have to go back through the
process as it relates to the excavation permit process. And we would
know by that time one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
I have a lot of transportation issues. I'm not sure -- not a lot. I
should say I have some transportation issues. I guess they're more of a
Page 76
June 5, 2008
request of some of the future comments I heard from the county than
they are of your transportation consultant. And they involve the one
dollar per truck.
And I understand that Nick may be able to answer that question.
He's coming up now.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation Planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you have in here a one dollar per
truck like we have in others.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I understand there might be some
study going on that might change that and that the language needs to
be reflective of that possibility.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There are two studies going: Impact
fee study for mining operations and a road maintenance study for
mining operations as well, too.
One dollar per truck was voluntary with the applicant, because
we gave him the option of maintaining the roadway around the site or
using that dollar per truck surcharge for every heavy loaded vehicle
that left the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the way the language of the
conditional use stipulations written sufficient to cover the change that
might occur in that one dollar per truck?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the discussion was that it said
if the county came up with a study that it raised it higher or lower, that
the applicant would, you know, in fairness adjust that if it was a
countywide ordinance or fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But we would need to stipulate
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I'm getting at. It has --
Page 77
June 5, 2008
the language that's in the current conditions, are you covered by that
language or does it need to be modified?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It needs to be modified to say that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a methodology in
mind or do you have a paragraph or something that sets it out?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We talked about it but we didn't set it
out. I think I discussed it with the county attorney that we would put
something together that said in the event the county comes up with a
road maintenance fee rate for mining operations or asphalt plants for
heavy vehicles, it would be adjusted accordingly, that one dollar
vehicle charge.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Once Nick gets his studies done, we're
going to go to the board. It will either be done by resolution or
probably by ordinance, at which point in time the applicant, I assume,
will agree on the record to abide by whatever that fee would be. It
could be more, it could be less.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hey, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this a dollar per truck per trip?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Dollar per truck for heavy loaded
vehicle leaving the site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For a loaded vehicle.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the return is not a cost --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- associated with that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Consistent with other applications that
have come forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of asking you to come back up
again during the presentation by staff, while you're here, the idea that
you could meet and work out the eastbound acceleration lane with the
applicant between now and the BCC, is that acceptable to you?
Page 78
June 5, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the options is their
transportation consultant is doing like a gap study to determine what
the gaps are for vehicles coming on that roadway. The gap study
doesn't take into consideration future traffic.
So to answer that question, I'd like to leave it open when we do
the traffic analysis on a year-by-year basis. If they want to leave it at
the county's discretion, that's what we talked about.
So the language that's in there right now I'm happy with. It's at
our discretion. If we can come up with something that works, great. If
not, we'll have them build the eastbound acceleration lane.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the conditions of the
transportation section for this conditional use, you're comfortable with
in that regard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Passidomo, you brought the
issue up. Are you not comfortable with those?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with what
Mr. Casalanguida said, but I don't think that's what the condition says.
The condition says there will be an eastbound center acceleration lane.
What we want to do is be afforded the same flexibility to have a
conversation until we go before the Board of County Commissioners
and abide by whatever the conclusion of that conversation may be.
And I don't think the language says that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- the language doesn't say that,
Nick. In fact, looking at it, it just says you'll do both, east and west. So
it's not as ambiguous as you -- to give you that flexibility.
So maybe if we would strike the words both east and, and leave
it so that's a west acceleration lane, and then revise to work out the
eastbound prior to the BCC for some additional language that would
then give you the flexibility you spoke of, would that be sufficient?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Mulhere put on the record, I don't
think we're going to work this out before the BCC. I wanted -- in
Page 79
June 5, 2008
discussion with the applicant what the thought was is that it would be
required but that they could work with us through the monitoring
process. And if it's not triggered by any traffic analysis, they wouldn't
have to put in for an additional option.
MR. MULHERE: I think the only issue then is that we do need
that time at least to finalize that stipulation, because right now it
requires it. So if we can at least have between now and the Board of
County Commissioners to either come up with another option or to
finalize the language for that option that makes it clear, you know,
how the study's going to occur, when the study's going to occur and
when we would trigger that need, that would be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Works for me.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, they do have to come back
on consent, and they could bring it back then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an easy stipulation to fix. We can
do that before the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's even better. Thank you.
Okay, so that will come back on consent to us. That makes it
eaSIer.
That's the only transpor -- thank you, Nick.
Does anybody else have any transportation items while Nick's
up here?
(No response.)
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, there is one transportation
issue that you may want to pose to Mr. Casalanguida.
As to the fair share contribution to the wildlife crossing, we've
actually shared some language with Mr. Casalanguida. We just did it
this morning. But I don't know ifhe's had an opportunity to review it.
It's reasonably standard in nature.
I'd be happy to share it with you, but you may want to ask him
for his comment concerning that.
Page 80
June 5, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The stipulation as I read on the record
and as Mr. Mulhere is putting on the viewer is fine with us.
MR. MULHERE: Vanna, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it meets your needs. Does
anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission
perspective?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have any understanding
what that number might actually be? I've heard millions of dollars --
or a million dollars.
MR. MULHERE: The information that we have based on our
practical experience is about a million dollars. You're right, that's
going to be higher down the road, you know, obviously. We certainly
would predict that it will be a little higher. But present cost, about a
million dollars.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And when, Mr. Casalanguida, do
you expect that that crossing will be built?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, that road is not in our plan
right now in the five-year, so I couldn't even begin to speculate when
that would be done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not even in the five-year
plan, yet this project will be going forward sooner than that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is the first I've read this
stipulation. I think it's a good idea. It covers us in the future, so if we
do do that crossing at that time, they will pay their fare share.
MR. KLATZKOW: And when they're done with the mining, if
you haven't done the road?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you lose out. If you don't do
it in 10 years, we've lost that commitment, and they're out of the
money.
MR. MULHERE: No, the intent would be that that stipulation
would run with the property. It's a conditional use. The conditional use
Page 81
June 5, 2008
doesn't necessarily expire unless -- I mean, I guess practically it goes
away when the mining is done, I would agree with that. But usually,
stipulation -- typically stipulations --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't there an alternate about the
caution lights?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's more practical.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some point if the county sees that
they're not going to be able to obtain a pro-rata share of this based on
the timing of everything, they could always then opt to go for the
caution lights and then let that play out to the future.
MR. PASSIDOMO: It's the county's option. If you'd like to
provide that you can exercise whatever option you want, both offers
are out there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. And I think we have the
opportunity too to bring this language back for consent as well. And
that way the County Attorney's Office can take a look at it,
transportation can get a good look at it and discuss it with the
petitioner.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one remaining series of
comments I'd like to read for the record, and they were provided by
Nicole Ryan with The Conservancy. I told her we'd get them on the
record. And we ask they be addressed. Some of them I think we
already talked about.
The number one was a concern about the 24-hour operations,
lighting and noise. As an intensive land use activity proposed to be
located adjacent to designated habitat stewardship areas and in close
proximity to flow way stewardship areas, the ability to operate
portions of the mining operation on a continuous 24-hour basis must
be thoroughly assessed.
This provision should not be allowed unless through a
cumulative impact study it is determined that such operations will
Page 82
June 5, 2008
have no detrimental impact on native wildlife utilizing the Camp
Keais Strand and adjacent suitable habitat areas.
Such information has yet to be provided by the applicant, yet
they're asking for approval of the conditional use following a 24-hour
operation.
They're looking at a cumulative impact study. Is that something
you've entertained doing or having started or done?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I don't think it has, Mr. Chairman.
The same question was posed to the EAC, and the EAC took a
very practicable approach to that. And they said we understand this is
three parts of a process. We're only now in the land use part of the
process.
And I suggested in my introductory remarks, we're going to go
through agency review and consultation, and particularly as to this
specific issue we expect that we may go through Section 7
consultation for panther mitigation questions.
When we come back for an excavation permit before the EAC,
we're all going to be a lot better informed about how to do this in an
informed way, and the county is going to have another bite at the
apple at that time to address the specificity of this question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So when it comes back to the
EAC, if the county is not happy with what's been consulted with the
agencies, we can make changes at that point?
MR. PASSIDOMO: As part of the excavation permit you can
require that the study be done. And we have to assure you as to noise
and lighting at that point as far as the excavation permitting.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. I just wanted that
on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed that the EAC in one of their
recommendations was that you provide at that time a lighting and
noise abatement plan. We talked about that earlier. So that may help
Page 83
June 5, 2008
meet some of the intent of this concern.
Another concern was over wildlife impacts from additional
traffic and the possibility of funding a wildlife crossing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Slow, slow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Concern over wildlife impacts from additional traffic and the
possibility of funding for a wildlife crossing.
We've already addressed that, right?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's gotten there.
And the last concern was one I think we've addressed for part of
it. A 300-foot buffer adjacent to HSA's should be required with a
prohibition for a truck haul road to be included within this buffer area.
I think you've acknowledged you're going to provide the buffer
that the EAC has asked for and that you're not putting any haul roads
there. Is that a true statement?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a longer letter. I don't feel it
appropriate to read the whole letter here. There is concerns over noise
and lighting, which again we'll bring up through the noise abatement
plan.
Traffic we've addressed.
Groundwater modeling. Are you doing any groundwater
modeling so that any impacts on the Camp Keais Strand and the
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary would be noticed?
MR. Mac VICAR: 1'11 answer that quickly again. Tom Mac Vicar.
Groundwater monitoring was required by the South Florida
Water Management District for the water use permit, and it has been
done. It's documented in the file. No impact to any off-site wetland
features.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any other questions or concerns from the -- or questions of the
Page 84
June 5, 2008
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll go on to staffs
presentation. Thank you, sir.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BROWN: Good afternoon again. Willie Brown, Principal
Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
At the County Attorney's request, we passed out a revised
finding of fact that I would ask that you use that when it comes time
for you to complete the findings of fact.
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, would have passed it out earlier
during the break. Just want to ensure at this time that you have it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The conditional use form?
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
The only change to it is that it reflects the correct section of the
code pertaining to earth mining.
I will say that the petitioner's project is consistent with the
application -- is not, sorry, consistent with the application on file. As
already mentioned, the asphalt and concrete batch-making plant has
been eliminated from the application. Still shown on the site plan.
That will have to be revised.
Staffs recommending approval of the petition subject to the
conditions of approval. Leading to those conditions of approval I will
recap a few points that were made in the staff report.
Subject property is zoned rural agricultural. Earth mining
activities are permitted as a conditional use in the rural agricultural
zoned district. The property is surrounded by row crops and/or citrus
grove on all four sides, and the nearest resident is over a mile away.
The rural agricultural assessment map shows that the subject
property is identified as RLS open lands. Earth mining activities are
permitted within the open lands designation on lands with a natural
resource index of less than l.2.
Page 85
June 5, 2008
The map also shows that the site does not impact areas
designated as flow way stewardship water retention areas, areas of
critical concern or green land park system.
The environmental services department advises that the property
has an NRI value of less than 1.2.
The EAC on May 7th recommended approval based upon the
following criteria: Submittal of an EIS that demonstrates that the
clearing of native vegetation has been minimized; impact on listed
species and their habitats will not be significant, and adverse; and
impact to aquifers will not be significant and adverse.
The environmental conditions of approval shown in the staffs
recommendations serves as a supplement to ensure that this criteria is
met.
1'11 defer to Susan Mason for questions you may have pertaining
to the environmental conditions of approval.
The traffic assessment -- I understand that Nick Casalanguida
has already been up. 1'11 just say that the transportation department
advises that the TIS concludes there's sufficient capacity on
Immokalee and Oil Well Grade roads. Also that the transportation
conditions of approval more so pertain to the offsets of the impact
and/or costs of maintenance the project would have on the abutting
roadway, such as you've already heard of the dollar in lieu of road
maintenance for every loaded vehicle which exits the site.
Public utilities. Well fields are needed. Just to justify their need,
and you have perhaps already gone through this with -- pertaining to
the other projects related to the requests for well fields. The project is
again not within the Collier County water and sewer district and it's
not a part of any other existing utilities district.
The majority of Collier's -- they want me to note that the
majority of the Collier County well field locations are not within the
Collier County water and sewer district. The project is in an area
where additional public water wells are desirable.
Page 86
June 5, 2008
The wellfield reliability and expansion program plan identifies
the project site as a targeted future well field area for expansion. It is
therefore recommended that the proj ect site be approved subj ect to the
public utilities condition of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Willie, do you have a document
in support of that given to you by the public utilities department where
they show the targeting?
MR. BROWN: No, sir, I don't have that document with me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you received this
information from them by telephone or memo?
MR. BROWN: Well, they document their recommendations in
our CD Plus system and I download their concerns or conditions of
approval and load them into my staff report.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for the mechanics of
it. But the realty is that there is some document, some map,
presumably, that shows targeted areas.
It would certainly add some dimension, I suspect, at least to
allow us to have a further conversation if we had such a document.
And you say we do not have such a document, they don't offer same.
MR. BROWN: I don't have the document. What can I say? I can
be better prepared next time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's not -- I'm not trying to
criticize you --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
As you know, this is an ongoing issue. We've been working with
the utilities department to have something adopted in the Growth
Management Plan regarding these well site locations and how they
come up with their criteria for siting these well sites. But we don't
have that as a compo plan amendment at this time.
MR. SCHMITT: And you also will have, it's coming to you, is
Page 87
June 5, 2008
the water supply plan on a future agenda. And I think at that time you
may want to explore some of these issues with utilities.
Now, that is my comprehensive planning staff will present that
but it's in conjunction with public utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the public utilities needs to
be here, just like transportation, just like environmental services, just
like everybody else. It should not be up to Willie Brown to figure out
what's in the well field reliability and expansion program plan and be
able to sell that through. It is the public utilities department that needs
to be here and do that. And --
MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that, ma'am. And in fact they were
advised and no one is here from public utilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but better yet, they have an
opportunity to buy land, they have an opportunity to provide impact
fee credits, they have an opportunity for condemnation. If they want
this land that's the processes they ought to be looking at, not exactions
to get permits to move forward and slow the process if they don't get
appeased.
So I'm not buying into this now or again until the county passes
ordinances that are legitimate and they take these things into
consideration through a process that's legal, not exactions in front of
this board or the other board. That's just wrong. We shouldn't be doing
it.
So anyway, Mr. Brown, go ahead.
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
Okay, there was a neighborhood information meeting held on
February 13th. There was no objection to the project. There was,
however, considerable discussion about truck traffic, potential
nuisances such as dust and noise and future long-range uses at the
conclusion of the earth mining site. And you've already discussed that
with the applicant.
Page 88
June 5, 2008
Okay, the zoning conditions of approval. Number one, the CU
shall be limited to that which is depicted in the site plan. Again, the
site plan will have to be revised to reflect the elimination of the
asphalt and concrete batch-making plant. The applicant's been put on
notice with regard to that.
Condition number two, the excavation shall be limited to three
lakes, no more than 740 acres.
Condition number three pertains to the conceptual site plan. The
final design must be in compliance with all federal, state and county
regulations.
Condition number four, expansion of uses shall require the
submittal of a new CU application.
There is no condition number five. I understand there's concern
pertaining to hours of operation. You may want to add a condition
pertaining to -- if this were an asphalt and concrete batch-making
plant, the LDC requires hours of operation from sunup to sundown. It
doesn't list specific times, but it gives you that frame of time, sunup to
sundown. And I'll let you stipulate with the applicant what you feel
the hours of operation should be.
Blasting: Your comment related to blasting is noted and will be
added as a stipulation.
I will only add that an additional stipulation perhaps should be
made that no asphalt batch-making plant shall be permitted with this
application.
That's all I have.
Again, environmental, pertaining to the environmental
conditions of approval, I will defer it to Susan Mason.
If you have any questions of me, I'll be more than happy to
entertain those at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the neighborhood meeting,
was that the request for future use of this property? What was that --
Page 89
June 5, 2008
MR. BROWN: There was no request. There was just a question,
what would happen at the conclusion of the earth mining activities.
And no proposed use was proffered at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Willie, in your staff report you
refer to a series of hydrologically connected pipes. What is a
hydrologically connected pipe?
MR. BROWN: I would have to defer to the applicant. That's
something that came up at the EAC meeting and I just documented
what they said.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So what is it, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: The lakes -- you know, for all intents and
purposes at the end it's going to be one lake; however, there's going to
be a causeway that will allow you to traverse north and south.
Underneath that causeway there's going to be pipes to connect those
lakes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So it's a pipe with water in it?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. We could have said it that way.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Technically speaking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the staff
presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN: Okay. Okay, what's on the visualizer pertains to
asphalt and concrete batch-making plants. And this comes from the
LDC Section 4.02. If you go down to number four, hours of operation
shall be limited to two hours before sunrise to sunset.
And I just offer that to you as a recommendation. Because the
use is lesser intensive in terms of what's being proposed in this
application, you could be less restrictive as what's proposed here.
That's all I wanted to point out to you.
Page 90
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, just going to say --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to put something -- huh?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Those were eliminated from --
THE COURT REPORTER: Could you repeat that, please.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry.
Wasn't the asphalt and concrete batch plants eliminated from --
MR. BROWN: It was eliminated.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought I was sleeping.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, he was trying to show us that
there were restrictions for operation hours when it was in here for a
batch plant. We may want to consider putting operation hour
restrictions on the -- say the truck movements versus the 24-hour
operation for the rock handling.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought the truck movements
were under the 16-hour a day.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: They are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's inconsistent with their TIS
then, so that would be a shock.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a TIS that shows 12-hour
operations for the trucks. Page 5 of the TIS. So you either want to redo
your -- how are we going to handle this?
MR. PRICE: For the record, Rob Price, TR Transportation.
Adjusting the hours of operation in the TIS to 16 hours would
actually lower the trip generation on the site. So we looked at it from a
conservative standpoint, saying 12 hours would overestimate the
amount of truck traffic that you would see on the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, would their TIS have to be redone
for a --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's correct. Condensing it into a
12-hour analysis shows more impacts than a 16-hour impact, so we're
Page 91
June 5, 2008
fine with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about this board? Any--
and John, from a 16-hour viewpoint, is that a necessity for you guys?
Because you're getting trucks on the road before sunrise and well after
sunset then, based on that.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: It is, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm still a little confused with the
number 198, and half of that being the round trip. Are we going to do
a truck going out twice in a day?
I don't see how with the numbers we're talking about how we're
going to realize such a small number with such great activity. I don't
get it.
MR. PRICE: The 198 volume is actually a p.m. peak hour
volume. That is -- basically the amount of trucks that we are looking
at per day are 557.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. PRICE: And the 198 is -- what we have done is we've
converted the 557 into peak hour volumes. And then we took the
trucks, and according to the Highway Capacity Manual you can
basically factor those into what would be an equivalent passenger car.
It amounts to a 70 percent increase in the truck traffic.
So we took the amount of trucks that we were looking at,
increased them by 70 percent to equate those as a passenger car. And
then you're talking apples to apples and you can add your passenger
car equivalent trucks plus your passenger cars, that way you get a
turning movement count.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you consider -- and I realize
the arithmetic that you just stated. But is there any -- in the business
plan, if you're acquainted with it, is the intent to have three, four, five
round trips a day?
Page 92
June 5, 2008
You've decided on 12, they're talking l6. I don't know how
many round trips are possible in a given day.
MR. PRICE: It really has no bearing on how many round trips
each truck is making on the site. We basically look at how much
material is going to be moved from the site on a daily basis -- actually
on an annual basis. And we assume a conversion down to get it down
to a daily just by dividing it by the days of operation that the mine will
be open. And then we factored it by the hours per day, and that's how
we got to our material per day.
And also we looked at, you know, material that each truck could
handle, and that's where we come up with our trucks per day.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that, that's easy in a
manual. But the impact in physical fact to people on the roadway is
the other aspect of it.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere.
I think your question was twofold. Your last question was more
operational.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, trying to find out the
impact.
MR. MULHERE: And operationally, the majority of the trips
are -- you know, are going to be early in the morning. And then, you
know, there will be trips throughout the day. And ifthere's demand at
a certain point by a client, you know, a customer for the rock, then
they're going to make more than one trip. Obviously if it's for a
roadway project, for example, to keep up with demand, they'll keep
making the trips.
The majority, the heaviest use time is early in the morning and
then later in the evening.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so my question really
focuses around, have we gotten to the most conservative number that
we can --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 93
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- relate to that would be real for
the time frame of eight or nine years?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, we have. In fact, we up-factored it as he
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's really what I'm talking
about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're also doing semi-annual
monitoring on the facility as well, too, so we're going to keep an eye
on it. If it exceeds what they provided, you know, we can come back
and, you know, review any operational issues.
But there's an adjustment factor or a comfort factor of 10, 20
percent. So there's no issues. And we're also going to get semi-annual
reports as well, too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Wolfley, go ahead. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I guess I paused a little too
long last time regarding that l6 hours. It mean, that's going to take it
from 5:00 in the morning, let's say, till 9:00 at night.
Wasn't there a restriction on dump trucks some time ago from
7:00 a.m. to, what was it, 7:00 p.m., possibly?
How does that -- I guess I'm confused. How did we get four
more hours squeezed in there?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Wolfley, what we want to do is get the
operation done as quickly as we can --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Understood.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and if we can concentrate it in that
eight to 10 years, we need l6-hour operations in order to be able to do
that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so at 12.3 or whatever it
is trucks per hour at a 16-hour day, can we -- I mean there's a problem
with going -- divided by l6.5 trucks per hour is a significant impact or
Page 94
June 5, 2008
more than -- that's four more per hour. I don't get it.
I think what's more of a distraction -- I mean, there's a distraction
going 5:00 in the morning--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, you hit on
something that may be an issue. There's a county ordinance passed by
the Board of County Commissioners specifically addressing road use
of dump trucks.
Number one, they're supposed to keep to the right lane. They
totally ignore that, so we can throw that one out. But their hour of
operation was regulated.
Now, that's not an LDC amendment, that was a county
ordinance, from what I understand. Can a conditional use -- Mr.
Murray, let me finish.
Can a conditional use overwrite a county ordinance? Because we
can't opine on county ordinances here at this board.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Adding to the mix of that
question, I think it's a fair contribution to say I have a recollection, and
perhaps others share it, that at one point there was the issue of school
buses on the road with the trucks, and the county manager was
authorized to change the time to allow them to begin earlier. It was
intended to be an experiment.
That's a recollection, if that adds to this question. Because I too
share that thought about the concern for being on the road a little too
early.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The question--
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Murray, we'll make it clear, we're not
looking to avoid any county ordinance or any aspect of the LDC.
I'm going to ask Mr. Mulhere to try to address the question of
the existing county ordinance. And certainly we'll look forward to
engaging in a conversation with the county attorney.
MR. MULHERE: You know, I can't attest to this with any
Page 95
June 5, 2008
certainty. We could certainly look at it. But I thought that that dealt
with local roads. We're not on a local road. Whether we're going to
have to traverse a local road at a delivery site, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Locally?
MR. MULHERE: No, it's not a local road, it's an arterial road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, I know that it dealt with
roads like 951, or it was supposed to, because part of the problem
occurred when these trucks would get tandem and run down 95l and
back everybody up behind them on purpose.
MR. MULHERE: Well, and that's part of the reason why we do
want the flexibility. And that's the second part of my point. That's why
we want the flexibility for the l6 hours, because that allows us
hopefully to be on the road with the majority of our trips earlier than
we would otherwise be to conflict with, for example, school buses.
I'm not saying that we're not going to be on the road during those
times, but if there's an ordinance that prohibits it, then I guess we have
to deal with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think first we need to find that
answer out.
Mr. Wolfley brought up a good question. If there is an ordinance
out there that limits the time trucks are supposed to be traveling on the
roads, do we know about it, Mr. Klatzkow? It may not have occurred
when you were on board, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, some of it did, actually, just on recall.
But the ordinance trumps. Whatever the ordinance says, they'll have to
comply with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the act of this board or any board
doing anything that's in conflict with the ordinance have any bearing
on that, or does the ordinance still trump?
MR. KLATZKOW: This ordinance will trump.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter what happens here
today, you're subject to the ordinance.
Page 96
June 5, 2008
MR. MULHERE: And we're certainly going to look and see
what it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, did you finish with
your question, since you do pause between them?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think so.
MR. MULHERE: Could I just add one thing in response to your
question? Not to prolong it, but really what we're talking about here is
flexibility. There are times when the plant might not be operating
during the day and might then come back on line. We really need that
flexibility for that 16-hour period. And that's not only for us, but also
to hopefully allow us to make those trips outside of what would be
otherwise, as Mr. Murray indicated, the majority of the trips would be
outside of the times when we'd be conflicting with other users of the
road.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm just going to let it set
with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got one question of environmental
staff, if they're here. Thank you.
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason,
Environmental Services Review Section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Susan, thank you.
Your number six, prior to issuance of an excavation permit, the
applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Policy 5.6.3.F.
If agency permits have not provided for wetland mitigation
consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation
exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies prior to approval.
How can you require something exceeding that of the
jurisdictional agencies? I'm just -- you can only require something
pursuant to the Land Development Code; is that not correct?
Page 97
June 5, 2008
MS. MASON: Correct. In the Land Development Code and the
Growth Management Plan actually for the rural lands can have more
restrictive protection of wetlands than even the jurisdictional agencies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But whatever they have is there
today. It's in the language today. You can't come up with it, it's there,
right?
MS. MASON: I don't quite understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm wondering why we have number six
in here. First of all, they have to abide by the Policy 5.6.3.F, do they
not?
MS. MASON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're redundant in saying
that.
MS. MASON: No, this just hasn't been demonstrated yet. Since
we don't have their agency permits to see how exactly they're going to
be mitigated for, we'll need to evaluate the permit once it gets issued
by the Corps, if they're issuing one, and the DEP, to see if it does
adequately address the wetland impacts on the site.
And if it is consistent with that, they won't have anything
additional. But if it's not consistent with that, they may have more
required at the time.
And this would all be part of the excavation permit when they
are required to have all other agency permits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but instead of saying in the last
sentence the way you said it, could we say this: If agency permits have
not provided for wetland mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier
County will require mitigation consistent with this policy.
MS. MASON: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that policy is in the Future Land Use
Element, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
Page 98
June 5, 2008
MS. MASON: Yes, it's in the Future Land Use Element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only clarification I
think I needed.
Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing, for the
attorney.
There's one thing that's kind of haunting me. And I know we
pulled the asphalt plant out. But does the county need asphalt plants?
I mean, you pulled it out pretty quick so maybe it was a red
herring issue or something, but it seems like it might be a good
location. I don't know what the status of the county is and we're
running away from it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, you're trying to put an
asphalt plant in?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they originally had one. I
just -- we need asphalt plants so this could be a good location for it,
yet we're throwing it out rather quickly.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Schiffer, that has actually been out for
some time. It was actually removed from our application. It wasn't
something that was done in response to any kind of an issue that arose
at the EAC. It's been out for some time. I don't know why it was
removed, but it has been out for some time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no need for asphalt
plants, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This site is a remote site, it
looks like a good place that --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, there might be a need for
it but they're not going to furnish it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant or of staff at this time?
(No response.)
Page 99
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, are there any public speakers,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No, no speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll -- do you have
anything you want to rebut? I think you've done a fairly good job of
answering all their questions, John.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Nothing to rebut. I think we understand the
conditions, Mr. Chairman.
If it would be helpful, I could review each of the conditions that
I think that the commission has come to some consensus on. I can do
it quickly and I can do it in an abbreviated form.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I tell you what, I can do it
probably quicker and better than you, and then at least we know it's
our words and not yours.
MR. PASSIDOMO: No question about it.
One point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. As to any ordinances
that may pertain, there is no attempt to circumvent the ordinance
process or the LDC in any way as pertains to dump trucks on the road.
As to hours of operation, clearly I think we made it clear we
need 16 hours of operation, we need a 24-hour mining operation. But
as to the dump trucks on the road, whatever the county ordinance
pertains, and if it controls, that will dictate what we're able to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read you the stipulations that I
think we might want to consider. And if they're in disagreement with
you, before we go into discussion on the motion, it would be a good
time to bring it up.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, if! may, we just have one staff
clarification to make.
MS. MASON: Excuse me. Thank you. Again for the record,
Susan Mason with environmental services.
I did want to clarify, I know there was a lot of discussion with
this board about the hours of operation, the traffic, and it largely dealt
Page 100
June 5, 2008
with school buses. The EAC did have a concern with traffic. However,
it was more with night traffic due to the panthers and other large
mammals that use that road.
I did just want to kind of differentiate their concerns with this
board's concerns, just so everyone understands that they didn't want to
encourage more night driving when they expressed problems with
that.
And also, this is more of a staff concern about the EAC's review
of the excavation permit. The excavation permit will be reviewed
consistent with what's approved as part of this conditional use, what's
in the LDC and Growth Management Plan. If the applicant does
receive technical assistance from the wildlife agencies, the Growth
Management Plan does contain that language that says that that is
deemed to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
It can result in some contention if their technical assistance is not
deemed adequate by the EAC to protect the wildlife or any other
species. If the EAC wants to put additional restrictions on it above and
beyond what the agencies have, it has often become a problem.
And if you made it part of the conditions of this conditional use,
that is easily enforced. If it's not specifically addressed, it can just be a
bit more awkward.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why I had asked that
question, because I want to make sure that we have that ability if what
comes back from the agencies doesn't seem to protect panther or wood
storks or whatever else we might be as a county trying to protect. I
don't want to have to live with lesser protections.
MR. MULHERE:May I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere.
If I understand what I just heard, there was concurrence on the
part of staff that we are required to get technical assistance, and that
technical assistance, the conditions associated with that as part of the
Page 10 1
June 5, 2008
permit would be required by the comprehensive plan.
And that possibly the EAC might not agree with that and might
have additional considerations that they might wish to place on us,
which we've already acknowledged and understand that that might be
part of the process.
If there's some problem with an EAC condition from our
perspective, we have the right to appeal that to the Board of County
Commissioners. So I don't think it's appropriate to put those at this
point in time when we don't even know what they're going to be.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, put what at this point in
time?
MR. MULHERE: I thought the suggestion was to put the
stipulations that were concerns of the EAC as stipulations of your
conditional use approval. Not their stipulations but their concerns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're getting into a -- I have two
batches of information from the --
MR. MULHERE: Maybe we ought to hear what you have for a
motion and that would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that might help. And then you
can tell us where it goes from there.
I have eight of them, and of course the board members here may
have more, but I'll read my eight and see where I've missed something
or I've gone too far.
Number one, incorporate mitigation components as noted on
Pages 29 and 31 of the ElS as they may be amended by the agencies.
Number two, the blasting shall not exceed three times per week,
in lieu of the two or three times per week.
Number three, the eastbound acceleration lane language to be
supplied by the time of our consent agenda, subject to the
transportation department's review pursuant to their item number 12
on their conditions.
Page 102
June 5, 2008
Number four, update the transportation language from number
11 in the staff report, and it will be done by the consent agenda. And
that's the one involving the one dollar per truck.
Number five, accept the EAC stipulations, as well as the
additional eight items as mandatory. That's what we talked about.
Number six, accept the staff conditions with the exception of
number five, which is the well field issue, and the modifications that
are to come for number 11 and 12.
And then a modification on number six that the end of the
sentence will read that we'll require any mitigation pursuant to the
policies of the Future Land Use Element.
So that's not all necessarily saying that they're going to exceed
that. Whatever they do will be pursuant to the policy of the Future
Land Element.
And last, we'll add the fair share language for the panther
crossings to be finalized at the time of our consent agenda.
Those are the issues that I made note of. Did anybody else on the
board have any others they think need refinement or addition to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Passidomo, do you have any
objections to any of those?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other comments, we'll
close the public hearing and let's entertain a motion then.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I'd like to recommend for
approval Petition CU-2006-AR-I0805, I guess also known as Hogan
Island Quarry. I think you hit all of the concerns. Yeah, every single
one that I wrote down, you had. For approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat actually had his hand up
Page 103
June 5, 2008
first. Mr. Kolflat seconded the motion. Now we'll have discussion.
So the motion would be made subject to the stipulations that
were just read to the record?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is staff clear on those
stipulations?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we don't have
any --
MR. BROWN: There was never a determination as to hours of
operation. I suppose you intentionally didn't mean to add those?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the hours of operation have been
left at their -- stayed 16 hours. I think that they provided justification
for the 16 hours. I mean, unless there's a concern expressed, that's how
I saw it left.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, the only concern was if
the ordinance is for 12 hours of traffic in and out, of trucks, that was
my concern. .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't -- see, it wouldn't matter if
we said 16 hours, Mr. Kolflat already said -- Mr. Klatzkow already
said, I'm sorry -- that if the ordinance says three hours, that's all they
get. So it doesn't matter what we say. So I think the ordinance versus
this stands on its own.
So anybody else have anything they want to add?
MR. KLATZKOW: And just to eliminate this issue completely,
if the applicant will agree that whatever the ordinance says they'll
abide by, rather than this.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's an affirmative then,
we're all set to go.
Page 104
June 5, 2008
Okay, with that we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the
motion as stated, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you.
And we'll look forward to seeing you at the consent agenda
where we'll finish up the outstanding remaining issues.
Members of the Planning Commission, we have a page that was
handed out with the information needed to be signed and
acknowledged by us and passed to the secretary.
It's 11 :35. We have been taking our breaks at 11 :45. I'd rather
not start a new case and interrupt it after 10 minutes. If it's the wishes
of the Planning Commission we could take our break now and be back
here at 12:40. How does that sound to everybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'll take a break now and be
back at 12:40 for the end of our lunch time. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Vigliotti is not present.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome
back for the June 5th, Collier County Planning Commission meeting.
Item #9D
Page 105
June 5, 2008
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-12321, MDG LAKE TRAFFORD,
LLC.
We had finished up with a couple of our agenda items, and now
we're moving to the next one. And it is Petition
PUDA-2007-AR-12321, MDG Lake Trafford, LLC, also known as the
Arrowhead PUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this hearing, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just me again. I talked to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to think if -- I
know Mr. Klohn spoke to me, but -- yes, he spoke to me about this
issue, and it was a very brief conversation. I told him I would read my
document and ifthere Was a problem we'd talk about it at the meeting.
So that was it, that was the extent of the contact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean there was a problem reading
the document or a problem with the document?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably both.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talked to Mr. Klohn as well, and his
attorney, Mark Woodward. And everything I discussed with him then
I'll discuss again today.
Okay, hearing nothing else, let's -- presentation by the applicant,
please.
MR. KLOHN: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bill
Klohn. I am president of MDG Capital Corporation, the developer of
Arrowhead.
Mark, would you like me to get into the specifics of ownership
Page 106
June 5, 2008
on who I really am or -- as far as the LLC?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need something passed out for the
record, because your ownership application was insufficient, and that's
MR. KLOHN: Okay, good. And let me do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll pass it down to everybody and then
we can move it back.
MR. KLOHN: Just a brief report on Arrowhead. 1,245 units and
a 130,000 square-foot shopping center facility is proposed.
We're about 450 to 500 residential rooftops in place. The trigger
for our off-site improvements was relative to the percentage ofproject
completion.
When we did the PUD originally with staff a number of years
ago, we all sat around a desk and worked out the wording to the PUD.
And oftentimes you don't have the opportunity to make all the site
visits that are necessary and take all of the time that's necessary to
completely think through all of the exactness of the language that was
put in the PUD.
With regard to our off-site improvement commitment, that was a
perfect example, because when we did reach the percentage trigger to
need to go build these off-site improvements, staff and our engineers,
Hole-Montes, went to the field and concluded that there was some
significant difficulty in building sidewalks on both sides of Lake
Trafford Road on the way out to 29, from the project to 29.
And after many months of discussion with staff and many, many
meetings, we came to an agreement that we would do the
improvements in lieu of what you're looking at today, in lieu of the
south side sidewalk. Because it in some cases created an impossibility.
And in working with Nick Casalanguida in transportation and
his staff, we feel that at the end of the day what we're doing is best for
the community, and it's equal in dollars and cents, if that question
comes up. I talked to Nick before the meeting. We feel that it is equal
Page 107
June 5, 2008
in dollars and cents and a very equitable trade-off and an enhancement
for the community.
One thing that I did remember that I had last evening that I
thought you might enjoy seeing is a letter from the Immokalee CRA.
In order to work through some of the meetings that we had with
transportation, I wanted to see how the community felt, besides the
public information meeting, so we did have a meeting with the CRA
to gain their support of what we're proposing today. And I'll hand that
letter out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are these all the same letter,
or are they --
MR. KLOHN: They're all the same letter. That was just kind of
an afterthought that I had last evening after recalling that I did have
that letter. I thought you'd find it interesting.
With that, that's the background. We began the PUD a number of
years ago when it came time to make this off-site improvement
physically and we went to the field. It was a tough road to hoe and
work with transportation to come up with what you're considering
today.
With that, I'll let George Hermanson of Hole-Montes give you
the details. Thank you.
MR. HERMANSON: Good afternoon. I'm George Hermanson
with Hole-Montes. We're representing the petitioner.
I didn't intend to go over all these in detail. They're fairly simple.
They're all part of Section 8, paragraph 8.5 in the PUD and they are
some alterations or substitutions for some off-site commitments as
they relate to roads.
Very briefly, we're not -- we're substituting some cash
contributions for some improvements on SR-29. We are going to build
a sidewalk on Lake Trafford Road instead of paved shoulders. All of
the other turn lane commitments at the project entrances remain in
place, so there's no changes there.
Page 108
June 5, 2008
One other item, and that is we're putting a time commitment of
one year from the date that this gets approved that those improvements
would be done. So there's no tie to percent complete of the project
anymore, it's all based on getting all done within a year.
The only new change to the PUD out of 8.5 is a deviation. The
staff felt we needed to ask for a deviation to put a sidewalk just on one
side of Lake Trafford Road. So that is also in the PUD.
Mr. Chairman, we also, based on your previous request, we've
got a copy of the PUD with all of the LDC references changed to get it
out of the old system.
And really, that's all I had to present. I'll be happy to answer or
try to field some questions, if there are any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you be more specific as to
why you couldn't put a sidewalk on the south side of Lake Trafford
Road?
MR. HERMANSON: This is an aerial of the project here. This is
Lake Trafford Road. North is up. You don't see it here, but State Road
29 is probably about here somewhere. It's one mile east.
I think there were two reasons why we changed that. One is we
would have messed up the drainage on Lake Trafford Road. The
ditches would have been very steep. It could have posed a safety
hazard.
I think there was some thinking also that the shoulders could
encourage pedestrian or bicycle traffic on the road in the traffic. And
the thought is some day that road is going to be improved. Maybe it
would be better to put a safe pedestrian bicycle facility in the
right-of-way that will really accomplish the purpose better.
So those were really the two reasons that was done.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that not having a
sidewalk on one side of the road is safer than having a sidewalk?
You're not going to have a sidewalk on the south side of the road at
Page 109
June 5, 2008
all?
MR. HERMANSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that's an improvement?
MR. KLOHN: I apologize, I may have misspoke earlier. Our
transportation commitment, correct me if I'm wrong, George, was the
widening of the shoulders on both sides of Lake Trafford Road with
no sidewalks.
So the trade-off, given the situation with the shoulders, was to do
the sidewalk on the north side of the road.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, when this project was
started, that part of Lake Trafford Road, there was nothing there, it
was just a field. When you planned the road, why couldn't it have been
planned so that there would be room for the sidewalk, regardless of
what kind of road widening or other changes would be?
I just can't see where on a busy road like that that's so near
schools that you would have no sidewalk on one side of the road.
MR. KLOHN: To clarify, we did -- in the situation of the empty
field, we have 307 acres of land. We did build the sidewalk on our
land, as evidenced by this little white stripe here.
What we're talking about today is only the off-site improvements
of the shoulders, which lead from this area here down to 29.
So all of the sidewalks were built, as well as along Carson Road,
which was a road that we constructed at the beginning of the project.
MR. HERMANSON: There was no commitment ever to put a
sidewalk on Lake Trafford on the east side of the project. That was
added and substituted for the shoulders. So we're actually adding a
facility that was not part of the commitment.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it looks like here, section
nine, deviations; the applicant is seeking a deviation from the
requirement of Collier County Land Development Code, which
requires a sidewalk on both sides of a road such as Lake Trafford
Road, to allow a sidewalk on one side of the road only.
Page 110
June 5, 2008
So it sounds as though you're asking to delete the sidewalk.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Even with that deviation, which I don't think is required, I think
staff wanted to just be clear with the applicant, that inclusion of the
paved shoulders that was in the original PUD, when that was
requested, no one went out and did any engineering to review if those
drainage ditches could be modified to accommodate the paved
shoulders.
When they went out to do that, they figured out that a lot of the
drainage would have to be closed, piped, and they couldn't physically
build the paved shoulder.
So we said why don't you put a sidewalk network and rebuild the
one that's on the north side.
We got some input from the community. I think Fred Thomas
was involved in that. And we looked at that and we came up with a
typical section that was reviewed by road maintenance and our
engineering department. And so they will have a pathway network
from Lake Trafford at 29 all the way out to this development, as well
as putting in a bus stop in front of their project.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What do you mean by paved
shoulder?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now you have -- well, you've
got an existing typical section of, say, 22 feet. You would put in
another four feet on each side. And people can walk on that or people
can bike on that. It's not the best alternative. It provides a little more
capacity on the roadway. That's a paved shoulder.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So people are going to be
walking inside the curb?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they'd be walking on the
sidewalk. They'd be doing it on one side of the road.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there is a sidewalk on the
south side of the road.
Page III
June 5, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. What the intent of the original
PUD requirement was, was to widen the road and put paved shoulders
on. So instead of where the road ends you'd have a grass strip, you'd
have an actual paved strip. And that was for the purpose of biking,
pedestrians and roadway capacity. And that was a requirement in the
original PUD.
When they went out to look at that they realized that the
drainage system that's there, they couldn't meet the slope requirements
to put that paved shoulder in.
So they were in one of those Catch-22 situations. The original
document required something that couldn't physically be built without
an excess of rebuilding the whole road.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, when you originally
designed the road in the project, why couldn't you have put enough
space so that you could put a proper sidewalk on both sides of the
road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The road and the project itself were
two different entities. I wasn't here when Lake Trafford Road was
built. I can't tell you when it was put together.
But they came on board and they did do sidewalks along their
project and did take care of what they fronted.
That off-site commitment was the problem. When that
commitment was put into effect, no one checked to see if it was
physically possible to actually build that. And it turns out it wasn't, so
they were in a situation where to comply they'd be doing a major
roadway improvement that was way beyond what the original intent of
paved shoulders were.
MR. KLOHN: Lake Trafford Road, which is the subject of the
area that we're talking about today, was built many, many, many,
many years before we acquired the land or planned this development.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And wasn't there an asphalt
sidewalk on the south side when you started your project?
Page 112
June 5, 2008
MR. KLOHN: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And so there's -- all the
people who are going to be going to school, let's say, for an example,
from this development, they're going to have to cross Lake Trafford
Road in order to get to that sidewalk?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As they do now; as they would have
to do now, yes.
MR. KLOHN: And we added a pedestrian crossing.
MR. HERMANSON: One of the commitments which has
already been taken care of is that Carson Road, Lake Trafford Road is
signalized now and it has crosswalks. So there is protected crosswalks
for pedestrians.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that's only -- you would have
to go --
MR. HERMANSON: For instance, if someone here had to go up
here, they could make this crossing, protected by a signal, cross both
streets and access this new sidewalk that's going to be on the north
side here.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if they wanted to go west
towards the school?
MR. HERMANSON: There's also a crosswalk that we
coordinated with the school district. They have a signal also for the
school. So there's a crossing right at this main entrance. And our main
entrance lines up exactly with the school's main entrance.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But in order to get to that main
entrance, how would they cross the road? I mean, would they have to
go all the way east to Carson Road --
MR. HERMANSON: Well, we have internal sidewalks to get
them to this point. We also have a sidewalk on the south side of the
road where our project is. This sidewalk is already built. So they can
either take internal sidewalks or they can take this sidewalk to get to
Page 113
June 5, 2008
that point. Then they have a protected crosswalk to get directly across
to the school.
MR. KLOHN: There's crossings here and here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it's good to point out, this was
staffs request to clean up this PUD, because we were in a situation,
they couldn't comply with what was required in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The other question that I had was
about the $79,000. Is that a fair amount equivalent to what they would
be paying for -- to do a signal modification?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. As a matter of fact, that
includes an existing turn lane that was installed by the county as part
of the payback. And modifying the signal time, the county would
rather do it themselves than have them do it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's at both intersections,
Immokalee Road at State 29 and Lake Trafford Road at State 29 -- I'm
sorry, Immokalee Drive and Lake Trafford Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
MR. HERMANSON: The one intersection just required signal
modifications. The other required signal and turn lanes.
Yes, we had cost estimates, Nick had cost estimates. We
compared. And we were all comfortable with the dollar numbers.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 79,000 doesn't sound like a lot to
improve a road --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's a--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- an intersection, I mean.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the original requirement is was a
signal timing, which isn't -- you know, you're doing existing timing
configuration, you're doing some traffic counts and you're retiming the
signal. So it wasn't a large existing commitment as it was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant?
I've got I think just one. And it's an easy one.
Page 114
June 5, 2008
Bill Klohn, William Klohn. You signed a blank affidavit. And
the affidavit said that you're authorizing someone to speak on your
behalf. The person who has spoken is George Hermanson of
Hole-Montes. So just for the record, if you had filled in a name on the
affidavit, you would have filled in Hole-Montes and Associates?
MR. KLOHN: That's correct. And I did sign that document
yesterday. And I believe that Hole-Montes e-mailed it to you
yesterday afternoon, just to complete the file.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I haven't checked it. The one I'm
looking at is dated August 7th, 2007, and it doesn't have a -- it has a
blank. So I just wanted to make sure we're safe on everybody that
made presentations on your behalf.
MR. KLOHN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other questions.
Before we go into the staff presentation, can I ask for a motion to
accept into the record the ownership paper and the CRA Immokalee
letter that was distributed to us dated February 20th, 2008.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, seconded by
Commissioner Wolfley.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
And Cherie', I'll make sure you get these. Thank you. Motion
Page 115
June 5, 2008
carrIes.
Staff presentation?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review.
And staff is recommending approval of this amendment to the
Arrowhead PUD, AR-12321. And we recommend that you forward it
to the Board of Collier County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
And if you have any questions, I'm available to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I've got -- well, why don't you
just turn to the Exhibit A, rezone findings.
That was the best group of rezone findings I've ever seen done.
Thank you. They read very well, they address the point, they're short,
they're succinct, they're excellent. So I don't have any questions on
them.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. I'm excited about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been picking on those for weeks.
But I do have one general question of CDES staff. And this one
was a letter that's included, dated September 24th, 2007, revised May
8th, 2008. It's addressed to Ms. Deselem.
It starts out, it says please find 17 copies of a fast track
application to amend the Arrowhead MPUD.
It was my understanding that fast track is supposed to be for
certain elements like affordable housing, workforce housing, business
and stuff like that. What does an amendment for traffic considerations
have a right to be fast tracked?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Somebody can ask for it. Our procedures do not apply to
amendments that do not have direct impact to the affordable housing
Page 116
June 5, 2008
provisions of the Land Development Code.
So by someone asking for it doesn't mean that it was processed
that way. And it was not processed as a fast track. Even though the
PUD has an affordable housing component part of it, this amendment
wasn't directly related to affordable housing agreements or any type of
affordable housing component, so it was processed like any other
amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I mean, you're right. I just was
curious as to why it was even thought that it deserved a fast track
process. I'm glad staff didn't process it that way. There's too many
justifiable projects that could use that. So thank you.
Are there any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, do you guys want to rebut
this short presentation by staff? I hope you don't. Okay.
We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to forward Petition
PUDA-2007-AR-12321 with a recommendation of approval, subject
to the Exhibit A on the resolution.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 117
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you all.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
Item #9E
PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-12842, TOLL-RATTLESNAKE, LLC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to the next, Petition
RZ-2008-AR-12842. It's the Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC, for the First
Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation PUD amendment.
And it's a companion item to PUDA-2007-AR-12043.
We will hear these separately, because I believe one is -- there
are two different entities that are being presented. They're two
different really big issues involving the same project. So this one will
just be about the 10-acre piece that's being removed.
Before we go farther, I think the same people are -- that's why I
forgot. I think the same people are involved, but let's do the swearing
in. Anybody that is going to testify on behalf of this hearing, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was everybody in the room. And
I'm sure that covers both of the items coming up.
Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Klohn tried to reach me. I was
Page 118
June 5, 2008
unavailable. But I did have a brief e-mail correspondence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask a question.
Mr. Klohn asked me if I had any questions and I didn't. Do I have to
disclose that or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but you can't have any questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. I'll see you guys later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't remember. I know I've
had conversation with the gentleman, but I don't know if we discussed
this or not. I really don't remember.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klohn called me Monday night. It
was too late for me to get together with him. I did talk with his
attorney, Mark Woodward, told him some concerns I had. Today they
thought I would enjoy my lunch better if I could go over the project
with them during lunch, which we did, and we talked about a lot of
issues, all of which will be re-discussed during the meeting. So that's
that.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. KLOHN: For the record, my name is Bill Klohn, I'm
President of MDG Capital Corporation.
Weare not the landowner of the 10 acres, but this 10 acres is
part of the PUD.
In our discussions and process with CDES, it was suggested by
staff that for the First Assembly of God project and MDG building the
CWHIPP affordable workforce housing to best complete our projects
and the fact that the 10 acres is owned by Toll-Rattlesnake LLC,
which has nothing to do with it, that it would actually clean up the
PUD by removing this 10 acres from our PUD, which is another
agenda item.
So you'll see that the PUD actually shrinks in size when we get
to the next agenda item, from 79 acres down to 69 acres.
Page 119
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, before you go too far, you're going
to be addressing us on the first issue, which is the Toll-Rattlesnake?
MR. KLOHN: Yeah, I was giving you a brief background of
why we were separating it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I understand that. But are you
going to make the presentation for the --
MR. KLOHN: No, George Hermanson is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. KLOHN: I was just giving you some background.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that if
you were going to get into it in any great detail, if Toll-Rattlesnake's
people are here they'd have acknowledge that you can represent them
is all.
MR. KLOHN: I'm basically done. I just wanted to explain the
reason why we were carving it out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane.
I think Bill has given you an overview from Hole-Montes and
Associates.
The 10 acres, at least, if any of you don't know where it's
precisely located, is this 10 acres here which falls in the back of the
First Assembly Ministries PUD.
That PUD is today 79 acres. We're proposing to reduce it to 69
acres. And that 10 acres is going to be rezoned from the First
Assembly Ministries PUD to A, Agriculture.
So in that regard the rezoning request is relatively
straightforward. It's been found consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff is recommending approval of this petition.
And Mr. Chairman, you're correct, it is a companion item to the
adjacent case that you're going to hear, which will proceed just after
this case.
And I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Page 120
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did someone in your organization
provide the officers and stockholders of the corporations listed as
ownership? Because we don't have that and we need to know that
before we can vote on this.
MR. DUANE: Yes, they did. I understand that those were
e-mailed to Marjorie Student yesterday. They were e-mailed to you
yesterday. They were e-mailed to Kay Deselem. And I believe you
had some discussions with Mark Woodward, or my client's attorney,
regarding the Sembler Limited Partnership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only point I have is I don't
have any information on the Toll Florida Seven Limited Partnership. I
have no information on the Sembler Family Partnership, Number 42,
Limited.
The package requires that we receive this information. It's been
routinely overlooked lately before this stuff comes to us, and it
shouldn't be. From here on out I hope that staff would look carefully at
this. But we'll need that information to be able to vote on this today.
Would you repeat what you just said?
First of all, he said I was provided an e-mail yesterday regarding
the ownership of these.
MR. DUANE: Of the Sembler 42 Partnership.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was sent at 5:36 p.m. and I didn't tie
in after that to the government site. So I didn't get this.
MR. DUANE: We'll provide it for the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to pass that to the
Planning Commissioners, just so they can review it to make sure
there's no conflicts. Whoever finishes with it, just pass it back here so
we can have it admitted to the record.
With that, I think -- did you finish with your presentation?
MR. DUANE: On the 10 acres, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on the 10 acres?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
Page 121
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. Or do you
want to do it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, architects first.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the -- and it may be in
the packet and I just didn't see it. Is there anything that shows the
adjustment of density of the remaining site once you pull this acreage
out?
MR. DUANE: There is a three-party agreement that I've yet --
I've not brought up, at least in the context of this hearing, but it
governs the responsibilities between MDG Capital, Toll Brothers and
First Assembly Ministries. And essentially any of the entitlements that
were part of the 10 acres were relinquished to First Assembly
Ministries as part of their PUD process, leaving only the agricultural
zoning, which has a base density of two units per acre, which Toll
Brothers would be entitled to.
Of course they can rezone the property, which allows, I believe,
the sub-district that they're in. The urban residential fringe district
allows up to 1.5 dwelling units per acre.
And I might mention also, the context of this 10 acres was
originally going to be incorporated into the Toll Brothers-Rattlesnake
project, which comprises several thousand acres. And their intent was
to take this property down to agriculture and then incorporate the legal
description for this property into the rezoning of the Toll
Brothers-Rattlesnake PUD/DRI.
Now, that's kind of on hold, and I can't tell you to what extent
it's going forward in this particular economy at this point in time.
They did file the applications for Toll-Rattlesnake, but it's on hold at
the current time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, though, is there
anything in our documents that show the result in density based upon
pulling 10 acres out? The left behind density.
Page 122
June 5, 2008
MR. COHEN: The GMP for the next agenda item, you know,
the Fountain Lakes and the First Assembly of God, the density
calculations in that GMP are what we're bringing forward on the
rezone. So there was no reliance on density from the Toll piece in the
next subject. And the 10 acres has reverted to the allowable. Is it two
units per acre?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is no document with a
before and after density study.
MR. DUANE: No, the entitlements are essentially incorporated
into the petition that's going to be before you next, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So when the First Assemblies and
I guess we're calling it Fountain Lakes now PUD first came before and
was voted on, it was 79 acres?
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's correct.
And now -- so we based our decision based on 79 acres. Now
you're going to take out 10 and put it into the Toll DRI so that they
can then count the same acreage again.
Why isn't this some sort of double dipping here? I mean, I need
to figure this out.
MR. DUANE: I was going to go over the difference in the
entitlements between what's allowed under First Assembly Ministries
in the next presentation and what's allowed -- what's going to remain
in the before and the after.
I think maybe the context might be better discussed in the
petition that follows.
But the simple answer is the entitlements were basically
expunged off the 10 acres, incorporated into the current PUD. The 10
acres now is going to ostensibly be incorporated into another
development. And whatever underlying intensities are permitted by
Page 123
June 5, 2008
the comprehensive plan are going to be evaluated in the context of a
new proposal, at least if it goes forward as planned. And I cannot
guarantee that to you today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, would it be okay if we
voted on this -- I mean, we heard the other application, maybe came
back and voted this first and then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. DUANE: That would be my preference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'd like to question this one as much
as we can while it's up and then get into the other one so we don't
confuse the two, because they are two separate operations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on this
particular one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. Would the applicant mind
accepting a stipulation on the 10 acres that basically -- that says no
clearing while it's under the ago zoning, except as exotics required by
code?
MR. DUANE: My client, Sembler Properties, has an objection
to placing that stipulation on it. So I've got to put forth on the record
that they have an objection, so I have to honor my commitment to
that.
But let me also give you a little additional explanation. I don't
believe that they have any intentions to use this property for
agriculture. We understand under the Right to Farm they could clear
it. There are some jurisdictional wetlands on this property. We believe
there's some Corps jurisdiction which would come into play, so there
would be permits that would have to be obtained from the Corps.
Perhaps the South Florida Water Management District, if they
claim jurisdiction, they would need a clearing permit from Collier
Page 124
June 5, 2008
County. If they used it for agriculture they would be limited to that use
for a 25-year period, of which they could not revert it back to another
use unless they made the property whole again.
So notwithstanding what I just said about their objections, I
would just note for the record that there are significant restrictions in
place, should -- in (sic) the unlikely circumstance arise that there
would be undertaken any clearing of the property. So I just wanted to
put that in the context of their objection to that particular stipulation.
You as a board of course can make any recommendation or
attach any stipulation that you may be so inclined to run with the
property. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The premise of this application as stated
by the applicant was to move this 10 acres into a holding pattern, more
or less, so they could incorporate it into the future DR!. Once that's
done it becomes rezoned. It goes from ago to something else.
I understand your discussion about the limitation if it's cleared
and how much time before they could do anything with it. But like all
other rules, I notice that they're changed, modified and bent when
people make certain arguments and certain -- as the public process
evolves.
I would rather certainly enter a stipulation that -- I mean, enter
for a vote a stipulation that restricts the clearing of this property, with
the exception of exotics as required by code, until such time it's
brought into a rezone process of some type. That was the intent from
the beginning.
Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just help me understand, Mr.
Chair, what it is you're concerned that they would bend or break the
rules on, what they would do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would clear the property under the
guise of agriculture and then come in and say gee, this property is
devalued. It doesn't have the preserve value that it used to have, any
Page 125
June 5, 2008
number of concerns like we've seen in front of this commission before
when something's cleared, that it no longer has value for preservation
or for natural habitat. Therefore, they should count that as not part of
their preserve area, not part of whatever.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that was where I was going.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In rezoning this agriculture, am
I correct in assuming that they -- the property appraiser then considers
it agriculture and the -- I guess it's mainly towards you or whomever
here, just to get me cleared up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to move your mic a little
closer, too.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That in moving it to agriculture,
there's some ago exemptions for tax purposes. I was just wondering, is
there going to be any agriculture activity on this piece of property?
MR. DUANE: None to my knowledge are planned.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's just a base zoning.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just a base zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's taken out of the zoning that it's in,
which is PUD, and it's not in any zoning, I imagine it would benefit
from a reduced tax structure, yes. I can't imagine it not.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers on this
. R?
Item, ay.
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I forgot, staff report. Kay may want
to say something.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning.
Page 126
June 5, 2008
You do have a copy of the staff report.
I won't belabor the issue. I know it's been a long day for you. But
as noted in the staff report and in the petitioner's presentation, this is
being rezoned as a holding zoning district.
The Toll-Rattlesnake petition is in to zoning for review. This
particular 10 acres is included in the legal description of that parcel --
or of that project.
That project, just yesterday I received e-mails from the petitioner
and from the Regional Planning Council stating that the petitioner was
asking for an extension of the re-submittal time until October 29th, I
believe is the date.
And the Regional Planning Council indicated to me that they
would grant that extension. But it is still active, as far as I know.
But -- and going on to the staff report, you do have a synopsis of
the Growth Management Plan issues noting what land use category
this is in and what the dwelling unit allowances would be, the density
of .2 dwelling units per acre.
Does note that most of the quote, unquote, smart growth policies
will be evaluated as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake petition, should that
one go forward.
This petition has been evaluated by the transportation planning
staff, and it notes that the petition as a down zoning would have less
impacts on the area. And they are determining that it is consistent.
It was also evaluated by the environmental staff. Susan Mason is
here, she can address the issue if you have more questions regarding
the stipulation that you wanted to add. I have mentioned to her that
that was an issue.
Staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with
the Growth Management Plan. We do have the analysis of
environmental staff, utilities staff, as well as the zoning staff. And we
are recommending that it be found consistent and that the rezoning
request from PUD to agricultural be approved.
Page 127
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just to get on record then, with
regard to that parcel you have the environmental report. Do they
indicate that has preserve status?
MS. DESELEM: My understanding in talking with Susan earlier
-- she can give you a lot more detail because she was involved in the
review of that and she can give you some of the details about how --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to hear --
MS. DESELEM: -- this particular parcel--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what that is, in support of the
Chairman's thoughts.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
MS. MASON: Good afternoon. For the record, Susan Mason,
environmental services.
You were asking if this parcel is in any kind of preserve status?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's its value in terms of is it
just straight woods, or is any preserve characteristics?
MS. MASON: My understanding is it's all largely --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Scrub.
MS. MASON: A hundred percent -- no, not scrub, but would
qualify as native vegetation, as far as calculations would go. For
whatever type of rezone it eventually goes to, it does qualify as native
vegetation. But it's not currently in any preserve status, since there's
no development on-site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Thank you. But it does
have native vegetation, that's important. Thank you.
MS. MASON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to ask the same
question I asked of the petitioner to staff. Why isn't it this a double
Page 128
June 5, 2008
dipping, since we had 79 acres to begin with and that was counted on,
and now -- so we counted it for one project and now we're going to
take it out and we'll allow it to be counted again in another project.
MS. DESELEM: The 10 acres that we're considering right now
to be rezoned back to ago is not included in the sub-district for the
Growth Management Plan. All the allowances that were evaluated for
that sub-district are only applicable to the 69-acre tract that would be
the remaining PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it was in the original approval
of the PUD, but then when they came in for the Growth Management
Plan amendment, that's when they took it out.
MS. MASON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I still don't understand why it's not
double dipping.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Ms. Caron is trying to get
at is, is that the original PUD was for 79 acres. The density calculated
on that original PUD included the 79 acres, which this 10-acre was
part of.
The assessment at the time was okay, the density works for the
full 79 acres. Subsequent to the PUD, a GMP amendment came along
and reduced the 79 to 69 acres in the GMP to take the 10 acres out.
The density stayed on the 69, and the 10 acres now comes up for
resale or exchange to another project that will now use the gross 10
acres as part of their calculations for their overall project. I think that's
the question she's trying to ask.
MS. DESELEM: I can see where you're coming from. If you go
back to the as yet to be discussed staff report for the PUD, it tries to
explain what stayed, what went, what increased, what decreased.
And staffs evaluation both from a Growth Management Plan
and transportation has evaluated that what was approved, especially if
you look at the transportation impacts, what was approved and what's
proposed. What's proposed has less of an impact than what was
Page 129
June 5, 2008
approved in the original PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to help get to Ms. Caron's answer,
will the Toll Brothers, Toll-Rattlesnake DRI use as part of its
calculation of its density this 10 acres for either gross or whatever
process it goes through?
MS. DESELEM: I'm sure they will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the answer that Ms. Caron
was looking for. Let's hope, right?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ray, are there any public speakers
on this issue? We're not going to vote on it, we're just going to ask
right now.
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we close this issue, I'd
like the commission, now that they've seen these two documents
concerning the ownership --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've not? I'm sorry. When they
get done that way, we'll move on to the next one and worry about this
later then.
Item #9F
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-12043, FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD
NAPLES, INC.
Okay, the second companion item is PUDA-2007-AR-12403.
Was anybody not sworn in on the first one that needs to be
sworn in for this one? Anybody in the audience who's going to speak
on this particular one that has not been sworn in?
Page 130
June 5, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, they've all been sworn in.
Any disclosures on this one made by the Planning Commission?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, what I said before is
applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've had conversations with Mr.
Klohn, Mark Woodward, and again everybody at lunch today. And
my concerns and questions will be reiterated at this meeting.
So with that we'll move into discussions, and by bringing the
presentation on this particular issue.
Mr. Klohn.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you. For the record, my name is William
Klohn. I'm president ofMDG Capital Corporation. MDG, one of its
subsidiaries is MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, which is one of the parties
to this rezone, the 69 acres that we've been talking about as the net
acreage from the prior PUD of 79 acres.
The 10 acres that was removed is in the area where my hand is.
MDG Capital Corporation -- or through its subsidiary, MDG Fountain
Lakes, LLC -- owns these tracts here. The First Assembly of God
Ministries owns the remaining tracts.
We have been working with First Assembly Ministries and staff
for approximately almost two years, with Corby and so on, on the
growth management plan amendment. So this is the second time that
this project has actually been before you.
When we're talking about the different uses, MDG Capital
Corporation is the developer of the CWHIPP project known as
Fountain Lakes. We recently received the $5 million CWHIPP award.
So the questions that you may have of that component I'll be
answering. Any questions that you have regarding the First Assembly
questions, Pastor Mallory will be answering.
Notwithstanding that, we're all in the same PUD together.
Page 131
June 5, 2008
There's two different landowners developing different uses within the
common PUD.
And Joe Schmitt is naturally very familiar with it too if you have
any questions of detail on how we got to where we are today.
Pastor, do you want to make a brief statement on what you're
doing in the church, so that when Bob is explaining what he's talking
about that it makes a little more sense, or do you want to let just Bob
talk?
PASTOR MALLORY: I'll let Bob talk.
MR. DUANE: Good afternoon. For the record, Robert Duane
from Hole-Montes and Associates. I have with me George Hermanson
today. I also have Rob Price from TR Transportation Consultants to
address any traffic issues. And of course I have Reverend Mallory
here also today.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, if I could run through my presentation
and try to address as many of the questions that I think you have,
including perhaps some anticipated questions from others, if I could
do that uninterrupted, I would greatly appreciate it.
Let me begin my saying that we are modifying a PUD that was
approved in 1999. Many of the uses that we're bringing forward with
you today, and I'll describe some of the differences in those, have their
nexus in the 1999 PUD ordinance that we're now rezoning to an
MPUD, a mixed use planned unit development.
And we have staff support for this proposal, notwithstanding
several deviations that I'll subsequently discuss with you.
One of the more important points I want to make on the outset of
my presentation is there are many unique characteristics to this
property, particularly the relationship between the combined uses and
some of the site constraints that we had, and those in turn led to the 15
or 16 deviations that we're requesting, the preponderance of which are
being supported by county staff.
But I just wanted to underscore that there are some very unique
Page 132
June 5, 2008
aspects to this 69-acre project that we're bringing forward to you
today.
The GMP amendment was approved by and large by this same
body last December. That was for the Collier Boulevard Community
Sub-district that allowed for a core group of community services, both
church-related and housing, and somewhat social service-related in
their context, similar to what the uses were contained in the 1999 PUD
that we represented in conjunction with the amendment that we made
to the Growth Management Plan.
I have on the board there just to show you how generic the plan
was, in 1999 this is for the entire 79-acre proj ect. You will see no
buildings on it. You'll see a preserve area here, but a lot was left to the
imagination as to how these uses would ultimately materialize on the
subj ect property.
The master plan that we bring before you today is relatively
specific in nature. We have the existing church facility here today.
This of course is 951.
This is The Lord's Way that will be a subject of some of our
discussion today. That is proposing to be widened from two to four
lanes somewhere down the road in order to provide interconnection to
what ultimately may be Benfield Road, which will be a north-south
collector which will parallel 951.
It was recognized all the way back from the inception of our
GMP amendment that this was going to be an important linkage. And
as such, we're reserving 55 feet on Tract A and 55 feet on Tract G and
50 feet for the expansion of The Lord's Way.
We have an FPL easement that runs through the middle of the
property. We have a proposed educational complex on this portion of
Tract A. This is going to be the job training and rehabilitative service
center along the northern portion of the property.
We have an existing tower on the property that's approximately
350 feet in height.
Page 133
June 5, 2008
This is going to be the rehabilitation center that's going to be the
focal point of the First Assembly Ministries campus.
And then we have a multi-purpose building that is located on the
eastern portion of their tract.
And then of course we get into Fountain Lakes, which comprises
about 23 acres, more or less.
So First Assembly Ministries is 45 acres, more or less, which
includes a 12-acre preserve area. Balance of the property is located on
the Fountain Lakes property.
With regard to some of the changes and uses that are being
proposed --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need to keep that microphone
close to you so she can pick up what you say.
MR. DUANE: Thank you, sir.
All right, I'm just going to step over to the projector.
We started out with 57 multi-family units in the 1999 PUD.
Those are being increased to 296 multi-family units that are allowed
by the Growth Management Plan.
The total number of square feet that's permitted on First
Assembly Ministries property, I should have added, is 368,000 square
feet. That lumps all the uses together that are set forth in Exhibit A in
the documents that you have.
There were 120 travel trailer vehicles. Those have been
eliminated in their entirety.
We had 450 day care students. We reduced those to 300. The
2,400 church seats remain the same.
We eliminated a 400 care unit facility. We are now requesting
239 care units. I'm going to subsequently discuss with you that there's
a limitation of 400 beds within those 239 units. That's not in your
document today. But I will discuss those on -- 249, I'm sorry. I'll
discuss the bed issues, which is an issue that surfaced subsequent to
your staff report that I think will address some comments that you
Page 134
June 5, 2008
have.
And the 300 secondary and elementary and college students
remains the same at 300 units.
What I'd like to do now is go through some of the deviations. I'm
going to focus on two or three of those more closely than I am on
some others.
But I'll run through them briefly, just to put them in the context
of our proposal.
Ray, if you could put exhibit -- in just a moment when I get to
deviation number two, if you could put Exhibit H up, which is the sign
-- Exhibit G, which is the sign variance exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The microphone is not working well
when you're away from it.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir, excuse me. I've had that problem all my
life. I'm soft spoken, and you've reminded me of it again.
Let's go with deviation number one. We have support of that
deviation. It's essentially to reduce the buffer along The Lord's Way
from 20 feet to 10 feet. And it is also to allow an existing sidewalk --
proposed sidewalk of five feet to remain in that buffer on Tract G and
a seven-foot buffer to remain on Tract A outside of the existing area
proposed for the right-of-way.
This is an example of the site constraints that I pointed out to
you previously. By the time that we provide the 50-foot reservation on
Tract A, there was a very limited amount of area for us to reconstruct
our buffer in. And I think this photograph here demonstrates,
particularly on Tract A, which is the church related property.
As you can see that little stake that is there, that encompasses the
50 feet approximately that we're going to be dedicating for the
expansion of The Lord's Way.
We want to have the existing seven-foot path that you see there
remain on First Assembly's property. Normally that would be
contained in the right-of-way. But through a series of negotiations
Page 135
June 5, 2008
with the transportation department, they have allowed us to utilize that
pathway on our property.
And the 10-footed (sic) buffer that's presently existing will be
relocated just to the right of that bicycle path. That buffer is going to
be concentrated in the southern portion of the water management
easement around that lake. That's more or less 20 feet in width. So
we're going to try to incorporate the buffer in the southern portion of
that.
Frankly, there wasn't any more room to locate it and we couldn't
make it 20 feet wide either. So in order to accommodate the
reservation requirements, that was part of the nexus for that deviation.
Similarly on Tract G, which is Bill Klohn's property, the site --
and I have a drawing which I can refer to from time to time today. But
we had a -- we had some -- yeah, I've got that upside down. Yeah,
right.
We had a very limited amount of area to construct both the
sidewalk and the buffer. As you can see, the 10- foot buffer just goes to
the edge of our parking area. We didn't really have the 20 foot to
accommodate that buffer, given this proposed site plan.
So that gives you a little bit of background about deviation
number one, along with some of the physical constraints on Tract A.
Deviation two gets into the sign, and this gets a little more
complicated.
Ray, if you could put the sign requirement up for me, that
exhibit.
We are requesting an off-site premise sign, and that is the subject
of deviation number two. Weare requesting that 32 feet of the existing
sign be allowed to comprise an off-site -- off-premise component. It's
at the very bottom of that sign.
Now, there's some history on this particular sign. It's presently
existing. The existing PUD allowed it -- I'm talking about the '99 PUD
allowed it to be 100 square feet in area and 20 feet in height. Those
Page 136
June 5, 2008
requirements changed to reduce the area to 80 feet, to reduce the
height to 15 feet. Those will be dealt with in two subsequent
deviations pertaining to the sign, but I wanted to give you some of the
background initially. The sign's there and it was previously
constructed in conformance with its prior approval.
The off-site premise sign deviation is required because, as I
think you learned this morning, there's only 12 feet required for
off-site premise signs.
We arrived at the 32 square feet by looking at the requirements
for residential entrance signs, which can be either two 32-square-foot
signs or one 64-square- foot sign.
We merely chose to took (sic) half of the residential sign
requirement; that is, 32 square feet, and put it in the base of that sign.
We believe with 300 or 296 units on Tract G, there's going to be
a lot of guests and visitors to this project when it's ultimately built.
And we believe it merits some consideration for that factor alone.
Another important distinction I want to make is that your
existing sign requirements for mixed use projects, we have both
institutional and we have residential land uses in this project. And they
don't very well allow to lump you the sign requirements for those two
different uses into a mixed use project as to what we're bringing
forward to you here.
I think you need to work on that provision of the LDC. But I
think based on that and I think a legitimate need to have some at least
small degree of exposure on 951 for our project, which is -- I think
we're 1,400 feet from the intersection, the beginning of Tract G. But
we thought that that was a reasonable allotment to allow or allowance
for a project of this size, almost 69 acres, I might add.
But we're in disagreement with staff. We do not have their
support on that deviation. But frankly, their concern was sign clutter
and maybe people stopping to look at that sign.
I would add in the absence of that sign we're going to have a lot
Page 137
June 5, 2008
more people going up and down, stopping and starting at signage to
see just where Fountain Lakes may be. And in my opinion that's the
greater public benefit that should be weighed upon. In my opinion,
anyway.
The third deviation -- yes, sir?
MR. KLOHN: Before we move to the third deviation, I want to
make it clear that the off-premise sign that we're talking about, the
sign that you see up on your visualizer, the First Assembly Ministries,
that's an existing sign that's there today.
The little square box down below is the proposed off-site sign to
be added. And that's for the housing component of the PUD, for the
296 units in our CWHIPP. I don't know if Bob was crystal clear on
that, so I wanted to add that for perfect clarification that that
off-premise sign request is for the housing in the back. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Where is the location of those
signs?
MR. KLOHN: The location of that sign, which currently exists
today, is out on 951 at the entrance to The Lord's Way.
MR. DUANE: I've given you a little background regarding the
history of the sign. But deviation number three is requesting that it be
increased from the allowable 80 feet now -- even though that is what
is required today, it was constructed at 100 feet. We want to go to 132
square feet to accommodate the additional 32 square feet for the
off-site premise sign.
Staff is not supporting that request. But we hope that you will.
Deviation number four and five are somewhat related. Deviation
four, which we do not have staff support for, is to allow -- well, it's
going to allow the existing sign height to remain, which is 20 feet. But
then in deviation number five they note if for any reason the sign
should be damaged, it goes back to the 80 square feet.
And I would just point out to you that there is substantial
expense on behalf of First Assembly to construct the existing sign.
Page 138
June 5, 2008
We'd like to keep it at the same size it was previously approved at a
bare minimum, and we hope you increase the size of the sign from
100 feet to 132 feet to allow for the off-site premise component of it.
The sign's a little complicated. Would someone like to entertain
a question at this point or would you just like me to proceed with the
balance of my presentation?
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: As long as you're inviting. Given
the location of the sign, and we had an earlier conversation which you
mayor may not have been here for regarding signage, what are the
size of the letters that are proposed in what is going to be on there
right now?
Because the concern that everybody seems to express, which I
think is reasonable, is that we don't want to create a problem by
over-attraction. On the other hand, it should serve its purpose to allow
persons to find what they're looking for.
So what would be on that sign and how large will the letters be?
MR. DUANE: Well, the letters are existing today, First
Assembly Ministries.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm not talking about that
one, that exists. I'm talking about the only one you're interested in
addition, the 32 square feet.
MR. KLOHN: Good question, but very simple. Simply Fountain
Lakes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought might
happen.
MR. KLOHN: And --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eight-inch?
MR. KLOHN: Six or eight-inch letters. Just an ID to say this is
your turn, folks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Given the location, though,
Page 139
June 5, 2008
somebody approaching from the southwest -- and it's illuminated,
correct? That's going to be illuminated?
MR. KLOHN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know whether that size
will attract sufficiently to guide someone, or will they have made it
halfway across the street, The Lord's Way, on four lanes before they
realize it?
MR. KLOHN: I would have loved for it to be 200 square feet,
but that would be a little bit too much to ask for.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'll put that in as a
stipulation, if you'd like that, sure.
MR. KLOHN: No. The thought of having the sign here is that
folks that are looking for Fountain Lakes might drive up and down
Collier Boulevard five times. We hope that they will see it in their first
go around. But if they drive by it once, that's better than all of the
traffic created by going by five times.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fair answer.
MR. DUANE: I'll try to move this along then.
Moving beyond signs, our deviation number seven, we have
staff support for that. And that's again to allow the sidewalks as we
proposed to remain along The Lord's Way, the five foot and the seven
foot.
Going to deviation number eight, we have support, staff support
for that. That was to provide a sidewalk just on one side of the street.
And as you can see from our proposed site plan, we only have
buildings on one side of the street, so we received support for that.
Deviation number nine was not to provide a sidewalk along 951
or money in lieu of. We have support from the transportation
department for that. Transportation was going to allow the existing
seven-foot sidewalk that runs along 951 north and south up to the
preserve area to suffice, along with the connection that will be
provided from The Lord's Way to that sidewalk. And ultimately when
Page 140
June 5, 2008
951 is constructed, the county will incorporate plans for their own
sidewalk within the right-of-way.
Deviation number 10, we have support from staff, which is not
to provide shared access or an interconnection between First
Assembly Ministries and the multi-family tract, largely for security
reasons.
The next deviation --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait one second.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was to have been a wall,
as I recall. Some people requested a wall somewhere along the line. Is
that going to be there?
MR. DUANE: I'm going to get to that under the discussion of
one of our other deviations. There is going to be a wall located
between First Assembly Ministries and the multi-family tract.
Deviation number 11, as I indicated on the outset of my
presentation, we were permitted 368,000 square feet of floor area in
our GMP amendment. The code also has a floor area ratio of .45.
We intentionally lumped everything into the 368,000 square feet
so we wouldn't be trying to with one floor of care units try to figure a
floor ratio for that, less some rehab or some other church-related
facilities.
The coverage, when you take the 368,000 over the 45 acres or so
is not particularly high. It's probably plus or minus 10,000 square feet
per acre. So we have staffs support for that, and that was the
justification for that.
We also have support for deviation 12 from staff, which is to
reduce the parking requirement from one space per 75 -- .75 parking
spaces for one unit down to only .75 spaces for 10 care units.
There is very little utilization of vehicles, according to the
pastor. I think of the 18 units he presently has right now, there's only
one motor vehicle. And we thought that that was worthy of some
Page 141
June 5, 2008
reduced requirement, which we were happy to get staff support for
that.
Mr. Murray, now we're going to get up to deviation number 13.
Ray, if you would put this exhibit up for me, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into 13, I have a question
on 12.
You're talking about. 7 5 parking spaces per 10 care units.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are these care units part of that 249
total?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the 249 has more than one bed per
care unit.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we allowed 10 spaces per care
unit, and you have the care units with multiple beds in them, more
than -- you have a possibility of having different people in more beds
not equitable to the number of spaces you have, because you're basing
your parking on care units instead of the number of beds in each care
unit.
MR. DUANE: Correct. And your point's a very good one. If you
take the 239 (sic) care units and you divide those into the 400 beds --
and I realize some units are going to be larger than others -- but that's
about 1.3 persons per care unit on average. And I think that would be
comparable to the standard that exists today of .75 spaces per unit,
because I would assume that a typical care unit would at least have 1.3
persons in it, more or less.
But I thought your question was a very good one. I hope that
answers it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it answers it. I understand where
you're going. You're actually saying you want one-tenth of the
required parking.
Page 142
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: That is correct. And based on the data that we
had today, there's only one vehicle for 18 care residents. In fact, the
pastor tells me they really discourage motorized vehicles, you know,
being used in conjunction with their rehabilitative care. But he says
from time to time there is a vehicle there.
Staff originally had wanted a prohibition against any vehicles
there. And I frankly -- the pastor could not go that far, because he said
from time to time we do have use of a care facility.
Of course we also have the parking that's attendant to the
existing church facility, which more often than not those parking
spaces are vacant unless used for worship services, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you said. I guess I'll
just have to dwell on it.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'd like to pursue that a
little bit.
Are all of, most of, some of or hardly any or none of the persons
to be served people of means?
MR. DUANE: I can't speak to their economic lot in life. But I
think the fact that they are in a rehabilitative campus such as this
recognizes a special need that they have, a special kind of program
that they need to be in, a special kind of opportunity to reeducate
themselves and bring themselves back in, I guess, society as we
understand it. So they're certainly different than your normal
population.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood the basis for the
program. I'm trying to ascertain whether it's, as some are, a place
where a person of means or even moderate means can go, pay a fee
and enjoy the rehabilitative effort and retain their personal effects.
My understanding in general was that this was going to be
focused for people who may not be of means predominantly. Am I in
error?
Page 143
June 5, 2008
That may very well impact on who all will or will not have a car.
What's your business plan? What are you going after?
MR. DUANE: I'm going to defer to the pastor on that.
PASTOR MALLORY: David Mallory, Pastor, First Assembly.
Yes, it's for whosoever will. We have had a Senator's son, we've
had a pastor's wife of a church of 2,000, we've had people from the
woods.
But in the rehabilitation center it's a live-in program. We
discourage them having their own vehicle. If they need a doctor's
appointment, they go to get food stamps, we transport them in church
vehicles, church vans.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In order for me to support a
reduction, a significant reduction, I'm hoping that you'll commit to me
a little bit further than that and let us know to the extent which you
have the power to discourage, inasmuch as you apparently will not
prohibit.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, some--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, is it part of your -- you
know, here are the rules and regulations and we strongly recommend,
or however?
PASTOR MALLORY: Exceptions have to do with if the court
mandates someone to have, say, a daily trip to probation or things like
that that we cannot provide transportation, there are personal vehicles
for that. The church does have vehicles other than church vans.
But we do not see the ownership of a vehicle being
complimentary to the treatment that they're receiving, because it gives
them access to the outside world and we discourage that.
But there isn't any way I can tell you that no one will have a
personal vehicle. Some will have a personal vehicle that they park
there and they turn the keys over to us, they do not use it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are the kind of words I'm
interested in hearing, things of that nature and what effort you are
Page 144
June 5, 2008
making to make it so that if we were to agree to this that we would not
ultimately end up with an unreasonable condition.
PASTOR MALLORY: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we left off on 13.
MR. DUANE: Number 13.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the mic before you start
talking again.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, we're back to deviation number 13.
I don't know if you can denote the colors on the wall there, but
there are some areas in red. There's a combination of Type Band
Type A buffers that are required between the two tracts.
The areas that are in red were where we were not able to meet
the size of the buffer in its entirety. And then we tried to meet them up
in the areas that are depicted in blue.
Your code allows, for example, a 15-foot buffer to be reduced,
that's a Type B buffer, the 10 feet in width. But you have to make it up
in some other areas. There's probably a few areas, I'll categorize them
as a smidgen or two, where we were actually less than the 10 feet.
But the overall amount of buffer that we're providing is 14
percent more than the minimum required buffer area. And we're
providing approximately 4,600 square feet, or again, 14 more percent
of buffer area than we would typically be required to provide for both
our A buffers, our B buffers, and our wall which is going to separate
the uses between Tracts A and Tracts G. And we have support for that
particular deviation that we're proposing.
The -- okay, go ahead.
MR. KLOHN: Mr. Murray, you were curious as to the wall
earlier. And the wall will be on the common boundary in the shaded
areas of the landscape buffer area.
Why don't you take over.
MR. HERMANSON: I don't know -- I guess I wanted to make
Page 145
June 5, 2008
sure. The wall will be in this particular area. I don't believe it extends
all the way to the entrance access to the property. It's going to be in
this area and in this area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the purpose of the wall is
merely a distinctive difference as opposed to security.
MR. HERMANSON: Both.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the wall ends at a certain point
where access is possible, do you not lose the security that you are
asserting it intended to provide?
Either it is or it is not for security.
MR. HERMANSON: I think the main reason for the security
was these facilities out here, because of the land use here versus the
land use here. It's to discourage an interconnection between these two.
Does it provide complete security? No, we don't have a wall
around the entire project anyway. It stops here. Someone could go
around there. But it does discourage any interconnection or any
interaction between this area and the residential. And that really was
the intent. It's to discourage it. Prevent it entirely, no.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, not to belabor this, but I
do have a recollection somewhere, maybe in error, because I've talked
to a lot of people about that. That's why I'm confused as to whether I
had a conversation earlier with Mr. Klohn regarding this.
But I thought I remembered that under the GMP program that
when we spoke about it ultimately there was to have been a security --
a wall which would provide security for the folks who were going to
live in Fountain Lakes. If that's in error, that's fine. But that's what I
thought.
Anything queued up in your mind about that? Am I in error or is
that a change?
MR. DUANE: I think at our May neighborhood meeting, which
you may not have been in attendance at, I believe we did discuss
security. And I believe that an issue of wall may also have arisen at
Page 146
June 5, 2008
that neighborhood meeting. And I think that there was some
discussion by the pastor of ultimately to try to enclose -- separate the
two uses from one another. And that is my recollection that that was
discussed at one of our prior meetings.
Whether we've fallen short in not providing the buffer along that
portion of Fountain Lakes, I'll let you be the judge on that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the issue of
interconnectivity was I thought addressed quite early, and there was to
be no interconnectivity. And that would provide interconnectivity.
Albeit limited, perhaps, or even difficult, but nevertheless possible.
Unless I'm misperceiving that --
MR. DUANE: No, and I can't -- I don't know that I can disagree
with you. There's a gap in the wall.
MR. KLOHN: I'll make this easy. I checked with Corby
Schmidt, and I don't think that there was anything in the GMP that
referred to the wall, you know, being continuous out to The Lord's
Way. But I think that it makes perfect and logical sense to do so,
because of some of the concerns that I've heard from this commission
and that I will be anticipating in the BCC meeting.
So I think that MDG will commit to the pick-up of the wall
where the church wall would leave off so that it's one continuous wall,
if that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a wonderful idea.
MR. KLOHN: -- makes better sense.
I thought that's where you were going, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that's where you
wanted to go.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: Number 14, we don't have support for this
particular deviation, and it merits some explanation.
This is not to require internal buffering between Tract A, which
is the rehabilitation center and Tract C, which is the transportation
Page 147
June 5, 2008
center. Normally there would be some buffering required between
these uses.
We've submitted a site plan, either rightly or wrongly, but we
anticipated, you know, paving most of the areas along that property
line. We really didn't think it accommodated very well a buffer with
the usage of our parking lot. It was internal to our proposed
development. It was just between two tracts. The original 1999 PUD
did not require internal buffering between tracts.
So rightly or wrongly we looked at that somewhat of a carryover
from the prior PUD approval. It goes back to the site-specific nature of
some of the deviations that I discussed with you on the outset of our
presentation today as to why they necessitated perhaps more than
some other project to come before you.
I think we're just about wrapping up under the deviation section.
There are one or two others.
Deviation number 15. This project was originally approved at a
lesser requirement than is typically incorporated in the Land
Development Code. That was one space per four seats. We're
restricting that deviation to only the existing church-related facility.
Any future development would have to meet the requirements of your
current Land Development Code.
Unless I have missed something, I think that covers the
deviations. And I'd like to wrap up with responding to very
specifically --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, since you finished the
deviations and since I need a cup of coffee and it's 2:00 and everybody
else needs a break, let's come back at 2: 15 and hear your wrap-up.
MR. DUANE: Thank you. Great.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from
our break. I hope we all were able to get a cup of coffee. And we'll
attempt to go forward here.
Page 148
June 5, 2008
If there's ever a Starbucks concession open in this county, I want
to have a piece of that.
Mr. Duane, you were going to --
MR. DUANE: Try to wrap up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DUANE: I want to address a few comments that both the
chairman and staff had raised since the staff report came out. This
hopefully will shorten our discussion. I'm going to have to get detailed
for a few minutes, so if you could just bear with me.
I indicated that beds had been brought up as an issue. And I am
proposing on Page A-I, which is Appendix A, which is our list of
uses, if you look under use number three, residential care units, I
propose that we place a notation against -- next to it that there will be
a maximum of 400 beds. That's on Page A-I.
That happens to be the number of beds, Mr. Chairman, that we
were left with. We started with 800 ALF units. We dropped those off.
We remained with 400 beds. Now we're just converting those into the
249 units. So I think it's an apples to apples comparison.
I believe you brought this up, Mr. Chairman, that on two places
on Page A-I in Exhibit A, we mentioned residential care units. That
was intentionally, John, just to make it clear that the residential care
units were going to be part of the rehabilitation facility.
I have no objection to eliminating it. It has said it just above
when it groups the general land uses. But I added it for emphasis and I
certainly have no objection if you want to take out that small
redundancy.
Mr. Chairman, you brought an issue up about -- and this is on
Page F-l in Exhibit F, which is the development commitments.
There's a requirement where we had proposed to reserve essential --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Duane, could you slow down
so everybody can get to the pages you're going to get to.
MR. DUANE: Yes, ma'am.
Page 149
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: I was on Exhibit F, as in Frank, development
commitments, Page F-l. Under item number two, affordable housing,
we had volunteered to reserve essential workforce housing for 30
days. And we have no objection to revising that to provide -- or
holding those units for up to six months. I think that heads us in the
right direction.
I believe, Mr. Chairman -- I'm now going to Page A-2, Ms.
Caron -- the chairman had suggested that under accessory uses, which
is at the top of the page, that we delete the third sentence, which
limited program participants, those are participants outside the
campus, to no more than 10 percent of any particular program.
I'm not objecting to eliminating that because frankly it appears in
another provision of the document. I don't know if you were aware of
that or not, Mr. Chairman, but on the bottom of A-I we have the same
standard there. If your objection was having it in two places, I
certainly don't mind striking it from Page A-2.
I do think, however, it merits inclusion in the document. We had
a lot of discussion over this issue with transportation staff and
comprehensive planning staff in trying to pare down uses, particularly
accessory uses. And we did not include in our TIS an analysis of each
individual accessory use. And it was for the very reason that we
thought most of these accessory uses were going to be internally
utilized by the program participants or residents themselves.
In fact, Rob Price can address this issue more fully, but it is his
opinion that if you take the broad definition of a church-related
facility, it does anticipate that there are some incidental usage such as
in our case some program participants that graduate from the program
coming back from an occasional meeting.
The pastor indicated out of maybe a meeting with 30 people in it
he may have two or three individuals from outside his active, ongoing
program that come back. So that was designed for a number of reasons
Page 150
June 5, 2008
to achieve, which additionally set forth for you.
R V sales. Mr. Chairman, we talked about those at lunchtime. I
want to make it very clear that this is only an occasional usage of both
car and RV sales of First Assembly Ministries from time to time.
And if you want to turn, Ms. Caron, to Page B-5 of your
document, we have placed a limitation on sales of used cars or RVs to
a maximum of 10 per year. And a maximum of three of those vehicles
can be stored at any time on Tract C.
This is the transportation center where those vehicles could be
stored. As you can see, it's a remote location from 951. It's not by any
means a principal use of the activity on site. But I understand that this
and some other charitable organizations do from time to time have a
vehicle donated, and we've tried to restrict those, including limitations
on any sIgnage.
So they truly would be incidental to the job rehabilitation center
and the R V vehicle or car that from time to time they may have
donated.
I think that -- well, that addresses the question. I don't know if
I've persuaded you or not.
If you want to incorporate some SIC codes for used cars and RV
sales in Exhibit A, should you support our proposal, I would be happy
to introduce those SIC codes in Exhibit A, if you're supportive of what
our proposed use is with the limitations as we've set forth.
Mr. Chairman, we discussed with you briefly at lunchtime the
concern that you had on Page B-2. I think you understand--
understood what we were trying to accomplish on Page B-2, which is
Table 1, which has to do with the development standards for the
principal residential uses on Tract G.
And under the minimum distance between structures, we
structured it in a way that it was 15 feet or one quarter of the heights,
or the sum of the heights of the two adjacent buildings. I don't want to
go into a lot more detail if we satisfied your question regarding that,
Page 151
June 5, 2008
unless some other --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what's going to happen, Bob,
you're probably going to get more out of our questions than we will
out of your trying to understand what our answers are needing to be.
Because I may have had a question at lunchtime, but I think by asking
it in the presence of nine people, you may see that it may more
elaborated upon. You may be able then refine your answer better. That
might be a better way to approach this.
MR. DUANE: Okay. Well, I'm happy to touch upon that
standard on B-2. But I would like to note on the record, assuming that
we agree on the distance between structures on Page B-2, I would
suggest that we use the similar standard on Page B-4, which are the
development standards for Tracts A, Band C, I would propose that we
merely make -- use the same distance for -- between structures,
notwithstanding whatever discussion we may have subsequent to this.
I'm getting close to wrapping up. I appreciate your patience. I
know this has been detailed for you today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I can't keep going, I'll
lose my track here, I'm getting old now.
I want to get back to A-I, please. I just want to ask you this one
question, because I may not have heard it. Sometimes wearing hearing
aids is not a pleasure.
You said group 8361, you changed that from 249 units to a max
of 400 beds?
MR. DUANE: No, there will be 240 units, of which there will be
a maximum of 400 beds.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two-hundred-forty or 249 units?
MR. DUANE: 249 units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But that's within group
8361, correct?
Page 152
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that didn't go away.
MR. DUANE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Then I had another
question but I think I've already lost it because you went flying on. I
have one here, I guess I do.
Five stories not to exceed 67 feet as zoned building height. I
didn't know that area was zoned 67 feet. I thought that was not zoned.
Is that under the PUD; is that what we're saying?
MR. DUANE: Well, we had some building heights in the prior
PUD, and we've more or less carried those heights over in the new
PUD. However, we've made distinctions between zoned height and
actual height.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but I didn't think there
were any structures allowable greater than 65 feet for the commercial,
and I wondered why you needed to be at 67.
MR. DUANE: I think the prior PUD for that structure was 65
feet. What page is that on?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm looking at B-4 in your
table. But I'm simply going by my understanding and recollection in
the code and I don't recall a 67 feet. Now, that might have been
something in your PUD, but that brings you to 74 feet, and I had no --
you intend to exceed --
MR. DUANE: We were 65 feet at zoned height in the prior
PUD. And that doesn't include the steeple, which I think is somewhat
over 100 feet.
So if you take the old 65 feet being zoned height to the midpoint
of the roof, you would have gotten to something over 70 feet for your
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that arithmetic, but
I'm reading here and it says 67 feet.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
Page 153
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So which is it, 65 or 67?
MR. DUANE: It was 65 feet in the 1999 PUD--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought, 65.
MR. DUANE: -- and we're proposing 67 feet in this PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So that means you have a plan,
you have your building plans, you already know the heights you're
going to.
MR. DUANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just wondering why you
need to be a couple of feet higher than anybody else. We're going to
end up having a canyon effect starting here in that East Naples area. I
wouldn't be happy with that.
Convince me why two more feet beyond what is liberal to begin
with is necessary.
MR. DUANE: Pastor, you've since undertaken some
architectural designs, you have furthered the designs of some of these
buildings, is that correct, since 1999?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if you have interaction with
someone in the audience, they're going to have to be on the
microphone so we can get their answers on record.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I mean, I really want to support
this, but I do not want to start a process of me too.
MR. DUANE: Well, I want the Pastor to assure me that you
need the two additional height of building feet, 67.
PASTOR MALLORY: David Mallory, First Assembly.
My understanding is that our church building that we're now
building is 65 feet to the midpoint of the roof, to the peak of the roof.
There is a cupola on top which acts as the steeple. That's all --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pastor, I don't think it's fair to
you. And I'm not sure you understand the question, really.
The standard here is using 67 feet where ordinarily I would be
anticipating 65 feet. You've just confirmed 65 feet. I thought this
Page 154
June 5, 2008
might have been a typographical error. And your gentleman is saying
it is not. So I'd love to understand where that two extra feet comes in.
And I don't want to --
PASTOR MALLORY: I'm going back in my mind, but I really
do believe -- J.D., you may know, too. I believe it is 65 feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. On the strength of that,
can we modify this document to reflect that without creating a ruckus
for you?
MR. DUANE: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, you're going
to want to take out adult living facility in that same paragraph, right?
That's no longer a part of this. I think it was just something that didn't
get scratched out.
MR. DUANE: Oh, good catch.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those were my questions for the
moment.
MR. DUANE: Thank you. I'm almost finished.
Are there any questions about the tower? Otherwise I'll move on
from the tower.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, myself, I have a lot of questions.
I'm going to go through them page by page like I do whenever you
finish.
MR. DUANE: Okay, then I'd like to discuss the tower with you.
Our tower has a 170-foot radius. It's depicted at this point in the
master plan. We intentionally moved the rehabilitation center to fall
outside the radius. There are no occupied residential structures within
that radius that I believe has some kind of a collapsible tower. George
Hermanson may be able to provide a little more information on that.
I've reviewed the tower provisions of the code. They appear to
address themselves more to external impacts to properties with regard
to towers falling down. They don't appear to make a distinction
Page 155
June 5, 2008
internally to properties about impacts on either habitable or
non-habitable structures.
The old PUD ordinance adopted in 1999, on Page 15, at which
time it allowed a 500-foot tower, we're 350 feet, made a very specific
reference that those residential structures should be outside the fall
zone.
So we designed this particular campus around having a fall zone,
not impact any residential structures. There is the transportation center
garage where they're going to work on some cars, and that of course is
within the fall zone. And I would submit to you that we can find many
towers in Collier County, whether they be on fire stations or
emergency medical buildings or freestanding towers, that are probably
adjacent to other non-residential structures. But that's why we ended
up -- those are the design considerations we took into consideration
for towers.
One other issue was raised about the setback for the
multi-purpose building, which has a minimum of three feet. That's this
building located right here on the eastern portion of the property. An
issue pertaining to fire access came up.
County staff has supported our contention that we meet the
relevant fire requirements and that there does not need to be access to
the rear of the building. Perhaps others can elaborate more on that. But
your fire expert indicated that the structure as planned is safe for fire
protection.
An issue was raised about our shared access to the east of the
property. That is an arrow that's located right here. We think it's
unlikely that -- this is the 10 acres here that was removed. We think
it's unlikely that there will ever be shared access here, but we
indicated an arrow.
There was a concern about a dumpster that we had here and
whether it properly lined up. The access point was designed only to be
conceptual in nature. Adjustments can be made to that at a subsequent
Page 156
June 5, 2008
date, if need be the case.
We also entered into a three-party agreement between the county
--I'm sorry, the case is complicated -- three-party agreement between
the county and First Assembly Ministries and MDG to relocate some
travel trailers that previously existed on the site. I think there were 18
or 19 or so and there are now four remaining on Tract A.
Building permits have been pulled for those and we're in the
process of getting our final inspections, as required by that three-party
agreement.
I've got three or four other minor things. I realize I'm losing your
attention here rapidly. I thought if we could fend some of these off it
might be easier --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Duane, I'm usually very tolerant of
presentations, because I always want to defer to the fact that you
should have all the time you need to present your case. You might
want to consider getting to the points and letting us ask our questions
because you'll get more out of that --
MR. DUANE: I'll let you answer any questions from this point
forward.
Thank you for your patience.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that I'll turn to my fellow
commissioners and see where we want to start with the question
process.
Anybody have any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Waiting on you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, let's do this quick.
Just for understanding. What I'd like to do is I've kind of put a
chart together out of the transportation thing to answer my prior
question.
Page 157
June 5, 2008
But if you could just help me show where these things are. The
residential units, 296 of them will be in Fountain Lakes, right? And
the 10 units will be where on the site?
MR. DUANE: 296 units here. There will be 10 church-related
uses, which will be in the multi-purpose building, which is this
structure located right here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
You've reduced the care facility 151 units. The 249, they will be
in what building? Just point to the building on the site.
MR. DUANE: Those 249 units will be located in the educational
complex. They'll be located in the rehabilitation center. And some also
temporarily will be located in the multi-purpose center and relocated
to the rehabilitation center after this building is constructed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
The assisted living facility you totally removed.
The university/college, 300 students, the educational complex?
Okay.
The church. The church I know.
The day care center will be in which building?
MR. DUANE: The day care center will be located on Tract A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So is it the educational
complex or the place of worship?
MR. DUANE: Educational complex.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you've killed
the campground.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't go any further. The school,
the 300-student school is going to be located where?
MR. DUANE: In the educational complex on Tract A.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is -- are those three little
buildings --
Page 158
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: Which is this building right here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So in there is going to be the day
care.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the school.
MR. DUANE: That is correct. In addition to the care units.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And care units as well?
MR. DUANE: And care units as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I've got other questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, take your time. I just didn't
want to stop what you were doing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's see. Well, let's get back to
B-2 and discuss whoever thought up the distance between structures.
I need to understand what you're trying to get at here.
MR. DUANE: We originally proposed a standard of one-half the
building height between structures. That is the standard I and others
have incorporated, amongst other standards in PUD's since I started
doing this some time ago.
Staff had a problem with it from the standpoint well, what if you
have different size structures, you know, one is such a height and
some is the other height. They wanted to make it more explicit.
We did not want to use one-half the sum of the building heights.
Because if you look at my plan here, our structures are relatively close
together and we could not meet that standard. We could have met
one-half the building height. But in deference to staff, we ended up,
which we thought was the same thing, to take into account varying
structure heights, should that be the case.
It's not on this plan here, but by taking 15 feet or one-quarter of
the sum of the building heights, we ended up with the separation that
we had previously anticipated and proposed, which is one-half the
Page 159
June 5, 2008
building height.
I think -- and those are the structures -- those are the actually
separation between the structures you see on our plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the premise of half the sum of the
building heights, when you have --
MR. DUANE: Half the sum of -- one quarter of the sum of the
building heights.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I just said. Under the
premise of one-half the sum of the building heights, you would have
two different size buildings side by side, a 30-foot and a 60-foot,
totaling 90 feet. Your separation between structures would be 45 feet.
Under your program they would be half that; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to reduce the separation
between buildings by 50 percent of what half the sum of the building
heights would be. Okay, that's where it's going.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, which I'm not buying.
MR. HERMANSON: Can I make just a brief point? I'll just take
just a minute. George Hermanson for the record.
More often than not, the multi-family PUD's that we have done
-- and this has been acceptable to staff; Ray, you can disagree with me
if I'm wrong -- but we have been able to adequately separate buildings
by half the building height. That has been the standard.
Older PUD's, yes, some of them were the building height.
30-foot building means 30 feet apart. But we have been doing 30-foot
buildings 15 feet apart.
The quarter the sum of the building heights is the same as half
the building heights, because you're adding two buildings together,
dividing by two to get the average, and then taking half of that again.
So you're dividing by two twice. That's the reason for the four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you had half the building
height and you had two buildings side by side, one building was 20
Page 160
June 5, 2008
feet, the other was 40, you'd have 10 and 20 for a 30-foot separation.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you had half the sum of the
building heights and you added 20 and 40 together and got 60 and you
end up with 30, wouldn't that be the same?
MR. HERMANSON: Those are two different standards.
One-half the sum of the building height is the same as the average
building height. One-half the sum is the same as the average.
One quarter is one-half the building height of one building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you could live with half the
building height, right?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a 20-foot building and a
40- foot building. Half of a 20- foot building is 10 feet, and half of a
40-foot building is 20 feet. That's 30 feet apart. Okay? Are we in
agreement that far?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's why they want a
quarter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's what I'm trying to get. I
don't think the communication's working here.
MR. HERMANSON: Let me give you two examples. Two
buildings that have the same height, 30 feet. Half of that height is 15.
Those buildings would be separated by 15 feet by the standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would be 30.
MR. HERMANSON: No, no, no, I'm saying the standard that we
want to use is half the building height. You want to bring me under the
other standard. I'm trying to stick with the standard that we're asking.
Half the building height is more often than not the standard that
we're using now. So two 30-foot buildings could be 15 feet apart. And
I've got four of them I can remember right now that we've done that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Half the building height is the standard
Page 161
June 5, 2008
you're using when you're working with a tract line -- I mean a platted
line.
Now you're looking at distance between buildings, which means
you have to pretend -- you've got an imaginary line between the
buildings that becomes where that half of the building height applies,
and it goes back to my original example.
You're going -- you're pretending that there's no line between
these buildings and half the height of one building gives you the
distance between the two. That's not what half the building height
used to require --
MR. HERMANSON: There is no line between the buildings
because there's no tracts. There's just one building to another.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's an architect on board. Brad, help
us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't have to -- they're
creating themselves a huge nightmare.
First of all, if they treat these as independent buildings, which as
an architect I think I wouldn't. I would ultimately try to combine at
least the three of them, come up with a very expensing building type
to do that and a very expensive sprinkler system.
At 15 feet you're going to have a nightmare. You're going to
have a seven-and-a-half-foot property line. You probably won't be
able to put windows on that wall. I don't know what type of
construction you plan to use, but hopefully it doesn't have wood
involved in it.
And the 15 feet is less than the minimum 20 feet. Which
remember, I'm always Mr. Greater-than-20 because that 20 feet allows
fire department access to the back of the building. There's a lot of
reward for that in the building code on type of construction and the
size of your building.
So if you want to let -- I mean, there's an esthetic issue which
you're dealing with. But they have such a nightmare that they're
Page 162
June 5, 2008
walking into that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, aren't you on some fire
committee?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you speaking -- so you're speaking
with authority on this issue, which means our fire department is going
to be speaking with experience on the issue. So you might want to pay
attention to what he's saying in regards to your setbacks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I said when I started out is
that the way I would end up designing this is those three buildings in a
row, I'm going to take the area of those floors and make that one
building so that these little areas that you had between the buildings
become courtyards on one building. That's the only way you're going
to pull it off.
If you don't, there is what the code calls an imaginary line, used
to be called an assumed properly line, somewhere between those
walls. So you're going to have like a seven-and-a-half-foot distance,
which wouldn't even allow you unprotected openings.
So you're creating a nightmare. Hopefully somebody has thought
about that. But it's their nightmare.
I mean, I think what we should deal with here, let's deal with the
esthetic of it. Since he already has a plan and maybe even has working
drawings, it's too late to change his dimension. But they'll feel the
pain, let's put it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you know, I'm always -- we
shouldn't be steering into architectural code, I agree. But this is one
time I thought the explanation would be helpful to get the point across
as to what we're trying to say here. Although I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They've got a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's going to carry any weight.
Ms. Caron, you were asking questions.
And Mr. Hermanson and Mr. Schmitt, if you're going to carry on
Page 163
June 5, 2008
a sidebar, could we be included in it or -- because Ms. Caron still has
questions.
MR. HERMANSON: I would maintain, I think Joe can back me
up on this, that we've used one-half the building height on many
projects. One quarter the sum is the same as one-half of one building
height, okay? It's the same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I will disagree with you on that
point.
MR. HERMANSON: The issue on fire access, 20 feet is
required on roadway surfaces where a fire truck has to access the
property. Fire trucks don't drive around the backs of buildings. That's
not -- they drag hoses around the backs of buildings.
So I don't think the 20 feet for fire access really applies. We're
just talking about the ends of the buildings, where they're closest to
each other.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 20-foot I was referring to,
we're not talking about the fire lane, which you are saying. The 20 feet
is the minimum dimension between a building where the firemen will
drag the hose between the buildings. So in the eyes of the code you
can't drag the hose between your buildings.
But anyway, I mean, here's what's going to finally happen is that
the type of construction of these buildings to meet this site plan is
going to be much higher than would normally be there, so the
beneficiary are the residents of having a safer construction site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the cost, though, will have to go
along with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The cost will be a big, big
difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Still on B-2, roof treatments. It
Page 164
June 5, 2008
says that the dwelling structures will be constructed of tile or similar
looking material.
Was that what was discussed at the neighborhood information
meeting? I thought tile roofs were what was discussed, not similar
looking material --
MR. DUANE: We talked about tile roofs, you're correct, at the
neighborhood information meeting. I believe that that was added to
provide a similar material that would have a similar look and
appearance. But we did discuss tile roofs at our neighborhood
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So we should be at tile roofs then
in here because that was the commitment you made? You know, I --
MR. DUANE: That will be fine. That will be fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, is this a better product that
people don't know about yet that we can let them know something
about?
MR. DUANE: No, I can't defend it.
MR. KLOHN: Bill Klohn.
There actually is a different product that we've considered in
other developments that we're doing. But in the construction plans that
are complete and the bidding that we've completed to date, we have
bid tile roofs, so tile roofs will work in this application. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
Well, I had a question about these RV sales. I think you tried to
address that. And you changed -- yeah, I had a note too about the 30
days for -- that's been changed to six months.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You may have hit some of these
things.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ms. Caron, while you're just
looking, can I just jump in on what you were about to say?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure.
Page 165
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The issue that came to my mind
about the vehicles, you said you would be willing to 10 or less a year.
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What means would you have to
-- I mean, that would be self regulation or --
MR. DUANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- would you have a report or
what would you do?
I understood from your tone that you're not crazy about
receiving the vehicles, so you would be disinclined to want them, but
sometimes it would be difficult to not accept them. How would you --
nevertheless, how would you conform to that?
MR. DUANE: If! -- I didn't mean to connote that they didn't
want to accept a vehicle if someone wanted to give it to them, but I --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the impression I got, I'm
sorry .
MR. DUANE: But from time to time they do get one.
I had, frankly -- historically they've gotten a limited number.
Staff said you ought to pick a number, because we don't want to have
it unregulated. And we thought that 10 gave us more than enough
latitude. That's just a handful.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. But how do you
intend to show that you're complying with your own --
MR. DUANE: I'm open to any suggestions. There's a PUD
monitoring report that's required. And if we want to add a provision
that the recordation of those vehicle sales shall be included in the
annual PUD monitoring report, that would certainly be one way to
track it. Would that be your pleasure?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good to me. And it was
Ms. Caron I thought was trying to get to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, we're back to you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go to the permitted accessory
Page 166
June 5, 2008
uses.
MR. DUANE: Is that on Page A-2?
COMMISSIONER CARON: A-2, I'm sorry.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So what is the necessity for coin
operated laundries?
MR. DUANE: They have --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ajob skill?
MR. DUANE: No, it could just be ease of access to a laundry
facility.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Laughter). Sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Usually when you're in a care
facility you don't have to pay to do your laundry was my point.
And cemeteries. Where on this property is there room for a
cemetery?
MR. DUANE: Cemetery. This is the Memorial Gardens right
here. And in case I missed it previously, this is the memorial structure
that's going to be located in this portion of the property.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So okay, I'm sure -- I absolutely
know nothing about this, but there are not whole separate regulations
for cemeteries, they can just be a part of a PUD?
MR. DUANE: This is a church. Cemeteries are grouped under
the list of churches in the SIC codes. So I think they're harmonious
adjacent to one another. I can't speak for the licensing requirements
for cemeteries, but this is where the gardens were planned.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And you just pointed out
where the Christian Memorial is going to be. Is that what you were
pointing to?
MR. DUANE: Yes, that's correct. There's a reference to it in the
table.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And what exactly is that?
MR. DUANE: It is a 35-foot high sculpture of Christian soldiers.
Page 167
June 5, 2008
Is it 10 or so? I included in the packet in my application some
descriptive material that showed a little rendering of that. I don't
believe it got into your staff report. I don't know -- if you have an
interest, we can put it up on the screen here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right. It's a 35-foot
sculpture.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, correction to Mr.
Duane's statement. Cemeteries are not listed as part of the church
facilities in the SIC code.
The category you recommended has its own category, and it's
for animal cemetery operations, cemetery real estate operations,
cemetery associations, mausoleum operations, and real property sub-
dividers and developers, cemetery lots only.
So basically you're asking to be able to do one of those. Are you
going to have an animal cemetery operation there?
MR. DUANE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to have a cemetery for
real estate operations and cemetery associations?
MR. DUANE: Real estate operations?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 6553 as the group--
MR. DUANE: Okay, 6553.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you pull up your SIC code, which I
have a copy of in front of me, there's two books up here containing the
codes. They have four categories that could fit under that code. One is
the animal cemetery operation. The other is cemeteries, real estate
operations, cemetery associations, which I don't think you are. They
have mausoleum operations. I'm not sure you're planning to put a
mausoleum out there. And then real property sub-dividers and
developers, cemetery lots only. I don't think you're subdividing those
cemetery lots for sale.
MR. DUANE: I don't think we're dividing the cemetery lots for
sale.
Page 168
June 5, 2008
Are there going to be any mausoleums, Pastor?
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes.
MR. DUANE: There are going to be mausoleums.
You're correct, it has a separate group. I thought it was grouped
under church-related facilities, but I stand corrected. Let me get the
group for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under cemetery group 6553, you're
only looking for mausoleum operations; is that correct?
PASTOR MALLORY: The designation--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Reverend Mallory --
PASTOR MALLORY: David Mallory, First Assembly.
The designation under that SIC code does not really address
what it is. Many of the Roman Catholic churches in town have a
columbarium for cremated remains. That's part of it. We also have
small structures for people that don't wish to be cremated.
According to the law of the State of Florida, any church can
have that. It's part of a church ministry.
So it's a very beautifully designed memorial gardens. It won't
look like a cemetery, it's going to look more like a park.
But it's very similar -- if you are familiar with some of the
Roman Catholic churches in town, they do have gardens that you walk
through with the columbarium's there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you really want a cemetery as an
accessory use to a church. You don't necessarily need group 6553.
PASTOR MALLORY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that might resolve it. That
makes a lot more sense and it's a lot cleaner than opening it up to a
group of items that you don't really want and that might be
problematic. Thank you.
Sorry, Ms. --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's good.
The help supply services, is -- and I'll have to -- these all began
Page 169
June 5, 2008
to blur in together last night. But is that in conjunction with your
cafeteria operation or your -- I mean, what --
MR. DUANE: No, the help supply services is essentially a labor
pool for residents. That's why we limited it to only that use and that
group.
For example, I recently moved and needed some help for a day
to load a truck and I went to First Assembly and hired a gentleman for
a day and brought him back. It was his day off. And he was part of
half a dozen people that they had in a labor pool that they allow to
leave the facility to help earn some money for their care.
It's a use that's permitted in the existing PUD also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but to fix this, and it needs to be
fixed, because under the category 7363 you have nine uses. You're
now telling us you only want one.
The use that you're asking for is help supply services for
residents only. And maybe if you insert the word "of' and take out the
parentheses group 7363, that would clear it up.
It gives you what you want, it limits you to what you want and
takes out eight other uses that -- labor pools and manpower pools and
things like that I think would be problematic if you asked for them.
MR. DUANE: The intent was just to limit it to on-site residents.
I have no objection to limiting it just for that one use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that works.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
And in regard to that coin operated laundries, which we all got a
tickle out of earlier, but in truth that's not a commercial operation,
that's intended to be limited for the exclusive use of the residents --
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and guests.
So then maybe that should be a tag on that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray, to be honest with
Page 170
June 5, 2008
you, I printed out the SIC codes for every number in both the principal
uses and accessory uses, and we're going to have to go through this for
every line, because the total of all the uses they're asking for are 154
uses.
And I know that talking to the Reverend at lunch, that's not what
their intent was. So we're going to have to go back and clean up -- and
you're right, we've got to clean up that one and limit each one of them;
otherwise, we're going to have a document that's pretty well flawed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that.
MR. DUANE: And we're prepared to make some suggestions on
limiting those uses when we finish this line of questioning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would suggest we put our order
in for dinner now. Kidding, just kidding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, we're still on you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, there's no reason not to go
back to coin operated laundries then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were going to put something, you
just said, that might solve the problem unilaterally. Maybe we ought to
consider that so that the questions involving these issues --
MR. DUANE: That was my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would be limited then.
Okay, well, let's get into it then.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What would that be?
MR. DUANE: Pastor?
PASTOR MALLORY: If you go back to Exhibit A, Page 1,
religious organizations, group 8661, just add churches.
Private elementary and secondary schools, group 8211, and
private colleges, group 8221. From the long list, just add seminaries,
vocational schools.
From the residential care units, group 8361, 249 units, add
alcohol and drug rehab.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what is 8361 --
Page 171
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 8361 has 23 uses, but he's telling
us out of all those he only wants the one listed for alcohol, rehab
centers.
PASTOR MALLORY: And the destitute children and the aged
home. I think there's a section there that says homes for --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Destitute.
PASTOR MALLORY: Destitute children and aged.
(Commissioner Midney exits the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got -- that's what I have right
here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There were three you probably
want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back on -- yeah, let's make
sure we're right on this. 8361. The first one is alcohol, rehab.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes. And there's one down the list that
says drug rehab, I believe. So it's alcohol and drug.
And then it says halfway -- I believe it says halfway homes. I
just jotted down for the destitute children and aged, I believe it says.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's find it here. Halfway homes
for delinquents and offenders, halfway group homes for persons of
social and personal problems.
PASTOR MALLORY: Not that, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And--
PASTOR MALLORY: It's on the right column. There's nothing
that says homes?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one do you have?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It says homes for the aged with
health care incidental. And it has homes for children with health care
incidental.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then homes for destitute men and
women.
Page 172
June 5, 2008
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, those are the only three I want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we want the alcoholism rehab,
the drug rehab, the homes for children with health care incidental, and
the homes for destitute men and men.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's four out of the 23. Okay.
PASTOR MALLORY: And then under the next one, child day
care services, group 8351. Just the one that says child care, add that to
it. There's a difference between child day care and child care.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
PASTOR MALLORY: Then under rehabilitation service center,
group 8093, put outpatient and detox.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's -- 8093 has nine uses. One
is outpatient detox, outpatient mental health and outpatient treatment
clinics for alcoholism and drug addiction.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yeah, it's the outpatient detox.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just that one, okay.
PASTOR MALLORY: Then job training, group 8322.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one has 43 uses.
PASTOR MALLORY: I just want counseling, hotline, adult day
care. Those three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for staffs benefit, I have the
printed SIC codes. I'm circling the ones the Reverend's indicating he
would like so we can keep it straight when we get to the end.
PASTOR MALLORY: Then individual and family social
services, group 8069. It's kind of a repetition, but it's drug and alcohol
rehab.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's drug addiction rehab
hospitals and alcoholism rehab hospitals. Are those the two you're
asking --
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, the drug and the alcohol one,
please.
Page 173
June 5, 2008
And then specialty outpatient hospitals, group 8399. Social
services counsels.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's two things starting with
social. One is social change associations and social service
information exchanges, i.e. alcoholism and drug addiction.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yeah, that's the one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one? Okay.
PASTOR MALLORY: And there's something in there about
fundraising, and I don't know that we need to address that, because
fundraising goes along with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Churches.
PASTOR MALLORY: -- church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think you're right there.
PASTOR MALLORY: And then social services not classified
elsewhere, just see above. That's repeated. And residential care units,
see above, that's repeated.
Then on the next page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just give me one second.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, one second.
PASTOR MALLORY: Okay, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll finish up what we're -- staff is
probably -- is going to have to write this up, so it would be nice if we
got it all just right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You said we did need to put in
fundraising under 399, right? 8399'1
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he said --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He said did not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, under churches, all right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're under the accessory uses.
PASTOR MALLORY: Coin operated laundries, group 7215.
The reason for having coin operated laundries for the clients is just the
maintenance of the machines. It just helps us keep the machines going.
Page 174
June 5, 2008
It's just for those residents that are there.
We will have laundry facilities for the complex. But for residents
we're going to give them the opportunity to help reimburse, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one would you want then, just
the one that says coin operated laundries, right?
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next one?
PASTOR MALLORY: The next one, radio broadcasting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's only one under that category--
PASTOR MALLORY: That's only one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and there's only one under the
television category as well.
PASTOR MALLORY: You leave those two the same.
And then group 5942, bookstores, just leave that one the way it
IS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's only two categories there
anyway. Okay.
PASTOR MALLORY: 6553, cemetery. We've already discussed
that. It's an accessory use to the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't think you need that
category at all because it's more of a commercialized category for
cemeteries, so --
PASTOR MALLORY: And it's in our PUD.
Group 7363, I just want labor pools in there.
And that ends that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that last one, what is the labor
pool in your perspective?
PASTOR MALLORY: We have a program called Alpha House.
When someone graduates from Life Academy and they have received
job training skills -- for instance, we have one lady now that is
working temporarily with QuickBooks in a place.
It's just -- it's the first -- it's the step after being on the campus to
Page 175
June 5, 2008
introduce them back into society. And so we have individuals with
different skills.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way you operate it, I mean,
when I hear labor pool I keep thinking of stop and go's with all these
people gathering outside waiting to be picked up in the morning.
That's not what you're perceiving --
PASTOR MALLORY: No, it's for residents only. For instance, a
contractor in Marco called us to send some guys down to clean up
around some of the new houses, so we supplied that.
And then we help them manage the funds when they receive it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Anybody else have any questions on the SIC codes while we're
on them?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I understand I think what
he wants to do, but with those two examples, I think it leaves open
questions should you run into problems later on with what that's going
to be.
Is there any closer definition we could get to it, because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm talking about the one we just
did, help supply services, which he codified as labor pools. He gave
two examples. Those examples, I was trying to understand the process
-- and then that might lead us a little bit better.
PASTOR MALLORY: I guess you could call it client labor
services. That it's -- they're individuals that have gone through Life
Academy and are now in what we call Alpha House.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is an extension of their
education or reeducation.
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes, it is. It's re-entry--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the labor is not so much a
Page 176
June 5, 2008
significant part of it as is the effort to get the person back into the
world.
PASTOR MALLORY: That's right. We're able to monitor, we
still do drug and alcohol testing, and just make sure the person can
cope with society.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. I just wouldn't
hope that we would think that people in the neighborhood might think
that you're running a labor shop.
PASTOR MALLORY: No, this is for clients only. People who
are --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can we agree that it would be
restricted --
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to those who are completing a
program of rehabilitation?
PASTOR MALLORY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that help in any way to
clarify it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah -- Ms. Caron has one--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right. Go ahead, he can
ask it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Jeff. Jeff, a
concern I have is we went through the one on the screen and
cherry-picked disabilities. That couldn't be a form of discrimination,
could it?
In other words, we didn't include deaf or blind. A deaf or blind
person wants care, they're going to say you can't do that, the Planning
Commission says you can't have deaf and blind --
MR. KLATZKOW: I haven't had any issue with what you've#
Page 177
June 5, 2008
been doing so far.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, your recreational facilities,
including but not limited to. If I look at this site, getting football fields
and baseball fields on here is going to be somewhat problematic. I
mean, could you get down to what you're actually going to be able to
do here on this site? I mean, we've got every recreational thing
possible listed under here.
PASTOR MALLORY: David Mallory, First Assembly.
The property does not lend itself of course to large complexes
like softball field. But during the time that this building is waiting to
be constructed, because it's about a $25 million structure, we are going
to create a sports field here.
Once that building is constructed, it has a very large internal
courtyard and a gymnasium. This building also has a gymnasium. So
there's plenty of exercise.
There we will be some room around these buildings for, say, an
outdoor basketball or volleyball court. But it's very limited outdoor
activity.
Under the old PUD, they listed a lot of things. Llama stables and
canoe trails. The Army Corps stopped all that. But we wanted this to
be an area where kids could camp out, kids could just enjoy nature. So
-- but we're not allowed to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, you can't camp in preserves.
All right, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think you could.
Number 14 is the four mobile homes. Those are temporary and
go away at a certain amount of time. Is this the appropriate place for
them under the accessory uses?
I don't know, Mr. Duane can probably -- I mean, it's --
MR. DUANE: The answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So they're not included
Page 178
June 5, 2008
anywhere else, this is where they are.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the PUD. Well, there's no limit
here.
MR. DUANE: Twenty-four months they go away. In fact,
they're probably four or five months into that period already.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where does it say that in the PUD?
MR. DUANE: In several places.
PASTOR MALLORY: Twenty-four months after sale.
MR. DUANE: It says it in the agreement also, and I'll find it in
the document for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we would have to strike if off
of -- we'd have to strike number 14 as a standing accessory use,
otherwise it goes on forever.
MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend it be stricken from this
document. There's already a separate agreement with the Board of
County Commissioners for this. And it is -- there is a time limit on
that. And it's a temporary use only.
I would agree, I think it would be best just to strike it from this
document because it will not be a use that will be allowed after a
certain period of time. And I can't recall what the trigger was, but it
was at --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Twenty-four months.
MR. DUANE: Twenty-four months.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, there was a separate agreement between
the board on this, and it is 24 months.
So, Kay, it doesn't need to be in here, does it?
MR. BELLOWS: It's already -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make sure I'm not
missing stuff, and I probably am here.
The 368,000 square feet, that square footage refers strictly to the
ministries portion of it?
Page 179
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: That is correct, including all the care units.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me?
MR. DUANE: Including all the care units. Inclusive of
everything.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'll let somebody else take
over until I can get back into this document and figure out where I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll fill in while you're quiet then,
how's that sound?
I'm going to take the stuff in order that I have them, so it's going
to be sporadic in between staff and the applicant and whoever I have
questions of.
And that starts with Nick.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's always good to start with
Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when you can three-hole
punch paper and insert anywhere in here, the first person up always
seems to be Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can we recap the meeting? I just got
lost.
COMMISSIONER CARON: He wasn't paying attention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: After about 20 minutes, I got a little
disillusioned --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, I know just the guy to recap it for
you.
(Laughter. )
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I need to read the meeting minutes
before we continue.
Go ahead, Commissioner, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I received an e-mail from
Page 180
June 5, 2008
Reverend Mallory concerning an issue about The Lord's Way
right-of-way. I sent the email to you because I told you I needed an
explanation at today's meeting.
It basically said that you had first offered to buy the right-of-way
and then you decided to take it. And I'm just wondering --
(Laughter. )
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wish I had that kind of power --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says they offered $330,000 at first and
then when we agreed they rescinded their offer and decided to take it.
And I'd like to know what that means.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think that's the case. I think the
clarification in working with Mr. Duane and Mr. George Hermanson,
we talked about there were payments in lieu of for sidewalks along
951, reservation of right-of-way for future mitigation, consistency
with Policy 5.1, the future Benfield Road expansion and getting traffic
off the road. So there were a bunch of discussions on what we would
do to mitigate this project for traffic.
In the traffic impact statement it talks about four failing
segments and the proj ect being phased to be consistent with that.
So we asked them, as part of mitigation, what's some of the
things we can do to do that. And right-of-way came up. How much
right-of-way, what it would be.
If they want to go back and readjust it, we can take off those
deviations for the sidewalk and have them pay for the sidewalks along
951, because we kind of worked it back and forth. We said we don't
know if we need the right-of-way so let's reserve it. But in the
meantime you wouldn't have to pay for the sidewalks consistent with
the LDC. So we thought that was a good agreement with them, and
their consultant agreed with us.
So if the Pastor feels that we should change that now and we
want to revisit the whole item, I'm happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that this is resolved,
Page 181
June 5, 2008
because you have two different owners and you have a consultant.
And you've been communicating, maybe not with everybody. And so
maybe there's some miscommunication amongst the four of you.
I don't want it to be perceived that we're taking an exaction that
is not related to the site-generated impacts as is allowed by what we
can do.
So I mean, ifthere's any further question from Mr. Klohn or Mr.
Mallory, please, now is the time to discuss it. Otherwise, this matter
should be put to bed.
If you felt there's unfair treatment here, tell us.
MR. KLOHN: For the record, Bill Klohn, president ofMDG.
We've been through this process in many, many projects. And
the interaction with the different departments and staff, be it
landscaping or Nick's department, we do it with regularity and
understand how the horse trading works. Forgive my way of
paraphrasing that.
MDG is okay in entirety with the donation that we're making.
I want to remind you that as we did that -- or as -- that as we did
acquiesce to that donation or dedication of right-of-way, it came from
this portion of the property. And as we kept giving and giving and
giving -- and boy did we give. I don't know how many meetings we
had where it kept growing and growing and growing. That condensed
our site.
So when we come back to this distance between the buildings, I
want you to remember that as we were giving to make it work for
transportation, not only giving the land away, that we were giving
physical land away that put constraints on our site. So I'd just like to
point --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying it's all Nick's fault--
MR. KLOHN: It's all Nick's fault.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you have higher construction
costs because of the issue Brad's pointed out, it's Nick's fault again.
Page 182
June 5, 2008
MR. KLOHN: And he's agreed to reimburse us for those
construction costs. Just kidding.
I'll go back to the regular mic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, I understand the
communication, you're aware of it and you are used to it. And I know
Hole-Montes is used to those kind of issues. Did you all communicate
that to Reverend Mallory? Because it appears to be somewhat as a
surprise to him, and that would be a hard surprise to take at the last
minute.
MR. KLOHN: I'm not going to speak for Pastor Mallory, but a
little bit of the history. The Pastor was involved in some of the
meetings early on with Nick when everybody was going to receive
$368,000, or whatever the number was. And MDG and the church
were very pleased that some day there would be compensation down
the road.
When it began to turn because of the negotiations with not
having to pay for the sidewalks on 951 and other things that Nick's
pointed out, MDG concluded, well this is just part of what we're going
to have to agree to. The church was greatly disappointed.
And Pastor, if you want to continue on the subject, I'll give it to
you, because I don't want to take words out of your mouth.
PASTOR MALLORY: I guess my issue is that, first of all, we
have a sidewalk all the way along 951, and they wanted to join that.
And we found that was a liability problem, because if the public used
our sidewalk.
And then when I was asked to pray for the dedication of 951, I
talked to those constructing it and I looked at the plan and they told
me there would be a bike path all the way along, that that was in their
contract. So I didn't see why we would have to pay for that bike path
since it was already in a contract that was let out.
So I was very excited about the financial remuneration.
The very last discussion I wasn't a part of. And I'll just go on
Page 183
June 5, 2008
record. We can leave it as it is, which would be fine, because I do not
want to hold up this project. But I just want to go on record as saying
that the offer was there for the 350,000-plus. And then it wasn't there.
And I told my board, I said we're being compensated, because
first of all, it was something like 20 feet of The Lord's Way and then
25 and now it's up to 50. We have royal palms all the way down there,
we have -- it's a beautiful place. And from what we understand, we
have to move the royal palms at our expense or they'll just be
bulldozed when that time comes.
So it's just an issue, because I'm dealing with a board just like
this one, a church board. So I wanted to get it clarified. And we will
agree with whatever is down here. But I just wanted it to go on record.
That's why I e-mailed you with the question. There probably wouldn't
be a question if the monetary offer was never there. But it was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm bringing it up. I want to
get everything on the table.
And by the way, for your sake, I really hope your board isn't like
this board. Your gray hair would be falling out by now.
MR. KLOHN: I want to add just one small matter to the subject
that we're on. When I said that we do this day in and day out, I didn't
want to imply that we're better than the church or the pastor and they
don't. It was just much easier for us to work with it because we haven't
started any improvements yet. So there was more hardship for him. So
I wanted to clarify that it was physically easier for us to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Nick, do you have anything you want to follow up with?
Basically, it's going to stay as is. I think it's been aired as appropriately
as it needs to be on the record then at this point.
In the staff report under the neighborhood informational
meeting, I don't know who attended that. There's a comment in here
that says under developer commitments, a reduction in the original
800-bed assisted living facility is 400 beds. I believe that may have
Page 184
June 5, 2008
been told to the public. Does anybody know?
MR. DUANE: Yes, when we had our neighborhood -- we had
two neighborhood meetings, one for the GMP amendment and one on
the zoning amendment.
I believe at the GMP meeting the Pastor misspoke. Kay and I
have discussed this numerous times. He did say 249 beds. He meant to
say 249 units. In all the applications we filed we made it very clear
that there were 249 units. And frankly, he misspoke. We did not
intend that to be a commitment, and it was what it was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, since it was done at an NIM, the
only question I'd have for the county attorney, does that bind them to
the 249?
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't bind them, but I am concerned.
Any time you tell people you're going to do one thing and you do
something else, that's not a good practice.
And, you know, I suppose the community has the ability to
come before the board and air it then. But I'm not happy with this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It presents an opportunity for challenge
if someone would have wanted to in the future. But as far as
proceeding, it wouldn't require another neighborhood information
meeting at this point?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it rises to that level of
senousness.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I had also underlined this. But the
only comment I will make is if the staff report is correct, it says in
here a reduction in the original 800 beds for assisted living facility.
Well, assisted living facility is out altogether now.
So this 249, they've assigned it to something else, which they
never talked to the neighborhood about. Which again I have a problem
with that. But as far as it being a commitment, it looks like if we can
Page 185
June 5, 2008
rely on this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think it was just an error in
the way it was phrased. But unfortunately the public has a right to rely
upon these meetings, that's why we have them. And that's my only
concern. So at least I wanted to get it on the record for discussion.
We'll just see where it goes as we go through the day.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Corby.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, hi. You got something you want
to contribute?
MR. SCHMIDT: I do, thank you. Corby Schmidt,
comprehensive planning.
Going back to the notes from the neighborhood information
meeting that was held for the Compo Plan amendment that created the
sub-district this PUD is in, the people attending that meeting heard the
correct reference to 400 beds when this was being discussed, so there's
not complete confusion out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the meeting that we're talking about
is the one held for the PUD rezone, right? Okay, thank you, sir.
Ms. Caron, did you come back with your questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead, you can continue
on. I'll jump in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're more than welcome to, of
course.
The comprehensive planning staff did an analysis of various
parts of your project. One of them was the buffers that were being
reduced.
And the comment that I saw that Corby wrote was that the
response to reduce the buffer width may not have been meeting the
intent of enhancement of the landscaping buffer.
I brought this question up to staff. Someone hopefully from staff
can explain to me how they see it. Because in the end, Corby, I notice
you signed off on this. So could you explain to me why a reduction in
Page 186
June 5, 2008
the buffer is an enhancement in the landscaping pursuant to the GMP?
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. The question can be answered in
that certainly as the increase of the dedication for The Lord's Way,
that width increased. There was less and less chance for an enhanced
buffer in width. So we have a reduced width of that buffer, but we've
almost doubled the amount of plantings that are going to be in the
buffer. So that trade-off was acceptable to staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my question in my meeting
with staff was that if you have 20 feet and you stagger the trees 20 feet
apart in a diagonal back and forth and you cut that 20 feet down to 10
feet and you bring those trees more squished together in a soldier line,
they become closer together. Yes. In, fact, at 20 feet they might be 15
or something, or whatever the diagonal calculates out to.
So now instead of diagonally staggered trees you've got trees
right in a row. But do you physically have more trees? You've got
more trees in appearance and you've got them closer together, but is it
the same amount of trees that was in the buffer to begin with, just
packed closer together -- packed in a tighter line?
MR. SCHMIDT: My understanding is it's more number of trees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When staff reviews this, will they be
reviewing it under that premise?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MR. DUANE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
And by the way, you did a good job on your comprehensive
planning write-up. That was real thorough. You went through every
question and analyzed it and I like your responses.
You brought up one that they've already responded to, which
was the 30 or 60 days for the essential services personnel. Now we're
going to six months.
I'm glad to see that, because that now matches what we actually
did with Ave Maria recently when they modified their scope of
Page 187
June 5, 2008
change to their sales. So that all worked out real well.
Thank you, Corby. I think that's all of your document I have.
And I don't know who -- maybe staff will have to answer this, or
Ray. We had on today's agenda a rather unique project called
Heavenly CFPUD. It was advertised as Heavenly MPUD. And in my
research to find out why it was MPUD and then changed to CFPUD, it
was because of its church-related uses and all that, it felt it should
have been more ofa CFPUD.
Well this one is a church facility. Why isn't this a CFPUD versus
the MPUD?
MR. BELLOWS: Because this PUD also contains residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there was no residential
component but yet there were a lot of recreational components in the
other one, that's the only reason?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Ifwe start on the PUD document on Page A-I, we've gone
through the land use types. And Corby, I hate to bother you, keep
making you get up. I thought I was done with your report, but I do
have a couple more questions on land use types.
I have a section of the GMP, it actually is Page 47, and it has a
Roman numeral 17 and then a number 17. And it says Collier
Boulevard Community Facility Sub-district. And it goes on for one,
two, two pages and top of a third.
At lunch I tried to make my -- a point of understanding
regarding my reading of that. And they showed me a different GMP
paragraph, or one that was underlined.
What GMP section should we be utilizing to review this by, the
one I just referenced or something else?
MR. SCHMIDT: The reference that you should be using is the
Collier Boulevard Community Facility Sub-district. I believe it's
numbered 17.
Page 188
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ordinance 2007-79, dated
December 4th, 2007. That's what it says at the bottom of the GMP
page in which that's referenced.
MR. SCHMIDT: I don't have the ordinance number in front of
me, but that's the correct date for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that document handy, or
those pages handy?
MR. SCHMIDT: I have that in front of me, yes, but not the
ordinance version. I have the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: GMP.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- Compo Plan version, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that GMP document, they list five
uses that the facility can have: Community facilities such as churches,
group housing uses, cemeteries, private schools and colleges, child
care facilities, residential dwelling units not to exceed 306, essential
services, parks, open space and recreational uses.
In looking at their various uses that they're asking for on Page
A-I, I can see where the churches and the schools fit in, but then I get
to number three, residential care units.
How does residential care units fit into one of those uses one
through five that are allocated by the GMP?
MR. SCHMIDT: I think the general category we used to
consider it under is the group housing uses.
When it comes to terminology, one's the parent of the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you have some kind of
guideline that tells you group housing uses means and includes
residential care units? I mean --
MR. SCHMIDT: Not in front of me, no, but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do have -- you feel confident
that is a qualified use under group housing?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, sir, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does the rehabilitative service
Page 189
June 5, 2008
center come in?
MR. SCHMIDT: Those are the community facilities being
provided, whether it really is categorized under those five headings or
not. But those community facilities include that rehabilitative service
center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So job training falls under one of those
-- one of the GMP requirements?
MR. SCHMIDT: Absolutely. Community facilities. Because
these -- the rehabilitative services being offered inside this PUD and in
the previous one are those specific programs and treatment facilities
that are considered to be the community facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the accessory uses,
does the GMP have any guidance in how the accessory uses are
determined for those principal uses listed in the GMP?
I mean, you've heard things, coin operated laundries, radio and
television broadcasting, cemeteries, things like that. Does any of that
have any concern from your perspective in interpretation of the GMP's
five principal uses that were allowed on this site?
MR. SCHMIDT: Through the last few months there was
different levels of concern, yes. We began with a longer list, more
proposed uses, fewer restrictions, and because this is intended to be,
and the language is there in the sub-district, a non-commercial sub-
district, the commercial sounding, or when you read this, like
coin-operated laundries, they seem like they could be commercial.
So staff pushed over the last few months and into the last few
weeks for language that would limit these in some other manner so
they would behave like non-commercial uses on this property.
So you see the language in here that the limitation is to people in
the program, people on the site, and so forth, the residents, program
participants. Further back in the PUD documents you'll see the
limitation for signage. So that the general public doesn't necessarily
know these accessory uses are there. And those limitations are
Page 190
June 5, 2008
acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the limitations were as you just
stated, I'd feel a lot more comfortable. Let me read to you the
limitation.
Principally for on-site residents only; however an incidental
component of the program is to allow past program residents or social
service agency referrals to attend the programs, comprising no more
than 10 percent of the program participants.
That does open it up beyond the property itself. Did you know
that?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that?
MR. SCHMIDT: No, we do not. The programs themselves, the
participation as we understand it, people yet to enroll are considered
part of that 10 percent. People who return after their participation in
the programs on-site are considered to be that -- inside that 10 percent.
And so those number of people don't create an over amount of
concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby, thank you. I hope I don't
have to bother you again.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'll stay close.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your comments, though,
thank you.
On Page A-2 of the document, we've talked about striking the
third line under the accessory use because it's repetitive in the prior
portion. But the fourth line has a word in it I need to understand what
the intent was.
It says accessory uses shall principally generate their activity.
Why would you not want to eliminate that word and just say accessory
uses shall generate their activity?
MR. DUANE: Is that -- let me back up. Is that the sentence that
you wanted struck that I indicated previously we would be happy to
Page 191
June 5, 2008
do that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the one sentence past that. I'm on
Page A-2 in the top paragraph. The sentence that was struck is
repetitive, so that's -- no problem striking that.
The sentence following says accessory uses shall principally
generate their activity from the permitted principal uses. What I'm
worried about is if principally generate may mean they don't have to
be generated from the activity of the principally permitted uses and we
could be getting into some principal -- some accessory uses unrelated
to them.
MR. DUANE: That's why we put the standard in of no more
than 10 percent of any program participants could be from off the site,
because principally all the activities were going to be generated on the
site. That's why we tried to make that distinction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not sure we get there from
there.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think maybe it does need to
go back in here under this because this is accessories. And where it's
footnoted on the page before that's for principal uses. So I think that
maybe needs to go back in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that third sentence is--
especially based on the refinement you just said, should probably go
back in.
MR. DUANE: Okay, I'll so note.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why can't we not just delete the
word principally from there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because it doesn't then provide for
the social service referrals and the 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that. But -- I mean,
it -- okay. We're on the head of a pin on that one, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to B-2, Table 1. The minimum
Page 192
June 5, 2008
front yard. You have 25 feet or the MPUD boundary setback --
MR. DUANE: We'll strike that. I didn't get that in my
presentation, but I agree with you. Good catch.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What was the catch?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving fast, aren't we.
Go ahead.
MR. DUANE: It actually was redundant.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was redundant?
MR. DUANE: Because we had 25 feet or the PUD boundary
setback, which is ever greater. Really didn't need the latter part of the
sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The latter part of that after the 25 feet,
Mr. Kolflat, isn't needed because it's already applicable from their
language in the rest of the table.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is Tract G, which is Mr. Klohn's
property. It says minimum side yard none as long as minimum
distance between structures is met. How does that work when you get
to the end of one of his rows of building, like the lower one when you
get to the eastern side of it?
Yeah, what's your setback there by this table?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: None.
MR. HERMANSON: I think there's a setback to the overall
boundary of the property that governs there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, there's an overall boundary to
the MPUD, so it would be to the property -- it wouldn't be to the road,
it would be the outside property line.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you'd have to be 35 feet back
from that, I think it is?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir.
Page 193
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What happens when you get to
the other side of the project and you have a site yard against a front?
MR. HERMANSON: Here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. HERMANSON: That's a separation between building issue
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that works. Well, it works ifit
was done with the right language, but we'll have fun with that before
the day's over.
MR. HERMANSON: We're not done with that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we're not done with that.
Minimum yard from internal paved vehicle use areas, 10 feet
unless attached to carports, garages or porticoes. What do you mean
by this? Can you give me an example of what you're trying to say.
MR. HERMANSON: That, I believe, is from the building to the
road, to the driveway. Front of the building to the driveway.
Actually, I should say front of the building to the parking spaces.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 10 feet, unless attached to
carports. So if it's attached to carports, how many is it?
MR. HERMANSON: Carports could be less than 10 feet from
the building. That's all it means. Sometimes they're attached.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum yard from internally paved
vehicle or use areas. So if it's a carport, you don't have any setback or
a garage or a portico, is that what you're saying?
MR. HERMANSON: That's correct. If it's not covered, it has to
be 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not covered, then it isn't a
building.
MR. HERMANSON: If the parking is not covered, it has to be
10 feet away from the building. If there's a carport, we can put that
carport right up against the building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I wish I had somebody who knew
Page 194
June 5, 2008
fire code involved in this board.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do. They can do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can they?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. They're making
their bed kind of tough. That's -- the sprinkler system when they attach
it is going to be boing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, these are all things that
aren't impossible, Mark, they're just intrinsically expensive.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just want to make sure I
was understanding that right. So thank you.
Minimum distance between structures. I heard enough on the
calculation. And I -- but the last one said unless structure is attached.
What does mean --
MR. HERMANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think I misspoke. Bob
just corrected me. The exception -- I was wrong. I was talking about
the building to the carport. It really means the carport to the driveway.
And all that means is that if there is a covered structure over parking,
that can be directly adjacent to the roadway. That's really what that's
intended to mean. So I misspoke.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To the road, not to the building.
MR. HERMANSON: To the road, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minimum distance between
structures, that point I just made, unless structure is attached. Well, if
it's attached, you don't have any distance between structures.
MR. HERMANSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So don't get hung up on that part of
it. Go back to the beginning of the sentence.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if they're attached there's
no distance between them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why do we have that here? Do
we need that here?
Page 195
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. So why wouldn't we just strike the
last four words, unless structure is attached.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please strike the last four words.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd actually like him to go back
to what he was saying about the carport. It's saying there that
minimum yard, it's not a setback, it's a yard, from internal paved
vehicle areas. That's saying that that paved area is 10 feet away from
the building, correct?
Obviously if you have a carport, the carport's part of the building
and then it doesn't apply. Is that what that's saying?
I mean, Ray, aren't they allowed by right to have carports
wherever they want? If they're open and everything, that doesn't count
as ground cover, doesn't count as anything, correct? It just can't be
built in the buffer.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it is an accessory structure built over
paved surface so in that regard it doesn't affect anything. But it still
has to be shown on the site plan, and there are setbacks for those
structures.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't (sic) they just have to
stay out of the buffer?
MR. BELLOWS: No, there is a setback for -- it's an accessory
structure. The LDC spells out carports as an accessory structure and
an accessory structure setback.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For my edification so I can
follow this, I'm visualizing grass, setback, grass, carport, and the road
is out here, grass, carport; is that right? Okay, got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for my edification, why
don't we take a I5-minute break, come back here at 4:00. But I think
we ought to set a deadline to go tonight. I think I 0:00 tonight
wherever we are we have to stop and continue.
Page 196
June 5, 2008
So back here at 4:00.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from another
break, and we will continue on. I think we left off on questions of the
applicant. And I'll -- unless anybody else wants to jump in right now,
I'll keep going.
We left off on Table I, Page B-2. I think I finished all my
questions with the table. Oh, the last line, minimum distance from
lakes, it says 20 feet. Does that mean you're going to have the
buildings up against the edge of the water management easement?
MR. DUANE: That would be the minimum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so you could go that far.
MR. DUANE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the break we did check.
Their buildings are separated such that for separation between
buildings, just the word greater than 20 feet I think would, first of all,
protect them and also save anybody trying to figure out what that
calculation would be. So we just put greater than 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that have any problems
with the applicant?
MR. DUANE: No, none at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 40 feet?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would -- no.
MR. HERMANSON: That would replace the minimum of I5. It
will be 20 instead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, why don't you say greater
than 20 feet and quit screwing around with the calculation.
MR. HERMANSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: When it should be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they took the sum of the two
Page 197
June 5, 2008
heights, which would be --
COMMISSIONER CARON: 52.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're three-story
buildings, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but they could go 52 height, so
that's I04 feet. Half the sum of the building heights, they'd be 50 feet
apart. So we're dropping the 50 down to 20.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then say greater than 20
feet or one quarter, if you want.
MR. DUANE: Just keep it simple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep it simple? You started this.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We didn't make up that line--
MR. HERMANSON: I think we ought to keep the formula in,
because there are some very tall buildings that may still be governed
by that. But we'll have a greater than 20 feet. No buildings will be
closer than 20 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Greater than 20 feet. If you
make them 20 you don't get the prize.
MR. HERMANSON: Okay, greater than 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that will certainly be a discussion
on stipulations.
Towards the end of that page we have development intensity,
and it talks about 296 multi-family units. You're going to have three --
up to three, two-family dwelling units.
I just want you to confirm with me they're all going to be part of
the condominium, they're not going to be fee simple lots for those
two- family dwelling units.
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
MR. KLOHN: And the CWHIPP component is currently
planned to be a residential cooperative, which is a form of home
ownership. And the balance will be condominiums.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under a cooperative, do you sell
Page 198
June 5, 2008
the land with -- as fee simple tracts of land? Or how do you sell?
MR. KLOHN: The land is owned by the cooperative.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's the key. Because if
you're fee simple and you're selling off the land, you end up not being
a multi-family. And I wanted to make sure, because the GMP says it's
multi-family, and I wanted to stick with that.
MR. KLOHN: Yes. And as a matter of fact, the documents that
we use, which I'll say are similar to condominium documents,
condominium documents are the base for a co-op. So they read the
same.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You sell shares, do you not?
MR. KLOHN: You sell shares and there's a proprietary lease
that runs with the share.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And that's how they own
that portion.
MR. KLOHN: Correct.
(Commissioner Adelstein exits the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice we're dropping members of the
commission likes flies, this is such a lively discussion. So we're down
to six, so it's still a quorum. We're okay.
Ifwe move on to the next page, Table 2, B-3. The dropping of
that language after where it says minimum front yard, 20 feet, then we
would drop the rest of that language like we did in the previous
document.
MR. DUANE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only issue on that page.
Turn to Page B-4. Minimum side yard. First of all, the Exhibit I
has now been replaced I believe with Exhibit B-I.
MR. DUANE: B-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we need to make that change.
Kay, I'm not picking up all these small changes and stipulations,
but I'm sure we'll review them on the consent. Are you picking all
Page 199
June 5, 2008
these small ones up?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, I'm trying very hard to pick them all
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
The line above that says master plan shall have a minimum side
yard setback of three feet. Where does that apply?
MR. DUANE: That's the multi-family purpose building. That's
this one right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says side yard setback of three
feet.
MR. DUANE: The staff determined that to be a side yard
setback.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The back of the building is a side yard?
MR. DUANE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what are the sides then?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Obviously the back.
MR. DUANE: Obviously in the back. I had it as a rear yard
setback when I did my table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm asking, it
might be pretty confusing to someone trying to interpret this that the
rear is the side and the side is something else.
So maybe we -- Kay, do you want to lend some clarification on
that? We'll get your presentation, of course, but this is kind of a way to
answer this question now.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
I'm looking at the Exhibit B-I, and for the life of me I can't
imagine why anyone on staff, me or anyone else, would have called
that a side setback. To me it clearly looks to be rear. Unless Ray
knows of some way to define something that would be different than
that.
Okay, so it appears as though it should in fact be rear rather than
side. We can correct that.
Page 200
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that table where it says minimum
side yard, we've got to change the first box and we've got to change
the text in the language in the second box, is (sic) that column.
MS. DESELEM: Let me get to where you are. We're on B --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 3, B-4.
MS. DESELEM: So we have to change it in minimum side yard
and we need to change it in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the text. Fourth line.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the fifth line depicting
the side yard setback for the structure, it's depicting the rear yard
setback for the structure.
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Probably the best thing would be to just
include a minimum rear yard in the table. And I'm thinking that might
have been what happened, it may have been there and got lost in the
shuffle with the changes. But I'm not certain of that. In any case, it's
not side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this will be fun on consent.
This whole project will. But anyway, you understand what the point
is. Everybody's in agreement?
MR. DUANE: That was my initial inclination, we're in
agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we got a big problem
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I -- I figured you'd say
that, so why don't you --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless you don't want -- do you
want windows on two sides of that building? Because anything less
than three feet from a property line can't have a -- but I think because
this thing is in front of the lake there, there's no right-of-ways there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's a wall.
Page 201
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a wall there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a buffer wall, right. But
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, a buffer like a physical wall plus a
buffer, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But in other words, no
building.
Could we add to that something I think that would protect them
and state that no building can get within 60 feet, no other building?
There is no other building within 60 feet of it.
And the virtue is that as this thing goes through the plan review,
somebody who catches that as being three feet from a property line we
could show that well, wait a minute, we're protected, no other building
can encroach.
And the reason I choose 60 is half of 60 is 30. And at 30 all of
the regulations go away. Otherwise, if somebody hardballs you and
takes that three feet as your property line, you won't have any
windows on it. Or if you do, they'll be in metal frames and fixed glass.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the 60-foot rule may not work,
because the rehabilitation center is right across the street.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just thinking just on
those two property lines there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just on the north and the east property
line?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, theoretically we
should be careful and not put the property line within 30 feet of a
building without starting to generate problems.
But I think that if we put something in there and you remember
that it's there -- go ahead.
MR. KLOHN: You're talking about the rear side only?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the north side, too.
Page 202
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the north side would be
good, while we're at it.
MR. KLOHN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just state that no building
can be built within 60 feet of that. Then that way you have a good
argument that you could never have a fire separation distance less than
30.
MR. KLOHN: I think that the MDG property would be most
affected by that, and we don't have any problem with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll never build in the
middle of the lake, I hope.
MR. KLOHN: Not unless it's a ski jump. I'm just kidding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there are some people
down the road that could really hang on something like this and cause
you a nightmare, so let's try to unhook them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On -- well, let's move on with
this particular table.
Minimum distances between structures. Here we go again. IS
feet or one-half the zoned height of the adjacent structure, whichever
is greater, unless the structure is attached.
So first of all, the last four words can be dropped, which would
be consistent with the prior table.
But IS feet or one-half the zoned height of the adjacent
structure. If you've got two structures, which one's going to be the
adjacent structure? You're going to pick the lowest one, probably.
MR. DUANE: I suggest we use the standard that we did for
separation between structures on the prior table for Tract G, which is a
minimum of 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm still not in agreement
with that, but that's fine. I know where you're going. You're looking at
changing it to the standard at one-half of the -- one quarter of the
heights of the sum of the zoned heights of the structures.
Page 203
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: I don't ever want to go there again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not.
MR. DUANE: I want it to just be greater than 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you're looking for, okay. So
you're suggesting this one be greater than 20 feet.
MR. DUANE: Same as the other one that I hope you agree to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have no problem with the
greater than 20 feet, but I'm still not buying on that one quarter.
MR. DUANE: It's gone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why it needs to be
substituted with one-half the sum of the building heights, whichever is
greater. But we'll get into that.
Under the maximum building height category, Ms. Caron
pointed out the adult living facility needs to be struck from that. That's
fine.
That gets us, I think --
MR. DUANE: And the height changed to 65 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the height changed to 65 feet.
Okay, let's move to Table 4.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just question that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think, Bob, the reason
you put 67 is that the architect for the building figured it out and said
that he needed 677 Because two feet is not going to matter to the guy,
unless -- you wouldn't want a design that had 67 --
MR. DUANE: I didn't just add two feet onto that. And Randy
Johns that's a local engineer that's attended most of the meetings that
I've had with the Pastor wanted to increase that to 67 feet. We didn't
dream it up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And you limited yourself
with an actual height, so it's not going to double that, your roof height.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But wasn't the actual height
Page 204
June 5, 2008
based upon the zoned height?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's 74 feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, if you moved it up to 67,
then you got to 74.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he's happy with 74 and
he's happy with 67. Let's say we made it 65 and the guy went back in
his design and calculated that it is at 67, then we just -- what's the guy
going to do, chop the roof down two feet? So let's give just him the
two feet. There's a reason there's two feet there. And two feet from
95I is not going to matter to the world.
MR. DUANE: I feel like I'm in the middle of you two gentlemen
now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, he wanted an asphalt plant
in the last one.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm still looking for an
asphalt plant somewhere.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what have we concluded?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we concluded that Brad is
saying leave 67. You had previously discussed 65 that they agreed to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which Pastor Mallory agreed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now let's try to figure out a
compromise between you two guys.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, here's the thing, Pastor
Mallory --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: How about 66?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- who was under oath, swore to
it, we're asserting that some architect somewhere may have done
something. That's not evidence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about a practical point. If you
lower the height to 65 feet -- and I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just
trying to understand it. You lower it to 65 feet, you did not lower the
actual height of74. The building's going to appear the same whether
Page 205
June 5, 2008
you do the zoned at 67 or 65, because they'll still build the 74 and you
won't be able to tell the difference.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear what you're saying and I
have to acknowledge that it was an oversight that I neglected to bring
the 74 down concurrently with it.
But you know what, I'll grant you, from the visualization point
of view, somebody driving along or walking along, they're not going
to see it. So I guess I won't quibble.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just leave it like that, and if you
want through stipulation bring it back, we should do that then.
Under Table 4 you have B, C and D. Under C, you've got these
RV's, 25 of them. They may be parked there at anyone time, and the
area shall only be for self-contained vehicles that include sanitary
facilities.
I would like to have a sentence added here that says you will
have a dump facility on~site that these vehicles can use. Because
they're self-contained until they fill up. And if you ever watched RV
with that -- that's a great movie, that is just hilarious. So if you ever
watched that movie, you need a dump facility.
MR. DUANE: I've added the word a dump station shall also be
provided for the RV vehicles.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And a pump-out station then.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's a dump station.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a dump station.
Okay, let's just -- oh --
MR. DUANE: On the same page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are, or what's your issue?
MR. DUANE: The county attorney made a I thought much
better word choice. Under number D, he added the word combined
sales ofRV's or used cars. Assuming that it stays in, I liked his word
choice there.
Yes, the first word at the -- he added the word combined, and
Page 206
June 5, 2008
then it goes sales ofRV's or used cars.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree.
MR. DUANE: And there's also a typo under number B, first
sentence, instead of "on" it should be "or".
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I got a question of staff. And I
don't know which staff, but let's start with -- and it could, because both
you and Corby, Kay, are tied up in the uses. I didn't see used vehicle
sales as a permitted use requested in the part of this document that
should have had the permitted uses. Is there a reason why it wouldn't
have been included there if that was the intent?
MS. DESELEM: In my mind it was an oversight. But I believe
Bob Duane has a different play on that.
But we could, as Bob Duane testified earlier, provide the SIC
codes and the limitations that would allow that to be an accessory use
on the site. If you still believe that that -- the sale ofRV's and used
cars is appropriate.
And I would offer also that in D, the "or" should be changed to
"and", so that the limita~ion is clearly for both, it's not IO of one and
IO of the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I didn't want to see this to be
a used car vehicle sale site of any kind. I can just picture the RV's
lining up along 95I with big For Sale signs on them.
But I've been assured that can't happen by the language here,
where it says a maximum of three can be stored at anyone time. I
guess it should be can be stored or for sale.
MS. DESELEM: I think we could tighten the language to
stipulate that storage, sales, display, any kind of repair, any facilities
would need to be done on Tract C. That would clearly prohibit them
from being provided on 95I, because that's Tract A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, it says at anyone time on
Tract C at the repair site. So I think that's good language. But I think
the maximum of three vehicles may be stored or for sale at any time
Page 207
June 5, 2008
on Tract C at the repair site. Because theoretically they could have
cars lined up for repair and cars lined up for sale, and we'd end up
with a whole pile of them.
MS. DESELEM: Again, that's where the term combined comes
in, if you wanted to combine the sale and repair to just IO vehicles.
So again, you wouldn't have the misconstruing of okay there's IO
for repair and IO for sale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree with all your suggested
changes to that.
Does anybody else have any problems with it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on the -- if we move on to
Exhibit C, which is the master plan. I heard the explanation of the
connecting arrow. The arrow needs to line up to the center of the
roadway to which it would be connected. And if you have to move
your dumpster enclosure to the north now, that's what you should do,
because I can hear it be an excuse down the road as to why you can't
make the connection if it was ever feasible in the future.
So rather than even get into that argument, let's just put the
arrow alignment with the center of the parking -- or the driveway
parking lot that it would line up with and move that dumpster
enclosure to one side of it or the other, and that just keeps it clean for
the future.
On Exhibit C-I, you have this -- about in the middle of the page
you've got these two asterisks. And then in the middle of those you
have an asterisks definition, the minimum of five foot at a IO-I for
trees. And the asterisk to the right of the page, or the top of the page,
either way you're looking at it, is the one I'm wondering about.
Does that mean you're going to have a IO-I slope for five feet
within the LME?
MR. HERMANSON: Could you repeat that, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the Lake-I diagram on the top of
Page 208
June 5, 2008
the page, the asterisk that's there, it looks like it is in the LME, okay.
So you have a 20- foot LME up from the lake?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have the trees you're planting
within that; is that correct?
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that portion of the LME for five feet
is going to have a IO-I slope?
MR. HERMANSON: We'll have to have at least five feet to
plant the trees that will have I O-I. Then we can go steeper.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was trying to
understand.
We're actually getting through this. We're almost done.
Oh, Nick, you still here? Nick, I hate to bother you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you don't need that jacket.
In fact, it might look like you're really working if you don't put that on
each time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mark, it's always my pleasure to come
talk to you, you know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In their traffic report they said a couple
of things I need verified and why. And they're talking about their
drop-off site and it said, as can be seen within Figure 3, staff agreed to
a five percent drop-off of site traffic along Collier Boulevard between
The Lord's Way and Davis Boulevard due to Wal-Mart and other
commercial uses available along this link.
Staff also agreed to a five percent drop-off of site traffic for the
Publix shopping center located to the south of the site, and at the
northwest corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and
Rattlesnake Hammock Boulevard.
What are these five percent drop-offs? What are those all about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That means the interaction from the
Page 209
June 5, 2008
site and the local community shopping center that's north of the next
site or next link takes place. And that's typical within a two-mile
radius of a residential site for the residential portion of this PUD.
Those people will interact with that shopping center and not go
on to the next link. So you're reducing trips to that segment. Five
percent usually is about the maximum that you'll go with something
like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's kind oflike a reverse capture rate.
The shopping center has a capture rate but you're giving the project a
credit for what that center may capture from the project.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You do, because it's matching trips.
And if you run a model on transportation analysis, you're actually
doing that, it's actually matching trips. And that's what ends up
happening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you provide a capture rate then
for the shopping center in question, aren't you double-dipping on the
capture rate then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, your capture rate for the shopping
in question is for the uses inside the shopping center. Someone goes
into the bank and says well, I'm at the bank, I'm going to go to the
shopping center as well, too. So that's a capture rate internally. And all
you're doing with something like this is you're looking at a broader
capture.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how does this five percent
factor into the shopping center's pass-by rate reduction?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't. That's a direct trip match.
Pass-by is someone coming back, you know, just going down the road
and say I live on Heritage Bay but I'm going to Marco Island and I
decide to pull in on the way to a shopping center. That's a pass-by trip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this five percent isn't part of
their already given pass-by.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the shopping center?
Page 210
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think we've ever heard
that one before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't either, that's why I brought it
up.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a brand new concept being
applied here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's not. You don't see it. We
culled it out. But when you look at a TIS you're going to see 20
percent of the project traffic diverts and then the number drops off to
IO. But you didn't catch probably the five disappeared.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure it was there the entire
time, but this is the first time that I recall --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We cull it out. We've been culling it
out more.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it's ever been cited.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This project has a significant impact on
Davis and 95I. Your -- the statement in here says as previously stated,
this roadway will be six-Ianed from Collier Boulevard to Radio Road
within the fiscal year '09 to 20IO.
Is that still on line?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: '09 to 20IO. Yes, it's scheduled to start
next year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you reviewed this, there was a lot
of level of service F in these -- in the SYNCHRO/HCS intersection
analysis on Table 6. Are you satisfied with this project's phasing so
that all the -- it has no -- in your language, are you -- you signed off on
this, I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. The existing zoning is what we
called Phase I. This is what you could have done if you hadn't come
to the board. So we said that's Phase I. You know, if you hadn't come
Page 211
June 5, 2008
for a reallocation of zoning.
And the Phase 2 are kind of the net new trips. We said those
Phase 2 trips shouldn't come online until those improvements are in
place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is it when the improvements are
completed or -- when the improvements are completed they can get
CO's in Phase 2.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that's the stipulation that's on
the record.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Didn't we have that in the GMP?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a debate about that at the
BCC level. They didn't want to be tied to an unknown date. They want
to be tied to a specific date.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't give specific dates on road
projects. I've learned my lesson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vanderbilt Beach Road taught
everybody a lesson.
So now I've got to ask the question, and I need to have staff help
me with this or I'm going to take a lot of time to have to find it. Are
we tied in this PUD for Phase 2 to a date or completion ofthe road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the completion of the road.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Completion of the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean that's what we're all
saying. I want to make it reads --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. Substantial completion,
ifI recall.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: CO's wouldn't be issued until the
improvements are completed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But they could start construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 212
June 5, 2008
Then the last thing I want to ask on transportation, you're talking
about a signal. It says regardless, it is likely that a traffic signal will be
required in order to provide sufficient capacity for all movements at
the intersection.
Should this traffic signal warrants be met, the developer of the
First Assembly of God PUD would be responsible for a proportionate
share of signalization costs. And this is at Lord's Way and 951.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would they be responsible for a
proportionate share and not all of it? Now the reason is it's their road,
leads to their project and it's because of them that we need the signal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably their project wouldn't
warrant the signal alone. It's probably when the development to the
east ofthem, say Toll-Rattlesnake comes back in, that would trigger
the signal warrant. They'd pay their fair share. Naples Lakes as well,
too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as there's an understanding
then.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Really, so theirs does not trigger
that, Nick?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's what I was wondering.
Okay, that's -- anybody else have anything else of Nick while
he's up here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a good night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell Connie I said hi.
Okay, Kay, I think it's all yours at this point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kay, you've cut your hair.
MR. DUANE: Off-site sign premise is I think the last major
issue, the off-site premise sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that a deviation that you asked for?
Page 213
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you already go into painstaking
detail about the deviations?
MR. DUANE: I did. I just wanted you not to forget that we'd
been there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Believe me, I don't think any of us will
ever forget that.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner
with zoning, back to you again.
And you do have the staff report for this particular petition,
along with the PUD document and the findings that support staffs
recommendations.
And due to the length of what you've already heard, I will
summarize to say that yes, staff is recommending that the overall
petition be found consistent with the Growth Management as it is
limited in the PUD document, which includes phasing limitations,
among other things.
We do have some disagreement on the deviations. And Bob has
explained to you what the deviations are to address.
And staff did go into what I hope was a fairly succinct
evaluation of each deviation.
And on Page 20 of the staff report you will see a synopsis of
those deviations, noting that staff is recommending denial of
deviations two, six and I4, and approval with stipulations for
deviations three, four, five, I2 and IS. And the stipulations for those
deviations is enumerated.
I won't go into a great deal of detail, other than to say most of
them had to do with the sign. We're recognizing the signs were
approved to some extent as variations within the original PUD in '99,
and we would recommend that they allow to remain that way until
Page 214
June 5, 2008
such time as they may be reconstructed, at which point they would
need to be built to code.
And the other deviations address the parking and the seating.
And we have stipulated those. And hopefully, like I said, I've
explained it well enough in the deviation discussion that you can
understand it.
With that, I don't belabor you with more excruciating detail
unless you request it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any
questions of the staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a very -- not trying to put
you on the spot in any way, but this morning early with Willie Brown,
we had a sign variance, or a sign request. And, you know, I look at
that. I read that and I read yours. They both are plausible.
This is crazy, though, in some respects. I'm trying to understand
how -- we want people to be able to see things, and I know you're
going by the letter of the law, I guess. I just -- I guess it's a statement,
not a question on my part. But it's very frustrating, I think, that it's
very unclear, and I guess Joe indicated earlier that they're going to
look at it.
But it strikes me that if this morning was acceptable, this
certainly seems reasonable as well. And I'll stop there because I don't
want to meander.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the sign goes, it seems to me
that your -- the deviations of two, three, four, the ones that you denied
on the sign -- let me understand it, the only thing they're doing to this
sign -- it's an existing sign and they want to take a cut-out on the
bottom that has now got nothing on it and put in the words Fountain
Lakes; is that right?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct. However, staffs contention is
Page 215
June 5, 2008
it's already larger than what code would allow them to build now by a
large percentage, from 80 foot to IOO square foot.
And staff isn't convinced that they couldn't modify the sign they
have now to accommodate this project, if need be. That was never
proposed. They just wanted to add to this sign to make it bigger yet.
And staffs concern is if it's appropriate to put an off-site sign on
this project simply because it's not on an arterial road, will we then be
seeing deviations for every project that isn't on an arterial road seeking
to have a sign, which leads to the proliferation of signs. And that's a
concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, let me start back up then. A sign
exists there now; is that right?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's of a certain size, height and width --
it's got a certain width and height to it that's fixed. They want to take
and put a square in the sign that's already there. So they're not
increasing the sign's height or width, are they?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct. They're just increasing the area
of the sign itself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area of the language of the sign.
But the sign structure isn't changing.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a bigger sign, it's just got more
printing on it.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The printing that they're going to put on
it is part of their project. Fountain Lakes is part of this PUD. And this
sign is in the corner of this project.
MS. DESELEM: It's in the corner of the church site. It will not
be in the corner of Fountain Lakes; therefore, it's determined to be an
off-site sign.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sign's in the corner of this PUD.
Page 216
June 5, 2008
MS. DESELEM: Yes, of the PUD overall. But the way I
understand the sign regulations, it has to be on the site of the project.
And since it will be a separate tract, it would need to be there. And
they would be allowed to have a sign on their property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are unique circumstances, I think,
that would make this separate from other projects like this. I don't
know of anywhere where this operation could occur like it occurs
here. I see it as unique. I'm not so concerned about the sign. There are
more major issues on this project that I'm focusing on.
So I don't have a problem too much with the sign request in that
regard. And I want to make sure I understood them to be to the extent
that I think there are, and you have confirmed that. So thank you,
that's where I needed to understand.
Anybody else have anything?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think I agree with Kay. I
mean, if we're going to have these codes, let's use them and let's not
get rid of them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Any other questions of
staff before we go to public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker, Ted Beisler.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's got to be one patient man.
MR. KLATZKOW: Two minutes, right?
MR. BEISLER: I don't even get three minutes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't talk about the deviations 'cause
you'll be here all day.
MR. BEISLER: Deviation one -- no.
For the record, Ted Beisler. I'm the general manager at Naples
Lakes Country Club.
Page 217
June 5, 2008
Some comments here. First of all, I'd like to make a comment on
the tower. And I know that's not part of this, but I would like to make
a comment, as we are neighbors. The volume in that tower right now
is taking away from some of the radio -- ability to get radio stations at
Naples Lakes Country Club.
They say it's within the limit of the FCC, and it may be. But it is
taking away. You can't get NPR radio.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that is an interesting point.
Every night and every morning I drive by that site and NPR conks out
MR. BEISLER: NPR conks out on me, it conks out on a lot of
people.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never realized that was probably part
of the reason.
MR. BEISLER: Well, I think it is. It just is an interesting
comment.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I didn't think people listened to NPR
anymore.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good channel.
MR. BEISLER: It's a good channel.
The 35-foot high sculpture, I presume that's going to be visible
from 95I ? Do you know how far back, Bob, that is from the roadway?
MR. DUANE: It would meet the minimum front yard setback
from 95I, which I believe is 35 feet.
MR. BEISLER: Because 35-foot sculpture, I'm sure it's going to
be beautiful, but that's going to be big.
MR. DUANE: Yes, it is.
MR. BEISLER: That's huge. Just because I know -- it's 35 feet,
you think?
MR. DUANE: Yes, that's the maximum height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer had a comment on that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, yeah, could you put that
Page 218
June 5, 2008
sculpture up. It isn't in our packet. You said you had it. I'm starting to
get real curious about it.
MR. BEISLER: And then while we're doing that, the only other
comment, I and several members at Naples Lakes were at several
meetings, and we were all very happy to hear that we went from 800
beds to 249.249 beds, not 249 rooms. We did hear that and people
were commenting on that was a good thing. So that is something that
will become an issue with our residents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do know they're now looking at
400 beds. Instead of 249 beds, they meant to be units, and now it's
really 400 beds.
MR. BEISLER: We were told 249 beds. That's the point I'm
making.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
MR. BEISLER: Instead of 249 beds with more -- excuse me,
249 rooms with more beds, we were told 249 beds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what you said just
confused me. Is the care facility going to be 400?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 249 units, wherever they are, will
be able to hold, according to their request, up to 400 beds is what
they're asking for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were going to provide a -- you had
something, a rendering of this monument?
MR. DUANE: I submitted in one of the prior submittals, and I
don't have a copy with me today.
Let me say that it's a bronze statute of, is it IO Christian soldiers?
They're IO Christian soldiers, it's 35 feet in height. It has an American
flag.
PASTOR MALLORY: Soldiers are IO feet in height.
MR. DUANE: Soldiers are 10 feet in height.
Page 219
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that means -- what do you
have that's another 25 feet above that? That's like a two-story house.
They're sitting on top of something.
PASTOR MALLORY: If you look at the Lely horses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
PASTOR MALLORY: You drive up a little hill. That's what
we're measuring. The sculpture itself is -- the soldiers are IO feet tall
and they're carrying a cross. And the arm of the cross extends above.
But it's built up on a mound. We don't have the picture with us, but we
can send that to you.
MR. BEISLER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, any comments from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, that's going to be an
extremely tall structure now, if they're also going to put it on a mound,
never mind a base, and on a mound 35 feet from --
MR. DUANE: One hundred feet. I stand corrected, excuse me.
It's IOO feet along 95I and it's 35 feet along The Lord's Way. So it
should be set back -- the minimum front yard is IOO.
COMMISSIONER CARON: A hundred feet. Thank you, that
makes a big difference.
MR. DUANE: That's across the canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know where the right-of-way of
95I ends?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right in front of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it goes across the canal and
then back into the property.
Where do you get the IOO feet from?
MR. DUANE: That was in the original PUD ordinance, the
setback from 95I, the '99 ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is it in the new ordinance, since
you're repealing that one?
Page 220
June 5, 2008
MR. DUANE: It is on Page B-4, Table 3, under minimum
setback from northern, southern and eastern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It only says 35 feet there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, if you scale it, it
can't be IOO feet --
MR. DUANE: Minimum front yard, IOO feet from 95I.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But not the property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, front yard, okay, so--
MR. DUANE: The minimum front yard, IOO feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not seeing this. What page
again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 3, Page B-4.
MR. HERMANSON: Shown right here on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yup, got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if the front yard is 100 feet
along 95I, it doesn't say it's IOO feet from 95I, it's IOO feet from the
property line, right?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't look like it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's shown here is not IOO
feet from the property line.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Didn't you scale it out, George?
MR. SCHMITT: George scaled it from the --
MR. HERMANSON: It scales about IOO from the right-of-way
line here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's between the
right-of-way and his property line, George?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't you measure setbacks from a
property line?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. HERMANSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're IOO feet from the
properly line. It says front yard. So that's what you put forth to the
Page 221
June 5, 2008
public as being what you were going to do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going to move that box a lot
closer to the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did have testimony earlier
that you measure from the buffer. But I didn't believe it then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe it now.
MS. DESELEM: If I might offer a clarification so there's no
difficulty trying to determine what the front yard might be, based on
measurements within the LDC that calls for the front yard to be
measured -- you know, called -- when you have road frontage, that's a
front yard. When you have another road frontage that's still front yard,
but you might want to put it as a PUD boundary.
In the item where you looked for it initially, the minimum
setback from northern, southern and eastern MPUD boundaries, you
might set forth a specific part just for 95I.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Kay, I'm trying to understand
what was presented to the public versus what now is probably being
discovered.
Minimum front yard, if you were to read this table, is IOO feet
along 95I. So I think if anybody was reading this, they would think
that from 95 -- from the property boundary that faces 95I, you're IOO
feet back with anything you can do there. Is that not the case?
MS. DESELEM: Any structure, yes. It's a structural setback,
yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. So that sculpture is 100
feet back from that property line. Would that be a fair statement?
MS. DESELEM: In my estimation, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we're fine.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Am I missing -- isn't it IOO feet
from Lord's Way--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not scaled that way in the master
plan but that's --
Page 222
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, the box would move if we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The box would have to move IOO feet
into the plan.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bring it almost right on the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you can't both talk at the same
time.
Mr. Wolfley, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I took it as the front yard was
Lord's Way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, they're both front.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're both front yards. Kay just
testified to that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, she just did, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be 35 feet to The Lord's Way
because that's one front yard measurement, and the other is IOO feet
from 95I property line. So you're 100 feet from one direction, 35 feet
from the other.
Okay, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, you don't have a copy of
this photograph? Because, sadly, it might look like nice on access with
that canal there, the lagoon.
MS. DESELEM: I do apologize, I do not have it with me. And I
don't -- it's back in the office somewhere and I apologize that it's not in
the file.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it is going to slide
back. Just for reference, you see the parking lot off to the right up
there? From outside edge to outside edge of that is like 60 feet, so this
thing is going to push it back pretty much -- we're very close if not
into that access road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was going to add that is a
Page 223
June 5, 2008
fact that seems to be valid in addition to that. And that lO-foot wide
Type D buffer will obscure it from any visualization when you're
coming along there. So I think that that's something that needs to be
considered by the parties. This is within the PUD but it is the property
of the church.
MR. KLOHN: That's correct. And I stepped up. It's not an MDG
issue, but they believe that they have a photograph in the car so the
Pastor's son is running down to the car.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, even if we saw a
photograph of it, the key question here is the distance from "X" to
"Y". So 35 feet, I think their intent was 35 feet from that property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but their document doesn't say
that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I agree with what you say,
and I think that that -- of course they couldn't possibly, if they
measured it out, scaled it out, they would have realized it would have
been sitting right in the parking lot area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while the picture's being brought
back up, let's go on with the rest of it.
Where did we leave off? Ray, did we have any other public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know they're running down to get a
photograph. So we ought to talk about where this is going to go.
I've been making notes. There's a motion --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, how are we going to vote
this? Are we going to run through the different deviations and get a
feel for the board or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're -- first we've got two
projects we've got to vote on. The prior one we held off until this got
discussed.
Page 224
June 5, 2008
While we're waiting for the gentleman to come back with the
potential photograph, does anybody have anything further they're
concerned about on the first one so we could get that out of the way
right now? Does anybody have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the first one is Petition
RZ-2008-AR-I2842, the Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC. We're looking for a
motion on that one. And I have one stipulation, depending on the
motion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to forward with a
recommendation of approval RZ-2008-AR-I2843, with the stipulation
that you'll provide.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray.
The stipulation that we discussed that I know they don't like, but
as far as I'm concerned it still needs to be placed, that no clearing
while under the ago zoning will occur except for exotics as required by
code.
If the motion maker accepts that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He does.
Does the second accept it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 225
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. There's only six of
us left. Makes it easy.
While we're waiting for the photograph, let's discuss the
deviations. And we might as well start with -- oh, let's see what page
they start on.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ten of2I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they should be listed--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or in the back of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go to the PUD, yeah. Which
makes it E-I.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page E-I of the PUD, we start with the
IS deviations.
Let's start with deviation number one. Brad, we're on deviation
number one. Did you have a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm in favor of it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just a -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I'm clear on it, this was
the result of them taking more and more and more property for the
road, so that drove it down to IO feet, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm in favor then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation number two, staff says no to
the applicant's requesting that the existing sign be able to be filled in
with more signage.
Staff denied it, the applicant would like it. Where is the position
of this panel?
Page 226
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thumbs up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any problems?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks like we'd be in favor of
that.
Number three, a similar deviation for the similar issue involving
the same sign.
And number four and five all get to the same situation. They're
all involving this sign in adding that square that says Fountain Lakes
in the 32 square foot area.
Anybody have any concerns?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: One of them was for if the sign
was ever destroyed --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that it get be rebuilt to
something closer to code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine for me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it's a concrete sign so I
don't think that's going to happen, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was deviation number five.
Number five would not allow them to replace the sign but only
pursuant to code. They've got deviation two, three and four, which
allows deviations from the code, but then got five that says they
couldn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have no testimony that they
built something without approval. There's no Code Enforcement case,
so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why it hurts to let them
Page 227
June 5, 2008
build it back up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would say that then two, three,
four and five we would recommend approval on and be inconsistent
with staff on those.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation number IO.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten? You jumped a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I mean, the rest I don't think
there's any dispute on.
Okay, number six, I'm sorry. Staff is recommending denial. And
that one is for -- that's the sign again, so that would have to be one that
we would want to consider with that other sign stuff.
Anybody objecting to it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with your position, it's
part of the same PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So so far, all the deviations, one
through six we're recommending approval for.
Seven, eight and nine, staff had recommended approval.
Ten they had recommended approval. The only question I have
there is I suggested as a stipulation that they align the roadway
interconnect with the centerline of their parking driveway so that we
don't have a conflict in the future. I'm not sure staff got into that.
Okay, that doesn't work for -- that isn't related to number IO, so
we can go on. .
And the only one that is in question I think is number I4. Staff
had recommended no on that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't go quite so fast.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where are you at?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to go back to II. I just want
to read this, because -- so knowing that we already have a church here,
Page 228
June 5, 2008
this wouldn't be quite so much. But we can have -- these group
housing units can compromise (sic) all but the 50,000 square feet of
the church and chapel? That's what that says, that it's okay to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're saying that the floor area
ratio is within the 368,000 square feet, so it really doesn't matter what
ratio they have as long as they don't exceed the 368,000 square feet
provided by the GMP.
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For all uses.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So all I'm saying to
everybody is that those care units, those 400 -- well, what they'd like
to have is 400 beds can encompass all but 50,000 square feet, which is
what is set for the church and the chapel. So every other bit of that
square footage could become residential care units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they'd be like mansions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They'd be carenasiums (sic).
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well--- okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be impractical, but yeah, that could be
the outcome.
Did you have something you want to add?
MR. DUANE: No, she understands it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything on I2?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirteen?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I4 is the one that staff denied that
they're disagreeing with, which is concerning no buffering between
internal uses at Tract A and C. I mean, it's internal to the project. I'm
not sure if -- this isn't a project that's for sale to the public. I'm not sure
why we care ifthere's a buffer internal to this project or not.
Does anybody else have a concern?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't.
Page 229
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then on deviations -- we
would agree with staffs position on deviations with the exceptions of
deviations two, three, four, five, six and I4. On those deviations we
would recommend approval.
Does that seem consistent with everybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, does -- has the picture arrived
yet?
PASTOR MALLORY: He's going to the secretary to see ifhe
can get it off-line. I don't have one in my trunk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Let's go on then with the
other discussions. That takes care of the deviations.
The other stipulations that I found is that the wall will run
continuous between Tract G and the First Assembly site from the
north to the south.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, affixing the responsibility,
MDG agreed to build a common wall.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All the way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I think we just -- our position
is that there's going to be a continuous wall between the north and the
south.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't care who builds it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't care who builds it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He made the statement on the
record. I'm just supporting the statement. It's on the record. I agree
with you, it doesn't matter whether he gives the money to Joe or Joe
gives the money to him, as long as the wall is built. But I'm just
pointing it out.
MR. KLOHN: And we don't need to -- I mean, it isn't going to
be in a straight line. It's going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 230
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Meander.
MR. KLOHN: But that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The essential services personnel
units will be held for six months for them to know if they want to
purchase it or not, instead of the 30 days referenced in the document.
There's redundant language on Page B-2 after the front yard
setback. That language will be removed.
On page B-2.C, strike the words or similar looking material.
That's in relationship to the tile roofs.
And part of their PUD monitoring report will include a report on
the number and type of sales of vehicles that were sold.
We're going to strike accessory use number I4 on Page A-2.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, you said
monitoring report, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, PUD monitoring report.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wasn't sure I heard you
correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike the accessory use number I4 on
Page A-2.
There's language on page B-2 that we would strike that says
unless structure is attached, and that occurs in several of the tables,
because it's irrelevant under the distance between structures.
We have another one that says minimum distance between
buildings will be greater than 20 feet. And I'm suggesting that we add
half the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. But that's up
to this panel to debate, because that's going to be a potential issue for
the applicant.
MR. HERMANSON: I understand your point. That will not--
the site plan will be dead in the water if we do that. We have -- we can
go minimum of20 feet if we go. Ifwe can have a minimum of20 feet,
we're okay. But one-half the sum of the building heights is going to
mean we're going to have 40 feet between buildings and we can't --
Page 231
June 5, 2008
that will not work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have 40-foot high
buildings 20 feet apart. I mean, that's --
MR. HERMANSON: All I can tell you is that that is similar to a
number of multi-family projects we've done with three-story
buildings, yes.
MR. SCHMITT: It is. It's similar to other projects they built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In recent years, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Arrowhead.
MR. HERMANSON: We're building some in Arrowhead that
are still going up right now that have that limitation.
MR. SCHMITT: And I'm not -- it's not -- the issue here of
course is, as with other affordable housing projects, maximizing the
product on-site in order to -- that's really what we got here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this project's been
designed already. What is the actual height of it?
MR. KLOHN: Forty-one feet to the tippy top and 35 feet to the
mean point of the roof.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so there you go.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's a 70-foot building, it
would be 35 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll just leave it at the
greater than 20 feet for both tables, accessory and this one.
They're going to add a dump station to the language in B-5.C.
They're going to add -- modify the RV car sales language as we
discussed in detail with Kay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use of the word combined is
going to remain in there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, there's quite a bit to be
changed in that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And for sale only.
Page 232
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The interconnection location will align
with the internal driveway of the site.
And then when you talk about the beds, we had testimony from
the public that they attended the meeting and it was clear to them that
it was 249 beds. This is an issue. If challenged, it becomes a problem.
I would think that we want to be straight with the public, and
unfortunately it would remain at 249 beds unless they want come back
through a process to amend it.
What do the rest of you think?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't agree. I think that they
were clear in the GMP for 400 beds. They reduced it to units and
somebody misspoke. And I don't know that they should be held
accountable for a misspoke, or a misspeak, because I'm tired.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that every developer that comes
before this commission inisspeaks, if they really want to be able to say
they've done that. I know it's unfortunate that when that happens, but
at the same time, if a developer had done this at a public NIM, we
would hold their feet to the fire.
I don't know how we can not be consistent with the way we treat
people who make claims at NIMs. That's the concern I have.
And had the gentleman not acknowledged that that's exactly
what he heard and understood, I wouldn't be so concerned about it.
But that is exactly what he heard and understood.
PASTOR MALLORY: Could you call for the transcript? I said
two beds per unit. That is what I said. Because we've never, ever put
one person in a bedroom. So if you could call for the transcript of that
-- of the meeting of that night.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can't do that here today, sir.
PASTOR MALLORY: No, but I mean, it would clarify it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It could be made for the consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifby the consent agenda you can bring
in some -- well, then we can't do that on consent agenda because it's
Page 233
June 5, 2008
not advertised as a hearing for this. It's just a review of what we've
stipulated.
Well, what's the feelings of this board? I mean, Mr. Murray
believes we should let the 400 be the control on this. Is that what --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's predicated on the facts
as they were given to us over time, the GMP. And, you know, we
knew this 400 beds. And I think that's the -- I think it's a mistake, and
I'm sorry that it was made that way, but I think it's appropriate to have
it -- and I'd like to see him bring in the transcript.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Now that brought an issue up.
Are there 249 units?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And there's never been any less
than two beds per unit? Well, that makes 500, or 498.
MR. DUANE: The representations made all through the GMP
amendment were 249. All of the number of zoning submittals and
traffic studies that we've done were all based on 249 units. All the
public discussions we've had, other than when the Pastor miscued and
said 249 beds, he mixed up his beds and units. To clarify that there are
no more than 400 beds, we have made it crystal clear today. And that
was 400 beds that was always left after we took out the 400 care units
-- the ALF units.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess my point is how many
-- there are 400 beds in 249 units?
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So there are in fact one bed per
unit in some cases, or maybe --
MR. DUANE: The units may vary in size. Some may have one
bed in them, some may have three or four beds in them.
Page 234
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm just trying to --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do the math.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and it still doesn't add up.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does add up. If you build your
structures and you have different size structures, you might -- in some
cases because of the needs of the individuals, you might have three in
one room, you might have two people in another.
And I don't want to be testifying on behalf of the petitioner, but I
think I'm correct in that. So I do think the math can be added. I would
hope you wouldn't dismiss it outright.
Am I in error on that?
MR. DUANE: No, you're absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, you made your
comments.
Ms. Caron, did you have some?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have been always very
protective of what happens at these neighborhood information
meetings, and I'm very concerned about the testimony from the public
today that is in conflict.
Now, I don't -- I'm not sure why we cannot get the transcript,
much like the letter we received from Hole-Montes today. That was
still on our consent agenda for, what was the name of the project--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hiwasse.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- when something was clarified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the issue that Hole-Montes
brought up was somewhat discussed as a stipulation to change the
entryway, and that was the outcome of that. And his is a factual issue,
it's either 249 beds or it's 400 beds.
And if we're going to change our mind after we make a
stipulation today, I think we have a consent agenda item that may be
more of an active hearing instead of a consent agenda item.
Mr. Klatzkow, you got any comments on this?
Page 235
June 5, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: You could continue this if you wanted to. I
know that throws everybody's schedule off but, you know, you could
do it that way.
Or we could agree that as part of the consent, we'll look at a
transcript, and if the transcript says 249 beds, you guys can have as
discussion. And if it says 249 units you could have a different
discussion.
MR. DUANE: That's what he said, he said beds. I remember
when he said it, and I told him, you misspoke.
MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, there are no verbatim
transcripts.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but you have a tape for it, don't you?
MR. SCHMITT: They have a tape and then they have a
summary. That's all that's prepared.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. I don't think there's any
dispute based on the staff report and what Mr. Duane just said or what
the gentleman just said that the word beds was used at 249. So that's
not what the transcript's going to show us.
It seemed that Mr. Mallory indicated that somewhere else during
the conversation he said that he always intended two beds per unit.
And he was trying to rely on that as a means to explain that he didn't
mean 249 beds. Am I right or wrong?
PASTOR MALLORY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, he's nodding his head yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that was said at the NIM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now if we get the NIM notes,
tape, transcript, whatever you want to call it, it comes back to us and it
shows 249 beds, which everybody says, but it shows further on in
discussion somewhere he said he expected two beds per each unit, it
doesn't help resolve the issue that we're going to be voting on now.
So that's -- we can't base it on if the transcript said 249 beds or
249 units, because that's not what we're going to find. We're going to
Page 236
June 5, 2008
find it says beds. That's been testified to by numerous people.
But I think the issue now is do we want to get the transcript to
see if it was clear enough that the 249 beds was overridden by other
discussion that clearly stated two beds per unit. That may be where we
have to go with this. But I don't know how we do that at a consent
meeting.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It doesn't add up.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
If we had staff and the petitioner review the tape together with
the county attorney's representative, and when the consent agenda
item is placed, could there be a reference in the -- as the conditions of
approval that verifies what was stated in the NIM? And if there is a
problem, that the item be continued and we hold the NIM, but if it is
consistent then they could move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, Ray. I think what
we could do is make a motion to say 249 beds to match the NIM or
400 maximum per pending the review by the County Attorney's
Office, the applicant and county staff.
And then come back to the consent agenda and tell us if your
read of that meeting made it clear enough so that the public, out of the
meeting, could have determined that even though he said 249 beds, it
was clear that there were going it be more beds than -- those were
intended to be units and there were going to be more beds than that.
That might be a solution. Does everybody -- Mr. Kolflat, Mr.
Schiffer, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, I've been to several of
those neighborhood information meetings. In my recollection, there
was not transcripts taken. Was there transcript taken of this meeting?
MR. BELLOWS: No, it was only tape recorded minutes.
MR. SCHMITT: It's an audio tape, that's all it is.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it was an audio tape.
MR. BELLOWS: Some kind of recording has to be made,
Page 237
June 5, 2008
whether it's a videotape or an audio tape.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
MR. BELLOWS: That's required by code.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my take is I think we
should stick with the 249 units. The old one had 400 units. And then
staff can come back and tell us what a unit is. But we should today, I
think, just approve what was advertised, which is 249 units. Beds
weren't advertised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have the advertisement?
Did it get into that issue? Some of the advertisement is generally not
that distinct.
Mr. Murray, you want to comment while staffs looking for the
ad?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I heard somebody say
about a continuance. But what occurred to me immediately is if it
comes back and it's not clear or if it becomes clear that a misspeak
was made, if you're locked into your NIM, are you allowed then to
have another NIM to cure the first NIM?
Is that what the purpose of a continuance would be? I mean, I'm
hoping that we could --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. And we --
MR. DUANE: We had two neighborhood meetings: One for the
GMP amendment and one for the zoning.
Kay, is it your contention at the zoning hearing -- was it your
contention that this was made at the zoning hearing and not the GMP
stage?
MS. DESELEM: I was never at the GMP NIM. I was only at the
zoning neighborhood information meeting. And so was Evie, the one
that did the synopsis.
MR. DUANE: Because we clearly placed on the record at the
GMP meeting that we were going to have 249 units. In fact, at one
Page 238
June 5, 2008
time that neighborhood meeting was going to satisfy both the
requirements of zoning and the compo plan. And then we decided to
split the meetings up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, this is about the zoning meeting,
so let's just stay with that.
Do we have -- this isn't the advertisement, is it?
MR. BELLOWS: It's the title they used. Same as the advertising.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 249 is not mentioned?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there goes that theory, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I think we --
theoretically in hospital talk a unit would be a nurses' station and
multiple rooms. I think the staff has to define what a unit is and we're
just going to approve 249, and the old PUD is 400 of them, whatever
they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the old PUD was 400 beds--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it says units and -- the
information I have from -- it was 400 units. There was 400 beds in the
assisted living. That one they defined --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the problem. That
complicates that.
MR. KLOHN: The ALF's were units and the care units were
bed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other way around.
MR. BELLOWS: This is from the approved PUD. It shows 400
care units and 400 rooms for adult living facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this 249 represent ACLF or care
units? Isn't it care units, residential care units, which, Ray,
corresponds to beds? So someone would naturally think if you went
from 400 beds to 249 beds, that's a good thing. Instead it looks like
we're going from 400 beds to 249 units but it's really 400 beds.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's a problem.
Page 239
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And unfortunately the traffic
report has it reversed, but -- I think, yeah, that's a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing we can do is put this -- I
mean, Ray's suggestion was at least a compromise at this point. Other
than that, I mean, I don't know how we could not move from the 249
beds that the NIM stated, based on everything we've seen to date.
Any comments from staff? If not, we've got to move forward.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if it is in error and they
need the 400 beds for their business plan, how do they ever get the
400 beds if it just goes away and they get 249? What is that -- is that
the intent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can come back through for
another amendment, unfortunately.
Mr. Schmidt?
MR. SCHMIDT: IfI may, Mr. Chairman. I pointed out earlier
that it was stated correctly that this would be 400 beds at the NIM
meeting for the sub-district. And the language has been that way since.
In all their written materials it is clearly stated and correctly so. And
here today it's been clarified.
So ifthere was an error, error or misstatement, that it happened
one time, and you've got the preponderance of the information,
including the written materials in front of you, where it's given to you
correctly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you at the neighborhood
informational meeting?
MR. SCHMIDT: Not for the PUD, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything you just said, I think we
know. And I appreciate you telling it to us. But we've got all that
documentation in front of us, too. And I agree with you, it's been--
there's a preponderance of documentation saying that.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. And the same people attended the two
Page 240
June 5, 2008
NIM's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, in the beginning of your
presentation, you showed us a chart. Robert? In the beginning you
showed us a chart. Could you put that up on the screen.
Because here's the weird thing. Why would you change the
number? Why would you reduce the bed number? I know you call it
units now. But it seems odd that you would go through that gesture if
you wanted it to be the same.
Why would you -- so here you're translating 400 care beds.
You're kind of saying within the 249 units. That to me looks like you
didn't change the 400 beds, you're just going to stick them in 249
units.
MR. DUANE: We eliminated the 400 adult care units. There
were 400 adult care and 400 beds. And we limited the 400 adult care
units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Beisler, would you mind coming
back up here and answering a question.
Sir, were you at the GMP neighborhood information meeting as
well as at the PUD?
MR. BEISLER: I was not at the GMP meeting. I had a conflict. I
was at the neighborhood meeting where they talked about the zoning.
And as Mr. Duane has said, Pastor Mallory did say 249 beds.
Mr. Duane has agreed to that, that he did hear that.
And again, I think one of the difficulties I have, representing
Naples Lakes Country Club, many of our members were there and
they commented how they were very pleased that it was going at that
time from 800 to 249. Remember, we were originally going to have
800 in that facility. And it was going from 800 to 249. And they
commented how pleased they were that it was going down to that
number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, the statement you just
Page 241
June 5, 2008
made is one that I had circled. I didn't bring it up, but it does say a
reduction in the original 800 beds assisted living facility. That is was
-- the 800 was referred to.
MR. BEISLER: That's right. And that's what we were told at that
meeting and that's what we all were very pleased to hear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I wanted you to say that,
sir, is because Mr. Schmidt, Corby, had indicated that the same people
were at both meetings. I don't think that's a true statement.
MR. SCHMIDT: Apparently not.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, the other -- the other way to do this,
Mr. Chairman, is just to allow the 249 units with 400 care beds, and
then when this gets to the Board of County Commissioners the
community will have a chance to tell the board exactly how they feel
about having 400 beds there. Then that gives them their right to
participate in the public process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather first take the position that
we need to defend the public and then let them turn it around at the
BCC meeting than vice versa.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the other way to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So my recommendation would be that
we use 249 beds to match the neighborhood informational meeting
and then let the presentation by the applicant and the citizens decide
before the BCC rectify this issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that eliminates the need to -- reviewing
the tape and we can just get this to the board, and the public will have
their chance before the board, as will the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments from the board?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask one question.
Bob, why would you change the unit from beds -- or in this case the
unit to unit? Why would you do that? Because that really screwed us
up here?
Why would you in the past say I have 400 care facility beds and
Page 242
June 5, 2008
now I have 249 units and that equals 400 beds? That's where our
problem is.
And I do agree with you, Mark, if we're going to err, let's err on
the side of the public.
PASTOR MALLORY: We were asked to do, for utilities, a
count of sinks, toilets, all of that. Then they asked how many bedroom
units are in those two buildings. The bedroom units, there's 249 of
them. Some of them are efficiencies, some of the units have three
bedrooms for when we get families. And so we agreed to 400 beds in
the 249 units.
If I misspoke, and at my age, maybe I did. But the minimum size
of each unit is, what is it, something like --
MR. DUANE: Two-hundred and seventy-five.
PASTOR MALLORY: Two-hundred and seventy-five square
feet. And so if we're going to just put one person in 275 square feet, it
does not make sense.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these built already?
PASTOR MALLORY: No. No, they're going to be built. But we
have the plans. I mean, the plans are the big building for $468,000, so
they're already done.
But I was asked to count bedroom units or units with bedrooms.
That's how we came up to the 249 units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How long ago were the plans
created? What's their date? A year ago, six months ago, two months
ago?
PASTOR MALLORY: The plans for the large building there --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, I'm interested in those
care units. I'm interested in the 249 units.
PASTOR MALLORY: We've probably had those plans five
years.
Page 243
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your intent all along was to
have 249 units, 400 beds?
PASTOR MALLORY: We never called them units until we
were asked to count the bedrooms and get the fixture count for
utilities. At that point I don't know how it got in there, but that's how
many bedrooms there are total.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let me tell you another little
sidebar on this whole thing. In the transportation TIS that was
provided, they have 400 beds and it equates to 618 daily two-way
trips. That was on the original existing PUD.
When you turn to Table 4, which is their new proposed PUD,
they call them 249 units and that only equates to 502 trips. So by
moving from beds to units you drop almost in half or at least a good
third of the amount of road trips you have, but you still end up with
the same amount of beds.
So if the intent was 400 beds, why wasn't the TIS then created
on the basis of the more intense proposal rather than the least intense
proposal?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we received testimony
that indicated that many of the people would not have vehicles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't matter to compare -- I'm
looking at the computation. If that was the case, the first PUD would
have applied the same way. But they didn't utilize that. They used the
beds at a higher rate than the beds they used using the 249 unit rate.
So anyway, that's a little bit of --
MR. PRICE: Hi, Rob Price, TR Transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to throw in the
mix?
MR. PRICE: Well, in the TIS for the existing PUD, we looked at
the assisted living facility based on the number of beds and the
congregate care facility based on the number of units. Assisted --
they're two separate land uses in ITE. And we were consistent in
Page 244
June 5, 2008
going from the care facility in the existing and the care facility in the
proposed. We just used -- we used units in both cases.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the beds that you used were not the
units that we're talking about today.
MR. PRICE: That's correct. Those are the beds that were being
eliminated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I stand corrected then.
Because the 808 is the units, the 6I8 is the beds. And in the new one,
you only have units, so you don't have beds anymore.
MR. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 800 beds that were
referred to at the NIM was what? You probably don't know.
MR. PRICE: Yeah, it was 400 units and 400 beds. That's -- that's
the problem. ITE -- and, see, this is an issue that we had throughout
this process, because ITE generates trips based on all these uses in
different categories, I mean, whereas opposed to using just square
footage of the building. It didn't really mesh when we were doing the
traffic analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the PUD, Ms. Caron just
showed me a copy of it, it's got 400 rooms instead of 400 units for
these --
MR. PRICE: We would consider rooms units. That would be the
same thing for us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, there's another thing
in the transportation. On Table I, which is the old system, they say
care facility, 400 units. And that's what he did his study.
On Table 2, which is the new, he has care facility, 249 units.
Thus somebody thought you were reducing the intensity of this thing
by IS I units.
So I think that's a clue that they're going to have to fix in front of
the commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because it wasn't units that they
Page 245
June 5, 2008
should have been talking about in the first one, it was beds. And then
they moved it into units --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in his study he has -- but
the old and the new are both under the same units, unit, and he had
400 before and 249. So in his mind he thought he was reducing the
density of units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because he took the beds as units,
which increased the first PUD and decreased the second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I don't think we're going to
untangle it here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think so either.
So with that, Ray, we have no more public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done with the presentations, and
we need to entertain a motion. And I need staff to be very careful in
what they acknowledge they understand out of this meeting.
This is the applicant that was on Hiwasse. On Hiwasse, when we
all left here, we thought we understood what we knew. We found out
through many iterations and e-mails back and forth through staff that
there was a lot of confusion.
I don't want to have the same thing happen here today. We're
dealing with a lot of intense issues, so let's be very careful. If it takes
time, it just takes time.
MR. KLOHN: What is Hiwasse?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another project that got confused
through the consent process, and I don't want -- it just took too long to
straighten out.
MR. KLOHN: Okay, I just want to clarify that MDG didn't have
anything to do with Hiwasse.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Bob and George were the
presenters. When we made our stipulations, we all -- at least I
understood it a certain way. And for a while it looked like there was a
Page 246
June 5, 2008
lot of discretion about what it really meant. It all got worked out in the
end. But I don't want to have to go through that again, that's all I'm
saying. And that's where we're at. So we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's deal with this thing on the
screen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's a monument, a big one. It's
monumental. That's all bronze?
MR. DUANE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going to have to have
guards around it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's got to take a lot of expense.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a beautiful memorial, but I
do think it's IOO feet away from the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's IOO feet away from the
boundary, so it doesn't really matter.
MR. DUANE: Can I make a clarification? Because I've had a
chance to think about it since we discussed it previously.
It you go to Page B-5, I think we could classify this as an
accessory use, and the minimum front yard for accessory use is on
Page B-5, which is Table 4. Minimum front yard is 50 feet, it says,
along 95I.
If we want to clarify that to say 50 feet from the property line, I
have no objections to that. From the property line.
I think now if you take our 50-foot setback from the property
line plus the canal plus the right-of-way, I can scale it for you. But we
end up with something more than IOO feet still. And we'll scale that
right now for you.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which way is this facing?
Which is where I was trying to get from the beginning, but I misspoke
as well. Which way is this facing?
Page 247
June 5, 2008
In other words, is this -- if we're on 95I, would we be looking
right at it in this picture?
So in other words, this is -- if we can get it to stop for a moment.
If we're looking at this --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're looking south. West
would be to the right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In other words, are we on
Lord's Way looking at this or 95I looking at this in this picture?
PASTOR MALLORY: You're on The Lord's Way looking at the
picture.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great, okay, that's what I
thought.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the cross is facing east in
this picture. In other words, to the right would be east?
Okay, that helps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to be careful how much
testimony we're get off record. Sorry, Cherie'. Let's not -- if you have
to ask questions of anyoody they've got to come to the podium.
So the answer, though, was that this would be facing east and the
cross would be facing east.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're looking north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're looking at a 50-foot
setback based on the fact that it is an accessory use. Had we been
pointed to Page A-2, we would have seen under B-6 the Christian
Memorial MPUD master plan. The Christian Memorial is what I think
is referred to as an accessory use on that page.
By the way, Kay, while we're on this page, the words accessory
permitted uses, I think the word permitted can be dropped and you can
do that on the prior page as well and the one following, every word.
They're just uses. They're not permitted, because they're requested in
the PUD. So that needs to be cleaned up when it comes back to us.
Okay, now we've settled the monument part. Let's move on to
Page 248
June 5, 2008
our motion. I read a whole pile of stipulations.
Kay, I need you to come to the podium, because I'd like you to
acknowledge as we go forward that you understand what's got to be
done.
Looking for a motion from the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll move to forward
PUDA-2007-AR-I2043 with a recommendation of approval. And let's
review the stipulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second before we go
into the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded.
Stipulations. If you want, Brad, I'll just go through the ones I've
already been through.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Kay, it's going to fall on
you, so just please let me know where you're not clear or clear on it.
MS. DESELEM: Will do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The deviations we would recommend--
we would recommend approval of the deviations pursuant to staffs
recommendations except we recommend approval of deviation two,
three, four, five, six and I4 as well. Staff had recommended denial,
we're recommending approval.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. So let me clarify. On deviation I2, staff
has a limit. You are recommending that limit be adopted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: So all deviations are approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All deviations are approved, yes. That's
what it boils down to.
And specifically those staff I disagree with some were saying
disagree with staff.
Next one is that there will be a wall that will run continuous
Page 249
June 5, 2008
between Tract G and the First Assembly site from the north to the
south. It will not be necessarily in a straight line but it will be
continuous.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is there a height on that wall that you want?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the code allows and the PUD
allows. We didn't discuss the height, but I think it only needs to be
what the PUD or the code allows.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's noted as six feet in the
document.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it will be a continuous six-foot wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continuous six-foot wall.
The language referencing how long the ESP units will be held
for sale, it will be increased to six months from the 30 days that are
stated in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. Is that six
months from -- I think in the Mike Davis Bill it's when they advertise
it. But is it -- should we make that from C.O. or six months from
marketing? That's a dispute --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, it looks like you've got some--
absolutely not.
MR. SCHMIDT: I hear confusion.
That condition was recommended by staff. And the meaning
behind it, and again, perhaps the reason the time was 30 or only 60
days in past recommendations or work versions, that's every time for
the next IS years that one becomes available. So in the I 4th year do
you really want a unit sitting empty or available for six months?
That six months is not just the first time it becomes available but
every time it becomes available. So be careful with your length of
time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But where is that six months
measured from? In the future it will be I want to move, I'll advertise it
for sale. From that date is six months. But the original six month,
Page 250
June 5, 2008
when does that start measuring?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I know what Bill's going to say.
But go ahead, Bill.
MR. KLOHN: Why don't you finish my sentence for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're saying that you
agree that the initial sale, when they first open up will be for six
months but then any kind of resale or re-opening up will be for a
shorter period of time.
MR. KLOHN: Correct. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about that shorter period of
time for re-up. Thirty days isn't really good enough for anybody to
understand it's even available. Would you mind going longer on that?
MR. KLOHN: I was chatting with my colleague here.
The first offering will be for six months, and resale are for 30
days. Is that what you just said?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- yeah, I didn't say that,
but I'm asking you what, the resale period would be for, and you're
saying you want 30 days?
MR. KLOHN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about 60?
MR. KLOHN: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason I'm saying that,
it's really hard for anybody to even know you're out there in 30 days.
So it would be six months would be held for the first time it's
sold, after that it would be for 60 days.
MR. KLATZKOW: But what is it measured from?
MS. DESELEM: Thirty days or 60 days from what?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Listing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And first of all, I think that if
you can't sell these units for six months, that's a good sign. That means
we've conquered a major problem in affordable housing.
MR. KLOHN: The six-month period should be from C.O., and
Page 251
June 5, 2008
the resale should be from the time that it's offered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like the six months from c.o.
Because I think if it's from marketing, they could market a year ahead
ofC.O., and what does that mean?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The six months to hold ESP will
be -- for sale will be from the C.O. initially. And then the 60 days will
be from the time it's offered thereafter.
MR. KLOHN: Right. And my colleague just was chatting with
me here.
Why don't you come up to the mic so that you're on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to identify yourself.
MR. SUGAR: I'm Ira Sugar, MDG Capital.
What I would like is we expect to start marketing these and
pre-selling them. So if we have to wait for not from call it a week from
now but a year from now and then an additional six months, that
would be a problem.
We're also using bond financing that comes under go-zone
requirements. We have to put people in these units prior to the end of
2009. So time is really not on our side.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but here's the point, is
that you could market it ahead of time. Let's say you start marketing
now and they're not going to be ready for a year and a half, then that's
not fair.
If you're getting to C.O. time -- I mean, you would have them
sold by then. So what you're saying is that there's no market out there
for these essential personnel units. Again, let me note that would be a
good thing or a bad marketing plan, one of the two. And you want to
immediately at C.O. start selling them.
I know the price would be the same, it's just you're selling them
to people that don't meet that description.
MR. SUGAR: Our aim really is to start marketing and have
Page 252
June 5, 2008
them sold but not delivered until C.O. So if we have to wait until a
C.O. to then market an unsold unit to somebody else, that puts us six
months of carrying not only the unit but pushing us further off so we
might be in danger of losing bond financing for that unit.
So I would request if not six months from start of marketing,
maybe call it a year from marketing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, why don't we do this?
Can we just say not less than two months from C.O. or something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, brad, that's where I was going.
Why don't we just leave it as -- instead of the 30 days, that was too
short, why don't we just go 60 days. And wherever you had 30 we
substitute 60 in. And that gives you a time frame that's a little bit
longer, double what you anticipated, but it does help make sure the
ESP people know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And make if from the front. So
that means that if you can't sell it, you've got 60 days from the first
C.O. that you can then sell it to somebody else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty days from the first C.O. and then
60 days every time it's offered thereafter.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's smart.
MR. SCHMITT: Brad, just so you -- I know Frank left, but
normally it's not a problem with getting applicants, it's the problem
getting people qualified.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's -- and in some cases with the
affordable housing, they may get I9 or 20 interested parties before
they actually can get somebody they can qualify a loan to. So that
becomes the issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But you don't also want a
situation where people from a higher bracket are eating up all the --
MR. SCHMITT: Understand that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- affordable housing, which
Page 253
June 5, 2008
could be happening.
MR. SUGAR: Another way to look at this is call it ESP or
workforce families earning under I40 percent of adjust -- or average
medium income.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't the definition of ESP
so broad that you could stick everybody in it? Everybody in this room
some --I mean, skilled trades. I mean, all of us could claim we're a
skilled --
MR. KLOHN: No, Ira had a good idea. Ifwe can do 60 days
from the first offering to ESP, which is our CWHIPP commitment,
and then to workforce housing as by definition of Collier County's
workforce housing definition, then that works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just do the 60 days -- the ESP
units will be held for 60 days from C.O. and then every day then for
60 days every time thereafter that they're offered. Does that work?
MS. DESELEM: I got that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to go on.
On Page B-2 there was some redundant language after the front
yard setback was discussed. It appeared in several of the tables. That's
got to get struck.
Also on Page B-2.C, we would strike the last language of the
sentence, or similar looking material.
The sale of vehicles will be reported in the PUD monitoring
report, so we can keep track of the quantity that are sold each year.
MS. DESELEM: And I assume you want that language entered
into here as an obligation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
On Page A-2, we were -- strike accessory use number I4.
On Page B-2, we'd strike the language that says unless structure
is attached, and that appears on a couple of tables, that would come
out.
Page 254
June 5, 2008
Change the distance between buildings to be greater than 20 feet.
MS. DESELEM: And that's all it's going to say, greater than 20
feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Greater than 20 feet, right.
On Page B-5, Item C, we would add the reference they're going
to put in a dump station for users of that project only.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay. Now, I didn't have that initially. It's
only for people --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dump station is people that are
staying there, not a dump station for the world.
You're going to modify the RV car sales language to what we
discussed during the meeting.
And I've got good notes for whatever you may be missing, Kay.
MS. DESELEM: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to move the
interconnection that's shown on the master plan to align with the
center line of the driveway.
We're going to indicate that the 249 units is to be beds to match
the NIM.
MS. DESELEM: So the 249 units is no longer 249 units, it is
clearly limited to 249 beds?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's an issue that will be
debated, we're assuming, at the BCC by the applicant and by the
public. And then the BCC in their judgment can make the best
decision possible.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did I miss the rear yard business
so that no building -- that care building there can't be -- nothing can be
built within 60 feet of it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're right.
MS. DESELEM: I missed that initially because I was -- what is
that 60- foot thing?
Page 255
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a suggestion on
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That thing, it references Exhibit
B-I. So if you go to Exhibit B-I, I think maybe the best way to handle
this would be -- if you look at Exhibit B-I, that section on the three
feet references Exhibit B-I.
And if on that sketch what would be the northern and the eastern
wall, if added to that sketch could be some sort of a notation that no
building can be built within 60 feet of these facades, then I think we
cover it there, Donna, which would be better than trying to verbally
cover it. And --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure, Brad. Where you say --
where it says minimum year yard, we could say minimum rear yard
three feet. And then from the north and east facades no other building
will be within 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would work, I guess, yes.
MS. DESELEM: Let me clarify. You're on Table 3, Page B-4?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes,
Okay, either way, that's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, A-2, did you not change some of the
permitted uses?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a whole nother -- you're
right, we did.
And as I said, we walked through all the uses that Reverend
Mallory talked about. I've got sheets taken out of the SIC code for
every one of those, and I've circled the ones that Reverend Mallory
said he needs out of each one of those codes.
Kay, before I leave today we can make copies of this, and I'll
make sure you have them, and that way you can -- it's pretty easy to
follow this way.
Page 256
June 5, 2008
MS. DESELEM: That would be most helpful, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need to read them for the record,
Mr. Klatzkow, or just use them on consent?
MS. DESELEM: I'm fairly confident that between Corby and I,
we have a pretty succinct list. And then when I get what he's got, I
think we'll be okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you keep a copy and just give her a
copy, you'll know exactly when you get it back on consent ifthey
made a mistake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I intend to keep a copy. I've
learned that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I've got them, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the last thing, there were a lot
of minor changes to the table pages. My assumption is that staff was
making those annotations so I haven't got to restate them all here in a
paragraph form. I think that's sufficient, that's how we've handled it in
the past.
Do you have any discomfort with that?
MS. DESELEM: No. I believe that again, between Corby and I,
because he was my back-up, I think we have a very complete list.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll get with you after the
meeting and I'll get you a copy of this stuff and we'll be all set to go
on that.
Is there anything that anybody feels we've missed in the
stipulations?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. And they're acceptable to
me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And does the second accept
them, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further discussion?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I'll just make one note before you vote.
Page 257
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're unanimous, this generally goes on
summary and the board wouldn't necessarily hear this. If you want the
board to hear this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if the board hears it. I don't
care if the board does or not because we've said what we felt.
If the applicant wants to challenge the 249 beds, then they can
pull it from the summary. They may be wise to say, you know, we're
not going to fill this up with 249 people for IO years, we're probably
going to come in with a PUD amendment over the next five years,
why don't we just take care of it then. That might be the best way to
approach it. So --
MR. SCHMITT: If there's a disagreement, it will automatically
go on the regular agenda unless they consent to the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But right now if we pass it
unanimously then it goes on consent unless they pull it. So I'd rather
put them in that position to make that --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's 249 beds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that said, discussion ended.
I'll call for the vote.
All those in favor of the motion as -- oh, just a moment, Mr.
Klohn.
MR. KLOHN: Did we finish on the 60 days from C.O. for
CWHIPP and workforce housing by definition of workforce housing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we just said 60 days would be held
for the ESP sale from C.O. and then 60 days for any time it's offered
thereafter.
Do you have a condition like that already in the PUD for the 30
days for the workforce housing?
MR. KLOHN: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why are we getting into it?
MR. KLOHN: Okay.
Page 258
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, do we have any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Well, that was an
absolute experience. So thank all of you for a very interesting day.
MR. SCHMITT: Could we go back to the statement made at
I:OO?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
Item # 10
OLD BUSINESS
We do have two matters of old business that will take a second
to clear up.
MR. KLOHN: I just want to thank all of you for your patience.
It was a long day, so thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
The first old business item I'd like to ask about. And Ray, this is
basically, or Joe for you to pass on to Mr. Bosi.
A long time ago, it seems, that Mr. Gramatges came in here, Phil
Gramatges came in here and indicated that the I85 GMP (sic) per day
Page 259
June 5, 2008
that they used for the AUIR, that he had a way of that was being
derived. We specifically asked for that to be broke down to show how
that I85 came to be, because that seems to be now the basis for the
entire issue of our AUIR.
I want to make sure that's still getting done. I haven't heard
anything on it, but if you wouldn't mind checking on it, I'd appreciate
it.
MR. SCHMITT: Go to the board on Tuesday for the population
methodology report to the board. Part of that recommendation is that
we come back to you to clarify the issues that were raised during that
presentation. I believe that's when it was raised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It was.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. And the recommendation of the board is
we bring that back to you for the clarifications that were asked.
Because if you recall, that whole thing basically started with
Commissioner Coyle and the board asking us a specific question.
You raised some other issues. We want to make sure the board
understands we're going to come back to you and clarify those other
Issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I appreciate it.
And Mr. Kolflat, I think you had indicated you wanted a
question.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, for the record, you want to
report what you found out about that sign question that I wrote you
about?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. At the last Planning Commission meeting
there was some discussion about the advertising of the sign variance. I
don't remember the name of the project. Do you remember the name
of the -- anyways, there was a discrepancy on how the --
MR. SCHMITT: Galleria.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Galleria.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Vanderbilt Collection.
Page 260
June 5, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Collections.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Vanderbilt Collections.
MR. BELLOWS: Anyways, there was a provision in the Land
Development Code that says the distance between signs had to be
I,OOO feet. Staff listed the sign, for example, B-I and B-2 and the
variance was reduced from I,OOO feet to 750 feet.
Well, in discussions with Marjorie Student, County Attorney's
Office, it was determined that the way the provision's written in the
code it's just talking about the distance separation.
So the way it was advertised, we did say between sign B-I and
B-2. You didn't have to say between B-2 and B-I also. It got both.
And that's why there was only six instead of nine.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that's acceptable?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Mr.--
MR. SCHMITT: I had one clarification. You had asked if that
meeting on the 27th ends at noon. It does not. You have the room for
the entire day on June 27th, 8:30 to 5:00 p.m., if you so desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be a long day meeting again. So
we're booked up solid from now until the end of July.
Item # 11
NEW BUSINESS
Thank you sir. With that, is there -- no new business.
Any public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
Page 261
June 5, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We're adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:45 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Page 262
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive' Naples, Florida 34104
June 18, 2008
Mr. Eric Schneider
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
Reference: BD-2008-AR-12731, Jim Fountain
Dear Mr. Schneider:
On Thursday, June 5, 2008, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved
Petition No. BD-2008-AR-12731. A copy of Resolution No. 08-02 is enclosed approving
this petition.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-2942.
Sin7 a
(lll//~
~ V Ashley Caserta
'(0 Senior Planner
Enclosure
AC/mm
cc: Mr. Jim Fountain, 208 San Mateo Drive, Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & POI)
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
Mariam Ocheltree, Graphics
File
c::
o
{~~
o
.
c::
o
u
n
<
.r
Phone (239) 252-2400
Pax (239) 252-6%8 or (239) 252-2913
www.colliergov.nct
CCPC RESOLUTION 08- 02
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER BD-2008-AR-12731, AMENDING CCPC
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18, IN ORDER REFLECT A
SECOND BOAT LIFT AND THE REMOVAL OF AN
EXISTING FLOATING SWIM PLATFORM ON THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WOOD DOCK FACILITY
ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, on July 20,2000, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) adopted
CCPC Resolution No. 2000-18, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which
approved a 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow a 48-foot
docking facility for the herein described property located in a PUD Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners propose renovations to the existing boat dock approved by
CCPC Resolution No. 2000-18 including the addition of a second boatlift and the removal of an
existing floating swim platform; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC, being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing
and considered the advisability of a second boatlift and the removal of the floating swim
platform from existing fixed wood dock approved by CCPC Resolution 2000-18; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section
5.03.06; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission
of Collier County, Florida that:
1. Petition Number BD-2008-AR-12731, filed on behalf of Jim Fountain by Eric
Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., for the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 27, Southport on the Bay, Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Page 1 of2
be, and the same is hereby approved for a second boat lift and the removal of the existing
floating swim platform on the existing fixed wood dock facility approved by CCPC Resolution
No. 2000-18, provided said renovations require no further protrusion into the waterway.
2. Except as modified above, all other terms and conditions set forth in CCPC
Resolution 2000-18, as adopted on July 20, 2000, shall remain in full force and
effect.
3. The combined length of the vessels may not exceed 44 feet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
511-..
.-
day of J w.J-e..
,2008.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
Strain, Chairman
o ph K. Schmitt
C mrnunity Development and Environmental
ervices Administrator
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
11l1i~A.(' .3/1 .~?t:l' d o.u;{--/1;r"/1 ill,,_
MaIjorie udent-Stir ing ,- -- -'3
Assistant County Attorney
Page 2 of2
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- t8
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-14 FOR
AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRfBED IN COLLIER COUNTY
FLORfDA. '
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance
91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County,
among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted
Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 28-foot extension of a boat dock
from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 48-[00t boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property
hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have
been made cOllccmiug all applicable matters required by said f" '?,tic!1~ and in accordance with Section
2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andrew P.
Devito, with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 27, Southport on the Bay Unit I, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, as described in Plat Book t5, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
be and the same is hereby approved for a 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to
allow for a 48-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located,
subject to the following conditions:
1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into.t~e wate~. re.gardless
of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches mInimUm sIze mstalled
at the outermost end on both sides.
In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall
be posted during construction.
2.
EXHIBIT "A"
-1-
3. Pennits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance ofa building
pennit.
4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall
be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-14 be
recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this 20 th day of
July
.2000.
ATTEST:9/.t-
4 - ;:;!(
VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP
Fxecutive Secretary
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
....~-
Approved as to Fonn and Legal Sufficiency:
~..,hl ()J;uh,J:f.
.j;,." Marni . Scuderi '
Assistant County Attorney
g:ladmin!8D-2000-14/RG/im
-2-