Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/03/2008 R July 3, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 3, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti David Wolfley Paul Midney (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Department of Land Development Manager Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 3, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 10,2008, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2008-AR-12802, Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreational and Maintenance Association, Inc., represented by Miles Scofield of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc, requesting a 15-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in section 5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a multi-slip dock facility reaching a maximum of 35 feet into the waterway. Applicant is proposing to remove two existing finger docks and build 12 new docks with a total of 16 slips. Subject property is located in Section 20, Township 48 and Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-II046, VI Partners, LTD, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use for the Moraya Bay Beach Cluh to allow a private club in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort TOUlist Overlay district (VBRTO) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), as specified in Sections 2.03.02.E for the RT Zoning District and 2.03.07.L. for the VBRTO. The proposed private club will be located within the residential building. The subject property, consisting of 4.96", acres, is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluehill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 C. Petition: CU-200S-AR-12996, Bob Annibale of Avis Budget Group requests a Conditional Use to permit truck rentals within the C-4 Zoning District. The :!:0.9S-acre subject property is located at 1965 and 1933 Tamiami Trail, in Section II, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) D. Petition: RZ-200S-AR-13209, Michael Corder represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning Development Inc., is requesting a rezone /Tom the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District for a project to be known as the "Healthcare Medical Center." The subject property, consisting of 6.25 acres, is located in Golden Gate Estates on the southwest corner of the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards, in Section 04, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) E. Petition: PUDA-200S-AR-12S61, Kevin Ratterree of G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation, represented by Rober! Duane, AICP of Ho]e Montes, Inc., requesting a PUD Amendment to the Terafina PUD to change the side yard setbacks for zero lot line dwellings as established in Section 6.5, Deve]opment Standards, Tab]e ], of the approved PUD Ordinance, /Tom zero or ] 2 feet to zero or ten feet. The:!: 636.S-acre subject property is located in the Terafina PUD, Section ]6, Township 4S, Range 26, Collier County, F]orida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS ]2. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ]3. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 7/3/08 cepe AgendalRRlsp 2 July 3,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the July 3rd, Collier County Planning Commission meeting. If you'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by our secretary, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, ma'am. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda? For Page 2 July 3, 2008 those of you in the audience who are here today for -- I've got to get to the right one -- the second petition, the VI partners limited, which is Moraya Bay Beach Club. That petition has been continued. Can't tell you a date that it's going to come back, but it is not going to be heard today. So if you're here for the Moraya Beach Bay (sic) Club, it will not be discussed today. As far as any other changes to the agenda, I don't believe there are any. Our next meeting in which we all need to be aware is July 9th, next Wednesday evening at 5:05. I tried to call Catherine before the meeting. I was a little mixed up in what the meeting is about. I know there's a presentation by a Mr. White, who is the attorney who is -- not Patrick White, an outside counsel -- who is rewriting the code. In the packet that we received, we received a package of information for that meeting, and it concerned a -- the nonconformity language, and it's an example of how he intends to write the code and lay the format out. I believe at this time we ought to be prepared to discuss that issue that's in the packet. Originally I thought it was a presentation by Mr. White just to say what he's doing and how he's doing it. But in reading the cover page to our packet since our last meeting, we actually will probably be discussing the packet. So it's a small packet, a one-issue packet. It's more detail on that issue than we -- I think we normally see, but it's done to show us how he is going to modify the LDC and march through the process. So for those of you that are going to be here next Wednesday night, we need to at least be prepared to discuss it. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here next Wednesday? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I sent you an email indicating there would be three meetings that I will be missing, I'll hope I'll be excused from. Page 3 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, you sure did, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be. But thank you. And Mr. Adelstein, you're not going to be here? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we will have a quorum then. Okay. Next item is approval of the minutes. There's none available at this time. BCC recaps, Ray? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners had not met since the last Planning Commission last Friday, so I have no recap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could have met, couldn't they? Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. I have one issue. I'd watched part of the EAC meeting on the LDC item that came up the other day, and I noticed they were meeting -- they were discussing a lot of environmental issues and preservation issues, things like that. I have no objection to that, but I'm just curious as to how that comports to the BCC direction that the LDC amendments at this time would be limited to those that are beneficial to the economy or to business and not get into all the others until later on. I thought I had Page 4 July 3, 2008 heard that direction from the BCC. Do you know -- I mean, I was hoping it would shorten our LDC meetings because we have five of them scheduled for this month and next total, and I'm -- you know, with less to hear, we would have less time to spend on them. Do you know if there was any reaction to that, what I thought was direction, in regards to that issue? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't see the meeting, but I did -- was in on a conversation between Catherine Fabacher and Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Bill Lorenz that -- and I believe most these amendments were GMP mandated or related except for maybe one. So I could have Catherine respond to your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would be more concerned to know if the decision that seemed to come from -- I thought the BCC had made, will end up changing any of the cycle of the LDC, or is it just nice they said that but everything goes on as planned? MR. BELLOWS: No, I'm sure they're addressing it, and -- but I can't tell you other than I'll have Catherine fill you in on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we do have an awful lot of meetings scheduled for the next two months. And at one point, the suggestion was, why don't we take the summer off? I'm certainly glad we didn't do that. But I would hate to see us have to meet in some cases three or four nights right in a row in this -- or four days in a row in this room over stuff that maybe we were sidetracked because of the BCC direction. So if you could check that, Ray, I'd appreciate it. MR. BELLOWS: I definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The consent agenda items. There are none on our schedule. I did review the recent draft of the Freestate, and it's not complete, but everything seems to be heading in the right direction. So I think that one successfully got moved forward like it Page 5 July 3, 2008 needed to. And that takes us to the first advertised public hearing. Item #9 A PETITION: BD-2008-AR-12802, VANDERBILT SURF COLONY RECREATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION. INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First petition is BD-2008-AR-12802, and that's the Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreational and Maintenance Association, Inc., for a multi-slip dock facility in Vanderbilt Beach. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a discussion with Mr. Scofield yesterday mostly over the ownership of the property and the application of a section of the code that I certainly will be addressing today that I found, and we'll just go from there as the meeting goes forward. Hearing none others, it looks like we have a handout. Rocky, it's all yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good morning. I'm Rocky Scofield with Turrell, Hall and Associates, representing Vanderbilt Surf Colony, the applicant. Is everybody familiar with where this site is? There's a site location map on the overhead right now. If they know where that is, I can go ahead and remove that and move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They all look to be the same thing. Move on. They look to be the same. I'm just going to pass them down. That's just annoying. They should have given them correctly. Page 6 July 3,2008 MR. SCOFIELD: I wanted to make sure north was up here. The vacant property you see there with the two tennis courts, that's the subject property that we're talking about today. This is a piece of property that is owned by Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, II, and III Condominiums that are across the way to the west of the road going through this subdivision, west of the basin and actually north, northwest of this basin. There's currently two docks right here. These two docks next to the blue roofs you see over there, those are the only two docks currently on the property at this time. We're proposing to remove those and place docks along the shoreline like the rest of the basin has. Adjust my eyes. Okay. This is the plan -- you all have the handouts. There was three handouts given to you. The first one was the existing conditions. This is the proposed overlay of our dock system in this. There are 16 slips on this. The -- the docks coming into the entrance of this basin -- this basin's a hundred feet wide. And there are docks over on the south side, which is Bay Point Condominiums. They extend out -- the dock and boat lifts extend out 20 feet. And when I show you the cross-sections, that's what we're proposing across the way. They're angle docks with a boat lift. The fixed structures are out 20 feet from the seawall. We're -- when you move further to the west, you see the longer finger docks. Those are 30 feet long, which is -- that's what the rest of the basin basically has. When this was originally permitted, the docks were 24, 27, and 30 feet long. I have the original Corps permit that was done in 1983, which I'll show you in a minute. It shows docks all the way around this basin. For some reason the docks in this area were never built, just the two per slips that we showed you in the existing conditions. On the docks at the entrance of the basin, I said they're out 20 feet. We're here today requesting a 25-foot extension, and for those of you in the past when I submit these things, I always go with some Page 7 July 3, 2008 additional feet for boat overhang. Obviously, a lot of situations you get into, boats overhang and then they're in violation of the code. I can tell you Bay Point Condo to the south, those docks never came to a boat dock extension hearing. They were built out 20 feet; therefore, they were permitted. Should the boat hang out past that 20 feet, then obviously they'd be in violation, but that's neither here nor there. But we are here today asking for a 25-foot -- or a five-foot extension on the entranceway, and then as you move along to those 30- foot docks, finger piers, we're asking for a 15- foot extension from the 20 feet up to 35 feet. The finger piers are 30 feet long. The extra five feet that we ask for -- and it's in your packet on the cross-sections, which I'll show you, is for any overhang of the boat. Usually it's outboard engines that are overhanging the end of the dock, or the boat li ft. The third handout I gave you is the same thing with the overlay but it shows you some of the protrusions. I went out yesterday in the field and measured, tape measured. These aren't aerial photograph measures -- these are actual measurements in the field -- of extensions into this waterway. And as you can see there, some of the docks -- one of the docks is 32 feet long, one of the docks is 29, the other one's 30 feet. In most cases, the boats overhang. The boats overhang out to 35 feet, and one of them hangs out to 36 feet. And the one -- that's the one right adjacent to our property. You can see those four blue-covered boat canopies, which has been discussed here before, and those are those canopies that they stick over the boat lifts. And the one closest to the subject property sticks out 38 feet from the seawall, which is right next to our property line there. The boat underneath hangs out 36 feet. So we meet -- as far as what we're asking for on these extensions, it's consistent and in some cases less than what's already in the basin. Page 8 July 3, 2008 There's plenty of room in this basin. It meets the 25 percent or less criteria extension protrusion into the waterway. This is just the permit drawing showing the actual boats and the docks, and pretty much -- this is not to say that's the exact size of the boat going in there, but it's showing you what can go in there without overhanging into the -- over the 25 percent line. So these are projected uses. Obviously these 30-foot finger piers. They want boat lifts in here. I'm pretty sure right now most of all these docks are getting boat lifts. And that's the picture which you should have in your packet showing you the boats on the lifts at the slip. Again, you have this. That's the cross-section of the entrance to the basin. That's the 20-foot wide docks. And again, we're asking for another five feet beyond the 20. You can see it on the -- over it that it shows you the protrusion of the dock, and then above that is the requested BDE, the extension of five feet for any overhang of the boat. Again, the entranceway is a hundred feet wide, so we're 25 percent or less in there. And that's a cross-section ofthe 30-foot finger piers to the west. Inside the basin and showing you the 15- foot extension requested. The docks stick out 30 feet. An additional five feet would be for any protrusion of the boat past the end of the dock. I don't know if that's -- if you all have seen this one. That's -- I dug this out of our old Scofield Marine Construction files. This was an Army Corps of Engineers permit that was submitted in 1983 into this area. It was then called the Vanderbilt Surf Colony Association, which was this entire basin at the time, under the owner at that time. That's the plan that was submitted and approved by the state and the Corps of Engineers or -- turn around, okay. That's the plan that was submitted and approved, and the docks were built. So you can see on the property -- the subject property, all these docks were approved at one time in the past, and the docks coming in the entryway on both Page 9 July 3, 2008 sides were never built. Those docks shown there, those finger piers, extend out 24 feet from the seawall. The docks now that we're proposing and the ones right across the way at Bay Point Condo extend out 20 feet. So there's -- there is the original plan. Some of those docks in the basis are 24, some are 27, and some are 30 feet. And they've been altered and, you know, added onto, cut down since then, so there are all kind of lengths in there, and that was shown to you on the aerial earlier that I handed out to you. So going back to this overlay, the property extends outside of the basin to the north along the Vanderbilt waterway. Where the tennis courts are, just to the east of there, that's the property line, and then Gulf Breeze Condominium is directly adjacent to the north. There's no docks proposed on the waterway, and there's -- that's approximately 215 lineal feet of property they own along the Vanderbilt waterway. These docks are confined to the basin and the owners have no intention of placing docks along that waterway, I assume; is that correct? MR. BIANCO: That's absolutely correct. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. We have one of the owners representing the condominium here. So this -- we have DEP and Corps of Engineer permits on this project. The DEP has done their due diligence, as they normally do. They have deemed this water basin not sovereign submerged lands; therefore, they exempted us from permit and gave us their blessing. We have -- so we have their approval. We have the Corps of Engineers' approval, and we are here today requesting the extension. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the submission of the three documents need to be turned in and made evidence, correct? Page 10 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to get there, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would move that we would do that and they be marked as exhibits so that they're identifiable individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. The RMF 16 zoning district, as I understand it, allows an accessory use for recreational facilities when it serves as an integral part of the residential community. Is that your understanding also? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, these proposed dock facilities are only accessible by land from Vanderbilt Surf Colony by an easement through the land. Can you show us on this overhead where the easement is? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. The easement -- the property starts right here where my pointer is, and the easement is through -- it's through this property up to the road right here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The easement runs from the road then? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Who are the parties involved in Page 11 July 3, 2008 this easement? MR. SCOFIELD: The -- meaning? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Who is granting the easement? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the property belongs to Gulf Breeze Condominium. The easement is deeded to Surf Colony I, II, and III. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, does this easement run with the land? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm going to let -- you know, the county staff -- in the zoning department we had this discussion yesterday, and they're prepared to talk to you about the zoning issues here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, my concern is whether this qualifies under that direction as an integral part. MR. SCOFIELD: As far as the -- we had a statement from the county saying so because we're -- currently -- this has been reviewed by zoning. We're currently into a Site Improvement Plan on this property, which we -- which we have to have on -- in order to get the permits to do this. And I had some language that was faxed to me back in October of '06. Yeah, right. Yeah. I was looking for that letter, Ashley. MS. CASERTA: The zoning letter? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. Ashley has a zoning let -- we have a zoning letter. When we started this whole process a year -- the boat docking extension, actually, in the SIP, which was a year-and-a-half ago, and they gave us a -- the county gave us a ruling on -- that this did qualify. The recreational uses was for tennis courts and boat docks on this property, and that's when we proceeded ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So the county has determined that the integral does qualify here? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On page 2 of the staff report, it says the facility will protrude 35 feet into the 100-to-250 waterway. The petitioner's document says at page 6, they will protrude 20 -- it Page 12 July 3, 2008 will protrude 25 feet instead of 35 feet. Which is correct? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, Mr. Kolflat, say it again. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The staff report says -- that's on page 2 -- the facility will protrude 35 feet into the waterway. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The petitioner's report says it will protrude 25 feet into the waterway on page 6 of 10. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, if you read in the staff report, it says -- it said the facility will protrude a total of 35 feet into the waterway where it is 100-to-250 feet wide -- actually, it's wider than the 100 feet there, and then it says, where the waterway is 100 feet wide, the protrusion is 25 feet. So they do state both of them there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: One is for the 100 foot and the other's for the 250? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. The hundred foot is the entranceway to the basin where we're restricted there to 25 feet -- well, 25 feet is the maximum allowable. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So they differ because they apply to different areas? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. There's two different areas there, as you can see in the overhead and your handout. Where the waterway widens out, that's where, as in the rest of the basin, the docks extend to 30 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. On page 5 of 10 of your petition, the waterfront is just given as 545 feet, and the docks are located on 335 feet, lineal feet, of the property. On this overhead that you have here, can you identify what is the waterfront frontage area you're talking about and what is the lineal feet area? Because there is a difference, obviously, between the two. MR. SCOFIELD: Here's -- can everybody see that? Can you read the measurements on there? Okay. This gives you the measurements in three different areas across that basin. These are the Page 13 July 3, 2008 areas -- these are the distances we use for our calculations, and they meet and -- I hate to use the word exceed, but they exceed the amount -- I mean, they're less than the amount allowed out. So that basin may be five -- where did you see the 580 feet? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The 545 feet was on page 5 of 10. MR. SCOFIELD: Of my application? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Oh, no, no, no. That's the -- that's the lineal footage of the property. That's not the width of the waterway. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, can you identify it on the overhead when you say water frontage 545 -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, yeah. I showed you that earlier. The property extends from right here on the Vanderbilt waterway, that's the north -- would be the northeast corner of the property. It comes down -- it comes down -- excuse me -- it goes down the waterway south to the corner, and then all the way along the seawall up to the Gulf Breeze property. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Oh, so it includes that length including the one to the east? The boundary to the east is also included? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. That's the -- this is the property earlier I stated along the Vanderbilt waterway which no docks are proposed or will be proposed. This will remain as is. So they own all of this property, 545 lineal feet of property. That's -- that was that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And then the dock line, the 335 feet is just the part where the boats are? MR. SCOFIELD: The dock lengths are 30 feet. We're asking for an additional five feet on the extension, for a total extension in that area of 15 feet for any protrusion of the boat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the lineal feet of where the docks are is 335, and that's the part where the boats are; is that Page 14 July 3, 2008 correct? MR. SCOFIELD: The 330 -- that would be the dock -- you're-- what is he asking? Where are you referring to now, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I'm referring to, in your petition there, of page 5 of 10, where you say water frontage is 545 feet and the docks are located on 335 lineal -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct, yeah. The 335 lineal feet is from this corner all the way over to here. It's where the docks are being located. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I see. So you included that part in the east for the property line. You include that -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, in your petitions, they always ask you for the total -- what is the total lineal footage of the waterfront property. So our total lineal footage is 545 feet. We're only placing the docks inside the basin, which is 335 lineal feet of shoreline. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I see now. I thought you were talking about only the area where the boats are as far as waterfront. MR. SCOFIELD: No. Well, we have to list both on here. The whole property is the 545. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, thank you. That was confusing. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Your facilities indicate, the proposed facilities will accommodate three high-rise condo buildings with 195 units. Are this (sic) all three, or each condo is 195 units? MR. SCOFIELD: That's what the property could, correct? No, I'm sorry. MS. CASERTA: Hi. Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning, Land Development Review. That was a little confusing in the staff report. Vanderbilt Surf Colony consists of three buildings with a total of 195 units. Page 15 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: For all three? MS. CASERTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Rather than for each building? MS. CASERTA: Yes. And those are on adjacent properties. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Now, can you describe your view done to verify the location of or absence of seagrass beds within 200 feet of the proposed facility? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. We had to do a submerged resource dive for the Corps of Engineers. That was performed and dealt with, and we have the -- I mean, copies are available. The environmental department got copies of that -- the county environmental department -- of that, and the dredging was approved by the Corps of Engineers, so we always have to -- now we're required on any project we do, even single-family homes, we have to do submerged resource dives. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Your page 7 of 10 of your submission indicates that the previously issued state and federal dock permits referenced in the petition are still valid and acceptable. Have they been so designated by the state and federal? MR. SCOFIELD: Which number was that on 7? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Page 7 of 10. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. And which number are you referring to? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just a minute. Let me find it here. Up at the top there it says, we are permitting docks in the basin at this time which were previously permitted by the state and federal agency. Do you see that? The very top paragraph. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: We are permitting docks -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right, that's correct. Yeah, we had changed the configuration on that. What I was referring to there, maybe that's -- maybe that's a little bit ambiguously stated, but what I was referring Page 16 July 3, 2008 to is what I showed you earlier, the 1983 Corps of Engineers permit which permitted the 30-foot docks along there, and then entranceway, they permitted 24-foot finger piers. We're only going out 20 feet now. So we -- this is a whole new application, back through the state, back through the Corps. And what that's meant to do is just refer to the previously permitted of this whole basin to show you the master plan which was permitted in '83. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, this indicates that you were relying on those previously issued permits, and I just want to be sure that they were still valid and acceptable. MR. SCOFIELD: Those old permits are not valid and acceptable. That's-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you have new permits then? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You have new permits? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir, yes. We had to go -- we've been doing this for four years. The state exempted us right away when they found out it wasn't sovereign submerged lands. The Corps of Engineers lost our file for a year and a half. When we found it, it took them another year and a half to process it, and which we had to do all the submerged resources, you know, from -- everything from sea grasses to manatees to everything else because we're requiring some dredging in here. And we have valid DEP and Corps of Engineer permits which are new. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, all of these boats and dock extensions in this project that you're petitioning for cast quite a large shadow. And my concern is, did the environmental review include possible impact of extensive shadowing under the boats and docks? Was there any environmental review done on that basin? MR. SCOFIELD: Quite a bit. I mean, the DEP and the Corps of -- I just -- you know, we went through years of permitting through the Corps of Engineers and the DEP. The DEP signed off on it, the Page 17 July 3, 2008 county has signed off on it. Their environmental department has -- you know, has gone over this. Again, if -- referring to the old '83 permit that was also permitted back at that time, too. So absolutely shading is taken into effect. And a lot of times in these situations, they like to see boat lifts in here, because that does get the boats out of the water because a lot of the time of the year boats are not used, people are up north. So that prevents more sunlight coming in, keeps boats out of the water. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I know that shadowing has always been a problem with environmental people sometimes. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And they want to protect those little critters floating around down there. MR. SCOFIELD: Believe me, we are -- we deal with that all the time, and it's been well gone over. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That's all the questions I have, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That last boat there before you get out into the area there in the east, what size boat do you anticipate having there? MR. SCOFIELD: That would be a maximum of a 20-foot boat overall length. So if somebody with an 18- foot boat with an outboard or somewhere in there, that is the dock that's pretty much restricted to what they can have there. There are some owners with small boats. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if they extend out past that red line that you had on the other drawing, does that mean that they're in violation? MR. SCOFIELD: If they -- that's correct. Page 18 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will have to -- now who will be -- MR. SCOFIELD: And they can't extend out into the Vanderbilt -- you know, they're restricted by the Vanderbilt waterway and the red line there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who is the authority responsible for policing that activity? Is it an ownership -- common ownership issue because it's the condominium? MR. SCOFIELD: They have -- they have -- there's 16 -- these slips will be owned. Is that correct? Or they won't be. Okay. MR. BIANCO: The slips will be owned by the association. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm going to let -- I'm going to let the owner speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody speaking from the audience needs to come up and use the mike. MR. SCOFIELD: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we need to discuss that, because a question of ownership and allocation and other legal issues that arise. MR. BIANCO: I'm Joe Bianco, and I am President of the Vanderbilt Surf Colony II Condominium Association, and I was a director of the recreation association prior when we started this project four years ago. I'm also here today -- and it may be appropriate later. I'm also a member of the board of directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. So to your specific questions though, let me try to answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My questions really only relate to the issue of allocation and ownership. You've stated that the association will own all of the docks. MR. BIANCO: The association will own all of the docks, and that includes the three buildings, the 195 owners in those three buildings. Page 19 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And so the entire ownership will be assessed for the maintenance of the dock and dock facilities? MR. BIANCO: Well, without going into a whole part of our business plan, the essential idea is that we will be leasing these spaces to owners and residents of our three buildings. And we've done that, you know, on a first-come first-served basis, and we have a whole list and all that kind of thing. Those people are providing the financing for this undertaking. We then have hired an administrative manager, dock master, if you will, person, to then look after the day-to-day details of the operation and maintenance of the facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I'm not incorrect, you would also be offering either leasing and/or -- well, you can't be ownership. But you'd be offering rental or leasing to parties who are not members of the association? MR. BIANCO: Not correct, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in other words, they strictly limit it to the members of the association? MR. BIANCO: Strictly members of the association. And at this point, as Rocky was pointing out, we have 16 of our current owners. We have three on a waiting list. And what we've said in our documentation, if you will, that the firm of Samoose (phonetic) and Gall and Morale have put together for us. What we've said in there is that if at any point out of our 195 current owners in the three buildings we don't have 16 people who want to lease, then the next priority goes to residents of the Baker Carroll Point area. Because, as you know, there's about 600 families on Baker Carroll Point, and we represent 195 of those families. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in some respects, it might be construed as commercial? MR. BIANCO: I hope not. I mean, clearly our intention is to not make this commercial. These docks are not for sale. There is no Page 20 July 3, 2008 profit intention on the part of any of us. In my own personal case, for example, I am not a boat owner. I will not have a boat there, but I am president of the association and it's an amenity that we think will be enhancing to the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. As long as I understand it. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's my understanding that there are four owners who are objecting of this. I don't know if they're here today. But I want to make sure that they know that we know that you did it -- that they are saying it. MR. SCOFIELD: We're aware of the letters. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Pardon me? MR. SCOFIELD: Is that what you're asking, the objections? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just letting them know-- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- that they are -- want that to know -- us to know that. MR. BIANCO: Four years ago when we started this process and we went to the firm of Roetzel and Andress to start to make sure we had a good legal basis for doing all of this, one of the first things we did is we did a written survey among our 195 owners to see whether we had support or not. In the 195 owners at that point, there were four owners who's objected to the project. But we did a written survey. Then in addition to that, with the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, which as you know represents the 3,000 families up in that area, again, we have kept them informed all four years, gone over this project, and that association has taken the position of not objecting to this project at all because it stayed within the marina. It did not impinge on any of the mangrove areas. It did not impinge on the channel. So the association -- the residents association has taken a position of supporting the project also. Page 21 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, no. There's one more point. There are four of these letters here that say that they do not -- they object to the -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to be dredging in here to get these docks put in to get the depth that you need? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, just -- yeah. In a certain area there is -- actually, you probably -- and you're -- in your packet, there is a-- there's an area here to be dredged, and it's just a small area where it gets shallow right in this -- right in this area here along the seawall and up in here. I believe it was 256 cubic yards. That is just because there -- it's a real shallow -- the land -- the soil has accreted in that area coming in the basin right on the corner there and around. In order to get the boats up close to the seawall, we have to dredge that. We're replacing the seawall inside the basin. The seawall is old, and we -- normally in these situations when you have an old seawall and people are fixing to spend money on putting in new docks and boat lifts, it always makes sense to replace that wall so they don't have to rip out the docks later. So this whole seawall along that 335 feet on the inside of this basin will be removed, replaced. At that time some of the spoil in there will be dredged so the boats can get right up next to the seawall. COMMISSIONER CARON: So water depth is definitely not an issue here as far as these extensions are concerned because either the depth is okay now and/or your -- you have a dredge plan to take care of it? MR. SCOFIELD: The water depth is okay except in those areas where it needs to be dredged -- Page 22 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: -- in order to bring the boats you want to seawall. COMMISSIONER CARON: You have a dredge plan and that's going to happen, so -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. We have permits to do that from the state. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you don't need boat extensions to get out to water that's deep enough to handle boats? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, we do. I mean, these are 30-foot -- these are -- if you see the 30-foot finger piers, okay, in order to get a boat into that finger pier coming up to the seawall, we have to dredge near the seawall so it doesn't run into the ground right at the seawall. All these docks -- you know, on the 30-foot -- in the area where the 30- foot pier is there and one of the 20- foot docks. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But what I'm saying is you have a dredge plan. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's been approved. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if all of these docks were 20 feet, you would not be having a problem not -- as in other areas of the back bay where if you're not 35 or 40 feet out from the shoreline, you cannot get a boat anywhere near in there because of mangroves -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and seagrass beds and the depth of the water where the dredging is not allowed? So you don't need the extensions -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for water depth-- MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because you're going to dredge? Page 23 July 3, 2008 MR. SCOFIELD: Well, yeah, but you're mixing -- you're mixing two different things here. Let me see if I can explain. You're talking about areas where there's natural shorelines and mangroves and we extend the docks way out to get there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: This is land that has shoaled up in front of the seawall. We're placing -- we want to bring in a -- a 30- foot finger pier in this area. In order to get a boat on there -- even in had a 20-foot dock, I would have to dredge. If I had a five-foot dock, I would have to dredge because the boats are being brought in perpendicular to the seawall. The overhang -- the length of the boat out is the boat dock extension request, which is the same thing the rest of the basin has. COMMISSIONER CARON: All I'm saying, Mr. Scofield, is you're both replacing the seawall -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and you're going to dredge? MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if you have 20-foot docks all along here, you'll be just fine. It may not be what you want, it may not be what your clients want. MR. SCOFIELD: Are you talking about marginal docks? You're confusing the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what she's trying to say, you want -- you want a 30-foot dock because you want 30-foot boats. But if you dredge, you can put in 20- foot boats and 20- foot docks. I think that's -- is that what you're trying to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean we have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think she's trying to say. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- docks that are 20 feet by code. MR. SCOFIELD: You're -- yeah, okay. Dock and boat? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 24 July 3, 2008 MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. So in put in a 20-foot boat dock, I'd still be here for a 10- foot extension because if you're -- now you're talking about parking boats, I think, parallel to the shoreline; are you not? Because if you're talking about the 20- foot finger pier, if the boats that -- you know, if the owner has a 26-foot boat but the overall length of 30 feet, I'm still going to need extension out to park that boat in here, which is -- this whole basin was designed for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are not talking the same language. I understand what I think the commissioner's trying to say to you, Rocky, is that if you took your 30-foot finger piers and you chopped 10 foot off of them -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you'd have 20 feet left. And if you only used 20-foot boats, you could put the 20-foot boats in a 20-foot-- MR. SCOFIELD: If you used-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, let me finish. You could put the 20-foot boat and the 20-foot pier that was left with the dredging that you would do, and you wouldn't need to be here today for an extension. I think that's what she's trying to say. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's precisely it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- so you just need to explain your position in regards to that. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that is a true statement. Now, the fact that you may have petitioners who want larger boats -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to be in there is the reason you're actually in here for these extensions. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. We're just trying to -- what we're doing -- and earlier told Mr. Kolflat -- the original plan showed all these docks in this area from 24 to 30 feet long. We're just placing in there what the rest of the basin has and what these owners would like to Page 25 July 3, 2008 have, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Rocky, why are you dredging? I just want to get this thing cleared up. MR. SCOFIELD: Because there's a lot of -- there is shallow areas. I don't know if you all got this survey. I have the surveys in here which we have to have, yeah, in that area. At low tide, good low tides, the area in front of the seawall is out of the water. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. So you could have a five-foot boat there and you'd still need to dredge something. Because it doesn't have anything to do with the length. It has to do with the depth. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. And getting the boats right up -- if we were in another area, or in had a thousand-foot waterway, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't spend the time and money to dredge. I'd put the dock out 40 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to let Mr. Wolfley know, the dredging is not the issue. They need to dredge in here. They've got a dredge permit. The dredging is not an issue. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, of this petition, I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: This petition, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions at this time of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rocky -- and I'm asking you this because you have a great legacy in boat docks. Why do we have a requirement for 20 feet though? Because we bump into that now and then. I mean, because we have concerns whether people are trying to get a boat in excess of 20 feet to draft in this area is a concern. But why did the county limit it to 20 feet in the old days? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, it was -- it was -- they had to start Page 26 July 3,2008 somewhere kind of thing, and so they -- that was part of the code that was adopted. Anybody can put in a 20- foot dock. And maybe the staff can speak to that, but I mean, I've been over that before with Ross and everybody. And when it was initially put in, they thought 20 feet was -- actually, they thought that was a good starting point. That comes from 100-foot wide canals basically, because most canals in the city and county were dredged to a hundred feet wide. So, therefore, if you have a 20-foot dock, which people did, and then they stuck a boat out, then people still have room to get through and navigate through the waterway. And then came the extension, so they were allowing 20 feet with no -- without coming here. They go to the county, they get a permit. And then people all of a sudden were building a 20- foot dock and they put a 40- foot boat in there, so now they're out getting close to the middle of the waterway. So the extensions came into play. And the 25 percent rule is what the DEP, the state, has had forever, so the county kind of said, okay, we're going to limit our statutes to 25 percent of the waterway to keep 50 percent of the waterway open for navigability . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, what I thought the logic was is that most of the docks, when they're thinking, would be parallel with the shore. There'd be a five-foot dock and about 15 feet for boat and pilings. And you're right, people are building the dock out to 20 feet and sticking the boat on the outside. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern is, we have a code requirement that says 20 feet. So I kind of share Donna's concern because while you say it's a starting point, the 20 foot's actually an ending point. And the concern I have is why is that in the code, and we know we're able to move it out if the waterway doesn't have the depth, and we do that. But in this case, if you're going to be able to alter the depth to Page 27 July 3, 2008 meet your boats, there's really no need to extend it, if we honor the 20 feet. Again, the 20 feet never really limited the length of a boat because it was assumed that it was parallel with the seawall, thus the boat could be essentially half the width of the lot, was the only limit on the length. MR. SCOFIELD: That's pretty much true on single-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCOFIELD: You know, yeah. And when you get into multifamilies, 95 percent of all multifamilies are perpendicular docks because they're allowed more slips per lineal foot of shoreline and you have more members of the multifamily unit, and so the docks are designed that way. This basin, as you can see, was dug for one purpose only, and that was to place boats all the way around in the configuration I showed you in the '83 permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think maybe one thing just -- and you don't have to answer -- but I think your association should kind of get together and we should revisit boat docks because I don't think what we're doing today is the legacy of what the requirements are, yet the requirements are what we have to go by. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Brad's already covered the point I wanted to cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, the longest part's about to start. Where's the easement? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the easement that you say gives access to this property? Can you provide me with a copy of it Page 28 July 3, 2008 here today? I'd like to read a copy of it, if you don't mind, while , you re -- MR. SCOFIELD: We did have the easement and it was submitted with the Site Improvement Plan. I don't know whether I have that with me today. The easement is into the county. You're talking about the legal instrument? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard you say earlier there's an easement going from a roadway -- common roadway in there to this dock area. I need to see the language of the easement. I don't care about what it looks like on a plan. MR. SCOFIELD: Do you want me to bring it to you, because you probably can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the language of it there? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, could I borrow that and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: How about reading it in the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'll do that. This isn't the language. This just says there's a 10- foot wide access easement. Is that all it -- is that all the language involving this easement is strictly an access easement? MR. SCOFIELD: It's an access -- my understanding is -- and we submitted that to the county for the Site Improvement Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Now, it's -- the actual document was submitted. That's just put on the construction, on the SIP plan or the construction plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How you going to get utilities and other things there? MR. SCOFIELD: Through that easement. That's what we're working on now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. An access easement doesn't provide for utilities, so where's your easement to get utilities there? Page 29 July 3, 2008 MR. SCOFIELD: Well, that's what we're working out with the SIP right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the access easement isn't with the county, is it? MR. SCOFIELD: It's -- I believe it's with Gulf Breeze. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The proposed 10-foot wide access easement across all or part of tract A, Baker Carroll Point, as recorded in plat book 8, page 42. An access easement gives you the right to travel on the land to get from point A to point B. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want buried utilities, underground utilities, power, water, sewer, generally you need to have an access and utility easement, and it has to be stated that way. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm wrong, I'm sure the county attorney can chime in, but that's why I wanted to see the language of this easement. If the county's reviewing this, do you know if you showed on your plan water and -- I don't know if you're going to have sewer connections or you're going to have electrical connections. MR. SCOFIELD: We're going to have both. There is water there now. There is water to sprinkle the land, and so these pipes are through. We're working with electrical, and the county said we have to bring in fire and water into the site through dry sand pipes and such. So we're working with the county on the Site Improvement Plan for all these utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So-- MR. SCOFIELD: And the electrical and water engineers are redoing their -- they are doing the legwork and providing the information now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know how they're legally going to get those facilities there? Page 30 July 3, 2008 MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if county -- I hope county staff, maybe they can answer the question when it gets to their turn. I didn't know that there was that issue until you mentioned the easement earlier in the meeting today. MR. SCOFIELD: Now, is that -- as I understand, that's not part of this hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of this hearing is to make sure those docks, if built, function properly. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If part of that functioning is that they've got the utility needed for water, electricity and other things, we sure -- this board needs to know that that can happen. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's why I asked the question. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Well, we -- okay. You can -- this county department, the zoning that we've been working with and everybody there through the SIP, so they can answer those questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask the county staff when they get up here. The seawall. The second or third picture you showed us, could you put that back up here again? It was one of the very early ones that showed the -- called out the seawall, showed the deadman, tiebacks, and a cross-section. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Proposed seawall replacement and tiebacks. Are you -- is that seawall going to be replaced? MR. SCOFIELD: In the same location it is now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How you going to do that? MR. SCOFIELD: You tear it out and haul it away and put the new one in the same location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're actually going to take the Page 3 I July 3, 2008 seawall out because most of your seawalls are redone by positioning in front of the existing seawall. MR. SCOFIELD: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DEP allows you to go out 12 inches from the existing seawall. MR. SCOFIELD: But if we do that, then we're going to encroach into the entranceway of this basin and we'll be less than a hundred feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to do that. MR. SCOFIELD: So they're going to the -- they're going to the expense of ripping that out and replacing it in the same location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are -- what condos are involved in this -- who -- what condos would benefit from these docks? There are what, four or five condo in that area, plus there's towers -- I'll read you the condos that I find. Vanderbilt Surf Colony, I, Surf Colony II, III, IV, V, and then Vanderbilt Towers I and II, and then Bay Point Condo. What condos are going to be able to utilize these docks? MR. SCOFIELD: Surf Colony I, II and III. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not IV? MR. BIANCO: That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you're going to speak, you've got to use a speaker. MR. BIANCO: Just trying to be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I appreciate it. Just please use a speaker though. MR. BIANCO: You must be working off an old plan there, Mr. Chairman. Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V were never built. The developer went bankrupt some years ago and instead, Gulf Breeze A and B were built instead ofIV and V. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm working off a zoning map provided to me with this packet, second page, given to me by Page 32 July 3, 2008 staff, so if staffs using older information, I hope they evaluated this based on new information. MR. BIANCO: But the condo association's there. You have Vanderbilt Towers I, II, and III, you have Bay Point, you have Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, II, and III, and then you have Gulf Breeze A and B, and it's Gulf Breeze, of course, that we've been working most closely with. We've had 100 percent cooperation from them because the docks and the tennis courts are adjacent to their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV is now Gulf Breeze; is that correct? MR. SCOFIELD: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vanderbilt Surf Colony V is another Gulf Breeze? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are built and existing buildings? MR. SCOFIELD: Those are correct -- that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They get to use these docks? MR. SCOFIELD: No, they don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who's using these docks? MR. SCOFIELD: Surf Colony I, II, and III. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Surf Colony I, II, and III have no access directly to this waterway, so they've going to have -- they've going to have to have an easement all the way through the Surf Colony V condominium property; is that correct? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the access easement? MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, which is Gulf Breeze, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that this 10-foot access easement you provided us is all you've got? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got to build those docks, access Page 33 July 3, 2008 that area, bring in your materials and do everything through that 10- foot access easement? MR. SCOFIELD: That is correct. A lot of the stuff, you know, it's done by barge. But yeah, that's -- the 10-foot wide easement is enough there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where's Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV going to put their docks? MR. SCOFIELD: They're next door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is now Gulf Breeze. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. They are right -- you see where -- you see the blue roofs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Those are their docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all of the Gulf Breeze condominiums utilize those docks -- utilize that area; is that correct? MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. This whole -- this whole, I believe, is divided up into -- this is Gulf Breeze area up to here. On this side, I'm not sure who that belongs -- MR. BIANCO: Towers I, II, and III. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, sorry. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Joe, come here a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to use the microphone. The court reporter has got to take down your information and data for it to be legal and binding and all those good things. MR. BIANCO: Towers I, II, and III have those, and then Bay Point -- MR. SCOFIELD: Starts here. MR. BIANCO: -- is around the corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BIANCO: And then Gulf Breeze is-- MR. SCOFIELD: Gulf Breeze starts here with this blue roof and Page 34 July 3, 2008 comes up to this corner right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. Gulf Breeze is utilizing what looks like property that was platted to Vanderbilt Towers III. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway, regardless of that, you had indicated earlier that even though you have other waterfront property, you're only going to put boat docks here. Is that all the boat docks you want? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: That was stated earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: And there will not be any docks along the Vanderbilt waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is that -- MR. SCOFIELD: And we're willing to stipulate that in this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, of which I believe you are somewhere connected with that one, right? MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a letter agreeing that they will not be putting any docks along their -- their entire frontage on water turkey -- on Turkey Bay across from Wiggins Pass? MR. BIANCO: I was going to say, that question has never arisen before. It hasn't been an issue because Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, remember -- Surf Colony I, II, and III are in the recreation corporation. Vanderbilt Surf Colony III is one of the people applying for the right to build the docks in the existing marina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and-- MR. BIANCO: And that would serve their needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so, and that's why I'm Page 35 July 3, 2008 asking. Will they provide guarantee they will not be -- see, right now Vanderbilt Surf Colony III owns more waterway frontage than the entire recreation area does, so I could perceive that they would get their recreation area frontage, put docks in there, and all of a sudden they've got all this same or more land along their -- across from Wiggins Park's boat launch where they could theoretically apply for and get more docks. MR. BIANCO: Mr. Chairman, if it's helpful to the commission in their deliberations, we would be very happy to get a letter from Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, II, and III, stipulating that we will not apply for dock -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you be able to get the same thing from the Gulf side (sic) people? Because they have the same problem. They have an additional waterway all along that concourse. And if you look on the plan that's in front of us right now and you see where Baypoint put docks out on the waterway, well, just past your maintenance area begins the property owned by the Gulf side. It used to be -- MR. SCOFIELD: Gulf Breeze. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Gulf Breeze, and that goes for what looks like on here maybe 5- or 600 feet. MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are they giving up all their rights to put docks on that waterway for the benefit of this recreation area? MR. SCOFIELD: That's their association. We don't -- we have no control over that. Only on our property, you know, that's -- we can give those assurances to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recreation area that we're talking about, that isn't to the benefit of the Vanderbilt -- of the Gulf Shore, Gulfstream, whatever you call it. MR. BIANCO: Gulf Breeze? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gulf Breeze? Page 36 July 3, 2008 MR. BIANCO: No. The recreation area all through here is owned by the Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, II, and III associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BIANCO: Because originally when you had Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V there, the original developer, of course, was going to build five buildings, and this was going to be the recreation area. When he went bankrupt and Gulf Breeze came in as a separate condominium association, they set up their own tennis courts and their own recreation area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ashton, were you able to do any research on that case that I gave you involving this land concerning that issue, who controls, who has benefit of this recreation property? MS. ASHTON: As far as who's the -- whether it's under the private or public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's another question I'm going to have later on. This one involves -- the recreation property was a subject of that case that came and was discussed in front of the Board of County Commissioners back in, I think, '91. And John Passidomo was one of the attorneys, and I think Attorney Perry was the other attorney. They went back and forth about who had rights to utilize their recreation area. One attorney thought all five condos did, the other thought only three did, and it would have bearing on whether or not the other condos then would have a benefit to these boat docks, thus maybe they'd be more willing to exempt any further boat docks along the waterway if they had benefit here. I'm just wondering if you had done any -- had been able -- any time to follow it up. I know you only had it since yesterday. MS. ASHTON: No, I did not further conduct some research onto the benefiting parties. My understanding that it's the three condominiums, but that's per my conversation with Mr. Scofield. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 37 July 3, 2008 MR. BIANCO: And, again, Mr. Chairman, I might add to that a little bit in terms of saying that being a group of retired business and professional people, obviously the first thing we did was to make sure that we were on good legal ground before we started this process four years ago. We consulted with the Roetzel & Andress firm who had handled all of that litigation that you're talking about, and they gave us a letter indicating that from a legal point of view, we could move ahead, that the Court had made its decisions and ruled in favor of the property owners. And in that case what they did, the court decision, essentially, split up the number of docks that each could have. So they said, Gulf Breeze, you can you have five docks, and Surf Colony, I, II, and III, you can have 16 docks. I mean, that was the result of that whole litigation, and that was the whole legal basis on which we started this four-year trek that we've been on to try to get this project approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are the Gulf Breeze docks? MR. BIANCO: Gulf Breeze is -- Rocky will show you. MR. SCOFIELD: That's where I showed you before. You see where the blue roofs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: -- start right here at this -- at our property and they come around here, include those four covered areas around to the corner here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's more than Gulf Breeze, isn't it? MR. BIANCO: More than? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have Vanderbilt Towers III has one of the pieces of area you just pointed to that you had indicated as the Gulf Breeze units. MR. SCOFIELD: Gulf Breeze goes to where, Joe? MR. BIANCO: Right in here. I'm not sure exactly, but it's the Page 38 July 3, 2008 blue and one or two of these. MR. SCOFIELD: It's one of these two. It's in this corner right here, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got you. Okay. MR. BIANCO: And see, in our case, in the terms of Surf Colony I, II, and III, we just had never moved ahead to build the docks. We wanted to follow the proper procedures and permitting that some of our neighbors had not done, and that's why we've been a little longer at this process, because we had some strong feelings about maintaining the environmental quality here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The Court made a judgment and allocated docks, so many to Gulf Breeze and so many to Surf Colony? What were those numbers? MR. SCOFIELD: I believe it was more tied to the lineal footage, the piece of the pie. MR. BIANCO: Exactly. MR. SCOFIELD: Is how it was done. The original developer of this whole Baker Carroll Point was coming in to develop it. He dug this basin, and that was his basin, and he built all these docks and he was going to have it as amenities to all these condominiums. It went through a court fight for 15 years or more. It finally got divided -- the pie got divided up in here, and each one had a certain amount of shoreline to their condominiums, and these other ones are -- you know, I know Mark was asking about easements, but they're divided by roadways, too. So they're -- each one of these sections belongs to different condos in that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I was just -- if it's by lineal feet, that's fine, I just wanted to know then, can you tell me what the lineal feet is? MR. SCOFIELD: We -- I didn't bring the overall-- that's Page 39 July 3, 2008 included in the Site Improvement Plan application, and all that's -- we had the survey -- the general survey of the area was included in there. I don't have that general survey today. I don't know if Ashley does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, was the decision made anything different than the riparian rights would give it? I mean, in other words, the property lines would extend into the waterway, then each one had their rights based on that; is that what the outcome was or -- MR. SCOFIELD: No. When I showed you that original plan that was approved by the Corps, it just -- the owner owned this thing so he didn't care about riparian rights. He just put docks all the way around this property. So when it got divided up, now riparian lines sometimes cut through boats and slips, and we've had to remedy that in our situation. We're the only ones that are actually conforming to the code because the other ones were done before that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, I notice our transportation guy is here, and he's probably sitting there thinking there can't be a transportation question about this. But I can't see Nick sitting back there. MR. SCOFIELD: Did you stay up all night, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. I'm still on the first page. Our road system has a level of service and a load carrying capacity, and when a road gets to its maximum, we simply -- Nick goes out and bulldozes houses down and takes more land and puts more roads in, and then the road has a fresh start, until it gets to a point that it's constrained. And, Nick, I'm really not going to ask you up here. I was just suggesting that since you're back there, I had to weave roads into this conversation somehow. Page 40 July 3, 2008 Anyway, what happens is we then have -- when the road gets as big it can get, it's a constrained roadway, and it's all based on maximum load carrying capacity. I keep seeing more and more boats feeding out of Wiggins Pass. And I went up there the other day trying to boat there myself, and it was a zoo. I guess it always is. I guess that's the way it is. More boats will make it a bigger zoo. And I'm not saying we can't have boats and people can't have docks. Do you know in your line of work, is there any standard, level of service, load carrying capacity on which a bay inlet can take before its maximum capacity is reached? MR. SCOFIELD: Only by what's permissible under the codes and the state and the feds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which really take into consideration the right to build a dock, not how you get in and out of the bay. And if the bay's mouth or inlet -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's an interesting thought I had that maybe we could do better in the way we look at these in the future, but it doesn't affect this one here today. I just wanted to understand if there was that possibility. I have questions of staff, but I have more of you. The basin, this little kidney-shaped thing. Who owns it? MR. SCOFIELD: The lawsuit -- Heidi may be able to talk to this. I forwarded it to them yesterday. In the lawsuit -- and you have a copy of that, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I read it, and it seemed to me it was describing who owns the uplands adjacent to it. I want to know exactly who owns the bottom lands to the water. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, this says here -- it says in the lawsuit and the judgment, if remaining declaratory judgment issued -- issue is the dockage rights of all the parties in Baker Carroll Point. On March Page 41 July 3, 2008 5, 1968, the plat Exhibit 5 was approved dedicating the submerged privately owned land perpetual to perpetual use of the public. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that's a different twist. Private perpetually owned -- private submerged land in a -- MR. SCOFIELD: The dockage along the property line is -- MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, if! may. MR. SCOFIELD: -- through the condos -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- you only can speak one at a time. Did you -- Heidi, go ahead. MR. SCOFIELD: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. I have reviewed this issue, Mr. Chair, and there was an easement that was dedicated to the perpetual use of the public for that kidney-shaped area. It appears that the county commission may have tried to vacate their interest in that; however, they're not able to vacate the public's right. Any -- you know, public interests that were created. So the county did attempt to vacate its interest. I do believe for your purposes it is sufficiently public to meet the criteria to give you jurisdiction today to hear issues that are more of a public nature rather than a private use for the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi's referring to section 3.0-- 5.03.06E1 in the code. The prelude to that section says that standards for dock facilities, the following criteria apply to dock facilities and boathouses with the exception of dock facilities and boathouses on manmade lakes and other manmade bodies of water under private control. And the question was, how does this apply to us? And I think that -- through that research now, it does because it's a public waterway. Is that -- MS. ASHTON: Yes, that's my opinion. Page 42 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that does clear up a lot of questions. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is the submerged land where these docks are going to be state owned or privately owned? I mean, is it leased -- MS. ASHTON: It's not a state. It's not under the state's jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Beg your pardon? MS. ASHTON: This kidney-shaped area's not under the state's jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's not land leased? MS. ASHTON: No, it is not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So it's deeded? It's owned by private property owners? MS. ASHTON: There are some public uses out there that-- under this case that had been litigated. The county could not transfer its interest for those other public -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the ownership is private? MS. ASHTON: Probably the land underneath the kidney-shaped area is probably, but it is subject to easements for public use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MS. ASHTON: But just the county has gotten rid of the county's interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And by the way, in disclosures earlier, I meant to mention, it wasn't in our packet. I believe we all received it. There was another email sent out and it was a letter of opposition or email of opposition from five people. Jim -- or more than that because there are couples as well. Jim and Sue Snyder, Helen Leach, Bud and Carol Kanak, Jay and Valerie Thompson, Billy -- or Bill and Ginny Curran. All of them are members of the Vanderbilt Surf Colony III. I wanted the record to Page 43 July 3,2008 be clear because that was a disclosure I failed to make when I started. Vanderbilt Surf Colony III is the one I just asked you about and whether they'd be willing to provide an exemption from requesting ever any boat docks along their seawall because they have an area larger, if not equal to the one that you're asking for today. And in a sense today you're asking for this for them. So I'm very concerned that if they get this, what's going to stop them from wanting more. And that particular email concerns me, especially if I heard testimony thinking that we might be able to get that letter when at least, I don't know, six, seven, eight, nine people are already sending email objecting to it. I don't know how many would in that condo. Anyway, I'm not sure that we're gaining anything by giving this as well as all that additional land, and that's all I got. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think there are a couple of issues here. One is the utility easement issue which we need to have confirmed, and beyond that would be this letter from the Surf Colonies I, II, and III. And it might be wise, Mr. Scofield, to continue this and get this in order before we go ahead and make a decision. Just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go into the staff report? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You brought up one thing. Ray, do we have aerial photograph showing up close to the development or the state park? MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have an aerial showing the north side of the Vanderbilt Surf Colony project? Is that open waterway there? MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry. Page 44 July 3,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, on the north side, is that open waterway on the -- up north of section -- of tower I, II, and III? MR. SCOFIELD: That goes up into Water Turkey Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Across from the -- it's across from the Wiggins Park boat launch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So is it open waterway or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's quite a bit of it. It's quite wide. I'm in there all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are there any docks on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the boat launch that I know -- that I can recall. MR. SCOFIELD: Just the launch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we -- do we have an aerial that we could get, or maybe Ray chase down the appraiser's site during the -- okay. And you have seawalls along that area? Okay, good. Could docks be put on that area in the future? I know Mark's discussing the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's the area I think Mark was talking about, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, right around the-- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- point. See where that northernmost tower is? MR. SCOFIELD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All that land around that point that swings around over to the left of the point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So how about, you know, as it goes further into, in this case, the -- probably mangrove. MR. SCOFIELD: That little lagoon back there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Page 45 July 3, 2008 MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. I mean, that's -- obviously that's an environmentally sensitive area, and this basin was made for the recreational purpose of that. The only thing we can do is make a stipulation that the Surf Colony I, II, and III, the letter, they will not seek docks in that area, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. Thanks. MR. BIANCO: That's never been any intention. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, that's something we'd have to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. My original question when we started this petition was this RMF 16 zoning district only allows an accessory use for recreation facilities that serves an integral part of the residential community. And I can't see with all of these easement questions coming up how you can interpret this as an integral part of the community. And if it's not an integral part of the community, it doesn't qualify for this use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be a staff question because that's the -- that appears on page 2, I believe, where you're talking about nearby. MS. CASERTA: Hi. Ashley Caserta. The existing tennis courts and docks are considered recreational facilities serving an integral part of the residential community. This was researched by my boss, Ross Gochenaur, and approved by Susan Istenes in a zoning letter. So it was considered analogous to pools or tennis courts serving individual property owners of single-family homes, such as -- this would be multifamily. It would be kind of the same thing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, if it was reviewed by Ross and Susan, it must have been a questionable point. MS. CASERTA: Yes, it was, and it was considered to be an integral part of the community. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I suppose we have an official Page 46 July 3, 2008 interpretation then with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think we have an official interpretation because that's -- MS. CASERTA: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but that's a written interpretation. But the question was asked of Susan and Ross -- MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how this is considered an integral part of the community, and the response was it was. MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how it is? MS. CASERTA: I have a zoning letter I'd be happy to pass out. You guys could read through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That would be great. Thank you. That's coming prepared. MS. CASERTA: If! can find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And it would be good if those kind of things were in the packet to begin with, and then we could review them at the time. MS. CASERTA: I agree. Next time I'll include it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, no problem. MS. CASERTA: While I'm looking for that, I sent an email out to everyone with four letters from neighboring property owners and a new resolution. Did everyone receive that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. Well, I did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think in terms of disclosure, we all should have said that, and I neglected to say that. Yes, I've gotten letters and emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's part of our packet. I never -- I don't disclose -- if it's part of our packet, I'm assuming everybody's -- it's disclosed that way. Page 47 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's no guarantee we've read it, so -- which is my case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're-- MS. CASERTA: I have the zoning letter, if you'd like me to pass them out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That would be nice. Thank you. Ashley, these are the questions I asked you yesterday but yesterday you didn't have this? And now we're looking at it back in October of -- boy, it would have been handy to have this in our packet. MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how much research -- Rocky said I was up all night. Well, I was. I was doing a lot of research to find answers that we apparently have had for a long time. MS. CASERTA: I tried to include it in my staff report, but I should have included it in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you -- documents like this are really helpful ahead of time, so if you guys think of it or, Ray, you know, as a standard, if you guys see this kind of stuff, put it in our packet. It really helps. Boy, that would have saved a lot of time this morning. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. Did you want to do your presentation? Any there any questions from the zoning letter first? Anybody? Mr. Kolflat, does that resolve your question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on the zoning letter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, let's enter that into evidence, if there's a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) Page 48 July 3, 2008 Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. So you have a copy? Okay. You can go on with your discussion. MS. CASERTA: Okay. Staffs review found that the petition meets all of the applicable criteria, and I recommend approval. As far as the utility easements, that would be part of the Site Improvement Plan review. That's not part of my zoning review; however, that would be taken care of in the engineering department, I believe. I would be happy to follow up on that and include you guys if you prefer. I don't know a whole lot about it though. It's not part of my department's review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think it needs to be recognized as to how it's going to outcome, but once this meetings over, it's not going to matter. So for informational purposes, you could let us know. MS. CASERTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The access issue and the utility easement issue is really not germane to the boat dock extension process in the fact that they still have to demonstrate those things at the time of SDP. It's really a site plan issue. Page 49 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. First primary criteria, what are the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed as appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. I mean, if they've got docks out there that are relying on facilities they can't get to because the upland uses don't allow them to because they're restricted without access, I would certainly think that ties into the primary criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I could probably go on to others that have similar comments under the same criteria, but I would -- I think that it's a relevant question and I would expect an answer to it. So -- I mean, Ray, I understand your portion, that's fine. I think an answer was offered. When you get an answer, if you could email us and let us know, I think that would be fine. MS. CASERTA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, did you want to go on with your presentation? MS. CASERTA: That was it unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Two questions. One for you, one for Ray. I'll go with Ray first. I was just fascinated. I was looking, this is October 4, 2006. Ross Gochenaur is a Planning Manager. He's been a Planning Manager for that long? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure the exact date, but it's been a while. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Been a while. Okay. Because I recall when he used to come here and provide us with this. Now, as to Ashley. Looking at the tail end of the document where you make your recommendations, recommendation number two is reflectors and house numbers of no less than four inches, et cetera, Page 50 July 3, 2008 standard language. How is that going work in this situation where we have -- we're trying to reference three buildings and, perhaps, more if they decide to lease it to other persons in other buildings? How's that going to work? MS. CASERTA: I believe in this case it would be dock numbers not addresses or house numbers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear that. He was saying something. I missed you, I'm sorry. MS. CASERTA: I believe it would be dock numbers, the number of the dock. Those docks are numbered on the Site Improvement Plan, so I believe that would be applicable here as opposed to house numbers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I'm not -- apparently not making myself clear. I'm approaching a dock and I see a number and it relates to a house number. What house number to what building? Wouldn't we have a building number or some other identification? I mean, if there's a dock adjacent to a house, one makes a logical connection. Here we're talking about the use of a dock theoretically three, certainly, and perhaps five buildings, i[I heard correctly. So wouldn't -- if the purpose is identification, it won't serve that, will it, unless there's a further connection? No? MS. CASERTA: I believe it's for life safety issue somehow, but I don't think there would be house numbers tied to an address specifically. I believe the docks would just be numbered one, two, three and so on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then I ask you to take away house numbers from this phrase, because you said reflectors and house numbers. MS. CASERTA: Okay, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could I? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Is that all, Mr. Murray? Page 51 July 3,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, looking through the legal description, the acreage of this site is 1.1 acres, correct? For-- MS. CASERTA: Rocky's saying yes. I'll have to pull it when I COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this site theoretically could be sold, and with the zoning you could build 16 units on it, right? No more, correct? MS. CASERTA: Sixteen units per acre, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you could at least build 16, I believe. Okay, good. MS. CASERTA: Yes, that's the zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't we have a requirement that if -- and since this is a buildable lot, that you can't put docks on a lot unless you have a single-family, a primary residence, but this couldn't in any way be interpreted to putting docks on an undeveloped lot, could it? MS. CASERTA: That's tied to the zoning letter I just gave you as far as this being accessory use as opposed to a primary use, and that was in the interpretation that was handed out just now signed by Ross and Susan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So somewhere in there it said that particular condition wouldn't apply? MS. CASERTA: It was -- it was deemed that this would be an integral part of the residential community, and-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CASERTA: And that the docks and tennis courts were considered recreational facilities serving that community and that they would be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I guess the confusion here is since the primary developer, ifhe'd of continued to the finish Page 52 July 3, 2008 line, everything would make sense. It's when he stopped and everything started to get chopped up that these things lose clarity. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Joseph Bianco. MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, again, Rocky Scofield. Ijust wanted to clarify -- Mr. Bionco's going to say another word or two. But I know we have a little difference of opinion. And Ray was coming from a minute ago where I am on this petition. I understand the concern of all these utilities, but the thing is, we're here today for allowable boat dock extensions, or at your discretion. The -- if the Site Improvement Plan, on its way through the county -- that's their -- that's their job. If they say it's not permittable, it kills the project. The project's dead. We can't build docks. We can't do anything. We can go in there and replace the seawall, but that will kill -- that will be the thing that kills the docks. So that's why I said earlier, I believe it's a little bit of a separate issue, and I think Ray -- that's what Ray was coming from, too. So the Site Improvement Plan process, which is scrutinized, as you know, completely, from every angle -- and if that is deemed necessary that utilities cannot go through that easement, they will kill the project. We have no docks. Now, as far as the land up on the north end, I'll let Mr. Bianco speak to that effect. If you want to talk. MR. BIANCO: Before I speak to that, let me, again -- it's a little frustrating to sit in the audience after working on this project for four Page 53 July 3, 2008 years and feel like you're not communicating very well with the decision makers up there. Let me just try to be very clear about what we're dealing with and how we're trying to do the right thing and move through the right processes and have been trying to do this for four years. There are five condominium associations out on Baker Carroll Point. It is not one master community. It is not one master developer. I wish it were; it would make our life a lot simpler, believe me. So we have tried to work through a lot of these snafus of the past years and bring this whole thing into some sense of sanity and compliance with where we are today. To that end, for example, the issue of shall there be separate letters from Surf Colony III, II, I, indicating that we won't build any docks along those seawalls? There was a separate piece of litigation instituted by the homeowners there, by the condo owners, several years ago against a private developer who wanted to build more docks along the very walls that, Mr. Chairman, you were talking about was Surf III, Surf II, Surf 1. Thank goodness the homeowners associations did prevail in that lawsuit and prevented the private developer from building docks along that. My point is, the entire intent of all of us who live there was not to build more boat docks along those walls. It was to ultimately hopefully win the lawsuit, which we finally did, to build the docks within the restricted area of our little marina. With respect to Gulf Breeze and the whole question of accessibility. When Commissioner Caron asked the question before about access for building purposes, it might be interesting for you to know that two years ago with a complete cooperation of the Gulf Breeze Condominium Association, we had to totally rebuild the tennis court. So that 10-foot access, we had trucks in and out of there and we had bulldozers in and out of there and whatever, and it all worked just fine. We had the complete cooperation of Gulf Breeze. Page 54 July 3, 2008 In this case, again, Gulf Breeze has indicated very specifically to us that any access issues we want, any access issues with respect to easements, they have given us 100 percent cooperation on this project. Gary Johnson, who's their president, and myself and the other presidents of the condo associations out there, we meet informally to try to keep some sense of cooperation going. So we have that complete cooperation on their part. If you're going to require some other steps on our part, I hope you'll be very specific so we'll know how to meet them because, again, up to this point, if that was a requirement over the last four years, we would have been happy to comply with whatever any other government agency wanted. Now, with respect to Surf III, they are currently right now in the process of having the Blue Marlin Construction Company completely rebuild their seawalls along the area you're talking about. They have no plans for boat docks, are not interested in boat docks at all. Finally, the Samoose law firm recently did a complete review of all the easements out on Baker Carroll Point. There is a whole set among the whole five associations of mutual -- I don't know exactly what you call it -- mutual granting of easements among all of the associations that are out there. They did extensive legal work for us on that point. And then as I mentioned, too, they granted us permission to move in to do the tennis court construction, which is right adjacent to here, and then finally, we have a right now, through the easement, we have water service going into that land to completely irrigate all of the grass and everything that's there. That is done with the complete cooperation of Gulf Breeze. So there is a great sense of cooperation there. There is no opposition to this except obviously from some of the few citizens that you've heard from, and we respect their right to object. But beyond that, some of the issues you've raised, I think we have covered in good Page 55 July 3, 2008 faith and good conscience, and I would really hope that today you'd give us the final go-ahead. We've operated in good faith with the county. We have worked very closely with the environmental authorities to make sure that this was a sound project that would be positive not only for the neighbors, but for the county. Anything else I can add to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question, and that goes back to the two issues I have with this project, primary issues, I should say. The access for the utilities. I guess you feel that can be resolved, obviously. MR. BIANCO: I just don't think that's an issue at all, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the acknowledgment from the three condos that are involved who would benefit from these boat docks, that those that have additional waterfront of their own will seek no additional boat docks for those on the basis of approval of this. Now, the reason that's important is, is that I firmly believe Wiggins Pass is overburdened right now. I do know that people have rights, but if we can figure out ways to start minimizing them so they still get what they want but don't additionally overburden the pass simply to increase the dollar value of their homes and create more boat docks, I think that would be a huge benefit to the people in that entire waterway. So I'm going to certainly be looking for ways to do that as time goes on. MR. BIANCO: Mr. Chairman, Rocky and all of you are far more expert at these matters than I am, but I would say to you, first of all, I'd repeat what I said before. These three associations went to court to fight to be sure that there would be no boat docks built along those very same seawalls that you're talking about. If as a condition of your approval you believe that each three buildings should provide you with a letter, I am 99.9 percent sure that I can speak even for the other two buildings and say to you that we Page 56 July 3, 2008 will get such a let -- I can tell you from our building you will have such a letter this afternoon if you want it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would have been nice to have that court case. See, these kind of things work to your benefit. The fact none of this was provided to us -- zoning letters that were granted two years ago were given to us today -- those things would have helped expedite this meeting tremendously, plus, it would have saved me hours of research I did that I now find out that all this stuff was addressed, and I would have greatly appreciated having it before the meeting. MR. BIANCO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we don't have that here today, and that's the problem, so -- MR. BIANCO: Okay. Thank you for your help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well-- and again, for both Mr. Scofield and Mr. Bianco, stating that you have 100 percent acceptance from the Gulf Breeze people is -- their acceptance is very much qualified here, and my asking you to continue this to get the letters that you need and the permits that you need is to avoid issues that I see in the letter from their president, Gary Johnson, who is president of the Gulf Breeze at Vanderbilt Condominium Association. Number one, they think that you're only asking for 12 docks, which could become an issue on the easements if they're not happy that you're getting 16. While we do not oppose Surf Colony building the docks, we do object to the extensions. We also -- I think those are probably the main two points, but I mean, both of those could come back to haunt you since you have to rely on them for your utility easements. So why wouldn't you get their sign-off ahead of time? MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. We -- I understand what you're saying. Page 57 July 3, 2008 There's confusion. There's 12 docks going in here. There's 16 slips. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you're right. MR. SCOFIELD: There's 12 docks, 16 slips. So that's not a point of contention there. They're well aware of what's going on. These people have been in close contact all the time. The easements, you know, we've been told that there's no problem. We've been in here before. Mr. Bianco went over that. Again, I have to reiterate, you know, a couple of things. If the Site Improvement Plan and the easements and the legalities of all this kill the utility issue, it kills the project at that point. We're here today for the extension. Obviously, that's part of Gulf Breeze's -- they understand. They know we're putting in water, and we have to -- the county says now we have to bring in -- which nobody else has, firefighting. We have to put in pipes for dry sand pipes that are charged through the fire hydrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, that's not true. That's the standard now being required of all boat docks. MR. SCOFIELD: Mark, I'm saying in this whole area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that area, but all new ones are getting that. MR. SCOFIELD: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: No, that's what I'm saying. But, you know, this is a deal that nobody else has in that area. Anything new has to have that. The letters from I, II, and III for sure can be given that nothing will be built on the rest of the property for that waterway; however, the lawsuits that you heard Mr. Bianco talk about, they killed on the north end. Page 58 July 3,2008 I don't think we can legally, today, require these people to, you know -- or tie them to that. I think they're going to have -- if somebody in the future wants to come do that again up on their property, they're going to have to go through more lawsuits, and it will probably be killed because most of the people that killed those were in the condominiums themselves owned by -- that own the property. So the letters tying the -- I mean, the Vanderbilt waterway here is obviously -- would be -- we accept as part of the petition that no docks can ever be built on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Terri, before we go too much farther, we're running past the time we normally break. Are you okay till we finish this one? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, that was the exact point I was going to make, Rocky, is that if we make that a condition of this, that will prevent them in the future to have to fight that off because this condition might eliminate anybody trying that. MR. SCOFIELD: I don't -- you know, I, here today, nor anybody in this room can speak to that. You know, this is -- these are things that go on all the time. Those are owned by those people. That's battles that they're going to have to fight. We cannot tie them to that. We can tie them to this piece of property on the waterway out front, which is the main point of contention in the Vanderbilt waterway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, we can make the battle harder by saying there's a Planning Commission statement that we can't develop that. So -- okay, thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? If not, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Page 59 July 3, 2008 Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? Well, we've got to have something, gentlemen, ladies --lady. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve. There's going to be some stipulations, I'm sure, that you've been speaking about that you might want to add. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion made by Mr. Vigliotti to approve, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think that the confusion about who owns the boats, that's totally the developer, the original developer failing and chopping -- jigsawing the place. So I do think that this should be allowed. My only concern is the size of the boats, you know. And I'm not really -- again, we go back to, we have a requirement that they don't want more than 20-foot boat docks. That isn't a requirement to really limit the length of a boat because, again, you could have a hundred-foot property line and you could have a 50-foot boat parallel to your property line. But my only concern is that the size of the boat, the draft of the boat that this could generate. So without somebody making me feel a little more comfortable, I have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. I certainly would have the same objection. I don't think there is a need for boat extensions here because they do have -- they're going to replace the seawall and they're going to dredge in here, so there's absolutely no need. And Mr. Scofield likes to make the point that he's really not asking for much more. He's just taking caring of the overhang of boats; however, Mr. Scofield's not out there monitoring overhang. So once you grant him 25 feet and it overhangs to 30, nobody's out there Page 60 July 3, 2008 to monitor these things. So I think we should -- there isn't a need here. If they were -- if they were not able to dredge and there was a water issue, as there are in many areas of this county and certainly up further north of Wiggins Pass, we often let people extend. I am concerned about the whole utility issue. I think that what happens on these things is very much a tacit approval. The Army Corps gives an approval, so that tacitly means that the next person down the line and this one should -- you know. I think in four years they should have gotten their ducks in order on this utility issue. Now, maybe it will get hung up if they can't get it but, you know, I just -- I disagree with Mr. Bellows on that whole issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I've got to ask you a question. By our approval of this and the applicant's agreement that they've acknowledged on the record to obtain letters that they'll no longer -- they will build on no other -- no longer -- they will no longer build on the other seawall areas that they own, is that a stipulation we can put with their agreement on this approval if it gets approved on this as a condition? MS. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let me tell you where I'm going on this. First of all, I really dislike what's happening to Wiggins Pass. I think it's overloaded with boats, but I think people have rights to have boats if they have waterfront property. I don't know what the solution is, but I see here a way to get a solution for the future, and that is, by accepting this impacting on a man-made body of water -- and you've got to remember, this didn't have to be there. It could have been another condominium, but it's a body of water they created, so I think some latitude can be provided there. But the benefit that the public receives is a restriction on any boats along that further length of seawall owned by these Vanderbilt Page 61 July 3, 2008 Surf Colony buildings is a tremendous value to Wiggins Pass as a whole to reduce that maximum load-carrying capacity that they could have at any time. So with the applicant willing to provide those letters as a condition of approval of this boat slip, this boat dock extension, to give them 10 more feet for an extension to get that kind of concession, to me, is well worth the public benefit. So I certainly would be in favor of the motion if such a stipulation was allowed to be added to it, and a stipulation that the adequate access for utilities are -- is acknowledged by staff in their review of the SDP, which I know they would do anyway, but I want to highlight it through this commission's request. So with those two stipulations, I'd be willing to vote for the motion. And so I'd have to ask the motion maker ifhe would accept those two stipulations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will, and I just want to add, they can build boat docks which will have the same impact, the same amount of boats. We're just talking about a larger dock. So I don't think the area's going to be impacted any more by a larger or a smaller dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point is that I agree with you there in that sense, but the huge benefit is if they've agreed to eliminate docks along that other waterway they own, which is more frontage than this, we're way ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway -- so first of all, I asked if you would accept the stipulations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I said I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ms. Caron, did you have another comment? Page 62 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I'm most concerned as far as length of the docks is concerned with the boats in the throat there. That is barely a hundred feet, and their neighborhoods to the south have only 20 feet. There is no reason that the boats in the throat couldn't be limited to 20 feet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But they fall within that 25 percent, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: They do fall within the 25 percent, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm asking the commission is to consider the benefit though of eliminating all that other seawall frontage, especially in Vanderbilt Beach where the boat process up there has gotten way out of hand. There's just way too many boats. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is no question about that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's why I'm thinking, if we could consider it as a stipulation, it might be a good thing to see this pass. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My concern -- and Rocky's seen it. Rocky, what is the draft ofthe boats? I mean, you see where you're going to dredge, the existing material, but how far down are you going to go to -- MR. SCOFIELD : Yeah. The draft of your boats -- the engines are out on the other end toward the deeper end. The draft of these boats in here, the maximum draft of a boat in here would be three-and-a-half feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how far down are you -- I mean, you did give us a section showing what the profile would look like, but didn't dimension it. MR. SCOFIELD: That's right. And you know, the draft is not -- I mean, the largest boat -- let me back up, and I hope I make you feel Page 63 July 3, 2008 comfortable about this. The draft in this area, there is -- there's boats in there with this draft right now. The draft in here is not an issue. The dredging is just for some shoaling areas near the seawall so they're out of the water at low tide, so boats pulling up the bows won't run into that water. Boats are limited in here. A couple of things -- and Ms. Caron, the -- you know, we take a little bit of a -- Mr. Bianco explained to you earlier that they have a manager hired to police this area. They also have it drawn up in their -- the covenants or whatever. MR. BIANCO: The regulations. MR. SCOFIELD: The regulations, excuse me -- the regulations to this association for these docks, they are limiting the size of boats. This 30 -- the extensions that we come in here and ask for specifically do that. The condominiums -- and we do this a long time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, we've already had your presentation and testimony. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please stick to specifically the question asked, because this is only discussion on a motion. So let's not redo a presentation. MR. SCOFIELD: All right. There was two -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The answer would be a number, Rocky. MR. SCOFIELD: A number, three -- maximum boats in here is three to three and a half. Most ofthem, two-and-a-half feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: It would be two-and-a-half, three-and-a-half feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolflat. This is-- remember, this is discussion to a motion, everyone. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. And to that point, if it were Page 64 July 3,2008 to be stipulated that the boats here had to be of a three-foot draft, that's the Inlet Management Plan for this whole Wiggins Pass area, and you certainly should be limited, as most people in this area are, to a three- foot draft boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can suggest that as a stipulation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a good one because a 30-foot boat, you're not going to get over three feet. I mean, I don't know how you would do that. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is part of the Inlet Management Plan for this area, so it makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the motion maker accept that as an additional stipulation, maximum draft, three feet? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How is that monitored? Who's going to monitor it, your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the fact it's on here, if someone has a complaint, they can call code enforcement and it gets checked out. Doesn't hurt to have it on here. It is part of the management plan. So it might not be a bad thing to do in the first place. MR. SCOFIELD: The entire area is not subjected to that, but this one little piece will be; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entire area is not here before us asking for extensions. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Will a three-foot draft work? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The three-foot draft will work? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sure it would, but I'd hate to have a boat three feet, one inch. Page 65 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, from the information I've received from Tim and Patrick, generally a 30- to 36-inch draft gets you a 50-foot -- 45- or to 50-foot, and you're only doing 30-foot boats. What is it -- unless you're talking sailboats. Is that -- MR. SCOFIELD: No, there's no sailboats in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I don't know how you're going to be hurt by a three-foot draft. I think that's still six inches more than you need. MR. SCOFIELD: We don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, do you have a problem with that as a stipulation? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Under that condition, no, no, I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So do 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we have three stipulations. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. That three feet that you designate, does that include the boat lift structure underneath the boat? MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How much is that? MR. SCOFIELD: You need about another 12-inches for the boat lift to come down. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you're really talking about four foot of depth of water? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's only for the docking area, not for the boat. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Page 66 July 3,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Then on the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's on the motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we're still on discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we don't lose sight of it, I know this is maybe picky, but nevertheless. Number two, the reflectors should have the dock numbers, just so that's not forgotten, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a code anyway, isn't it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: They'll pick it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, when you've completed adding your stipulations to your motion, may we have the owner/applicant accept the stipulations on the record, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to restate everything again. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get the owner/applicant to reaccept them again, I'll get acknowledgment from you and staff if you understand them, and then we'll have the vote. Okay. There are three stipulations that we've worked out. One is that this boat dock approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining letters from the Vanderbilt Surf Colony buildings I, II, and III, that there will be no more docks added in the Vanderbilt Surf Colony III waterfront frontage, which is a seawall that they have which faces generally Turkey Bay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or the recreation area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the additional recreation area which faces the waterway. That's stipulation number one. Page 67 July 3, 2008 Number two is, there will be a confirmation that the easement that exists or another one will be put in place to show that there's adequate access for the utilities needed for the boat docks; and number three, the draft of the boats that are there will be limited to 36 inches or three feet. Now, does the applicant accept those conditions of the stipulation? MR. SCOFIELD: We will accept those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the county attorney understand the conditions; are we all set with the stipulations? MS. ASHTON: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, is that clear? Ashley? MS. CASERTA: Yes, it's clear. Should this come back on the consent agenda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. CASERTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything comes back on the consent agenda. So -- okay. With that in mind, we'll-- I'll ask for a -- call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. Page 68 July 3, 2008 Rocky, you turned it around. With that, we'll take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10:30. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. (A brief recess was had.) Item #9B PETITION: CU-2006-AR-II046, MORAYA BAY BEACH CLUB CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all ready. Ready to go. Terri's back. Okay. Preparing the addenda to the agenda, I announced that petition CU-2006-AR-I1046, which is the Moraya Bay Beach Club. It was requested to be continued. I forgot to ask acknowledgment from this board. Is there a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti who had his hand up first. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 69 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not opposed, but Mark, can I have a discussion? I'm having some difficulty getting information I'm requesting from the applicant, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should request everything through the county staff. That would probably be a more effective way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. No, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said the applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Kay Deselem is the one who I'm making the request for, and she's having difficulty. So I was just wondering if Ray or somebody could point out that these requests aren't fickle, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You should be getting what you need, sir. So hopefully it will happen. Ray, if you could, in the next meeting let us know or we can seek verification that the material, if it -- assuming the material's relevant to what this board does, then Mr. Schiffer certainly has a right to request and ask for it and receive it, so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's be careful there. It's, the applicant doesn't feel it's relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, but -- I guess that's between the applicant, county staff, or county attorney to determine if we have the -- I don't even want to get into it at that point, but I'll leave it up to you to make your argument to them, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I brought it up is that the applicant was here. I have discussed it with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, the applicant's not here now, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Item #9C Page 70 July 3, 2008 PETITION: CU-2008-AR-12996, AVIS BUDGET GROUP CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go on to the next agenda item for today. It's petition CU-2008-AR-12996, Bob Annibale of Avis Budget Group, it's for truck rentals on Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll move into the public hearing, presentation. MR. ANNIBALE: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, sir. MR. ANNIBALE: What we're proposing is the -- on the site we're proposing, it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. ANNIBALE: I'm sorry. Bob Annibale, Avis Budget Group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how do you spell your last name. MR. ANNIBALE: A-N-N-I-B-A-L-E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. MR. ANNIBALE: The property we're proposing is zoned C-4, which accommodates auto rental, but we would like to add our truck piece to that. So the CUP we've applied for is for the truck rental. We feel it is consistent with the use in the area. We have Hertz, we have U-Haul, there's an Enterprise in the immediate area, so we believe the use is consistent with the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short and to the point. I guess we can't Page 71 July 3, 2008 argue with that after what we did this morning, so -- MR. ANNIBALE: We're just renting trucks, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem, sir. With that we'll ask for questions from the commission. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since you're in the GTMUD, are you going to elect to go with their standards or are you going to elect to stay under the C-4 standards? MR. ANNIBALE: It's C-4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ANNIBALE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: How large are these trucks? What's the largest truck, and can you describe a little what the function's going to be. MR. ANNIBALE: I'll let Claudia answer that. MS. HAINEY: I'm Claudia Hainey. I'm the District Manager for South Florida for Budget Truck Rental, so I'm specifically here to talk about the truck. The largest truck we have has a 24- foot box on it. It is exactly like the Penske truck or the U-Haul truck that you use for moving. And it's 30 feet total in length. That's the largest truck we have in our fleet. We run cargo vans, lO-foot trucks, 16-foot, and 24. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And what sort of services will be provided on these trucks at the facility? MS. HAINEY: None. All the maintenance and all-- everything that we will do to maintain our fleet at this facility will be handled out of my corporation location in Fort Myers. Nothing will be done on the trucks other than the rental. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any Page 72 July 3, 2008 questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I just thought of another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you leasing this property or do you own it? MR. ANNIBALE: It will be a lease. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to know how long it would take to put this into effect. In other words, if you get approval today -- I mean, I went over to the place, took a look at what position it is. Some of the equipment in there is actually gone. Their tile -- your -- you know, things in the back are just absolutely -- there's 12 different places where the grass is through the asphalt. So how -- what kind of timing are we going to be -- you be looking for? MR. ANNIBALE: Thirty days. We'll be in there in 30 days. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that was quick compared to the first one. Thank you. MR. ANNIBALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask for the staff report next. MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the urban residential subdistrict of the GMP which permits a variety of uses including nonresidential uses. It's also consistent with all the applicable provisions of the LDC, except as you noted in the report, staff did include one stipulation Page 73 July 3, 2008 requiring the applicants to bring up the landscaping on the site to the extent feasible to current code. The site is obviously developed, and they couldn't accommodate all of the landscaping that we would require by the LDC now. So we're just asking, as we typically do with sites that are developed, that they bring it up to the extent feasible, and that's been included in the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, current code is C-4? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. One thing going to the thing -- there's nothing in here from the -- from David Jackson from the overlay, the mixed-use district. Did you run these things by them or -- MR. MOSS: Yes. All proposals that occur within the overlay area are submitted to his office for review, and Jean Jordan is the one who reviewed it and gave her approval of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there was nothing in here that really -- I mean, could you add that to our list? I mean, just so we're -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, Commissioner. What list? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, we have, for example, you know, GMP, we have environmental. MR. MOSS: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't we have the overlay -- MR. MOSS: I see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- opinion on this? MR. MOSS: I see, I see. She -- they are included in CD Plus, and so they do sign off in CD Plus. But that's a good point; we should include that in our review in our staff report, yeah. Page 74 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Question, Mr. Moss. Why is it that this site cannot come up to current landscape code? MR. MOSS: Well, it's been developed, and so the landscaping beds are already existing, and the requirements of the code today would require a lot more landscaping than the beds that are in existence now would actually accommodate. So that's why we're just requiring them, as we do with all sites that are developed, to just come to code to the extent possible. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you just don't want them to have to cut into any of the concrete that they have there; is that the deal? MR. MOSS: I assume that that's what we do normally. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't really require them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then again, too, if you have a policy of handling it a certain way for others in the past, you can't single out a future -- you can't single out anybody for any special different treatment, whether good or bad. MR. MOSS: No. We've applied this consistently on developed sites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's probably what we're trying to check. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah -- no. That is what I'm trying to check, number one. But number two, this is part of an overlay area, albeit not mandatory. It would seem to me that anybody looking to be a part of this area would go out of their way to try to get as close to those standards as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't, in the code, isn't there -- if Page 75 July 3, 2008 the project is not operational for -- and I think some of the landscape stuff is 90 days that they actually do have to come back up to code. MR. BELLOWS: There's -- for the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. There's no LDC requirement pertaining to that. There's a provision of the code for nonconforming uses if they cease for -- I believe it's 90 or 180 days that the use, when it comes back, has to be conforming to that zoning district. But any landscaping is brought up to code where feasible, and that's done as part of the zoning certificate review, as part of the occupational license. When a new business occupies a vacant building before it's issued an occupational license, staff makes a site visit to make sure we get the right amount of handicapped parking spaces, make sure that the landscaping, if it's died off, is replaced, and brought up to code where feasible. We can't really take away parking spaces, put in more landscaping, and those types of issues. And since this project is not adding any additional square footage, we're not dealing with adding in new landscaping then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, because there's things even in the architectural standards that if the use is suspended for a length of time that the next use has to bring it up to the current codes. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and for the architectural design section, but there's nothing in it for the landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll research that, because there's some things in that seem frightening, you know, because I can't imagine why the Realtors aren't going nuts over that, but let me look it up. I'll get back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? J.D., did the transportation review this? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know who submitted the TIS? MR. MOSS: I don't know the firm offhand who submitted it, but Page 76 July 3, 2008 it was received with the application package that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know ifit was a licensed engineering transportation firm or one -- MR. MOSS: No, I don't know. I don't verify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That must mean transportation has got to know since they recommended this to go forward. So maybe they could respond to my question. You know, I notice every time the people from transportation come up here, they think they've got to put their jackets on. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. Maybe it's some new in-house thing they're doing, but it's interesting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's respect. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's respect. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, transportation planning. It's out of respect for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, thank you. Boy, this guy's learning how to -- getting the ropes real quick. Go ahead, Mike. MR. GREEN: We did receive a TIS to review. Our TIS guidelines do not require professional engineers or traffic engineers to prepare them. So the applicant could, with the appropriate knowledge and research, prepare their own TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I take it then by the fact you didn't object, you're satisfied with the TIS? MR. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. That's the only question I have. Any other questions? Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to Page 77 July 3,2008 approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I make a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the motion subject to the staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second accepts that, too? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. And Ray, it won't -- will not need to be on the consent agenda because there were no stipulations, so we're flying. Now, go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. We need conditional use on this one, and we also need it on the one we did for the boat docks so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the slips. Yeah, all your-- COMMISSIONER CARON: We have to fill out our slips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for catching that. There are conditional use slips in your packages for the last two. Page 78 July 3,2008 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the CU findings of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Please pull them out, sign them, with -- annotate them, and then get them to Ms. Caron. Why don't we take a second to pull those out so we don't forget. Everyone, we're still on record, so if you talk, you're going to have to use the microphone or keep far enough from the microphone. You're just passing papers, that's fine, but we're still on record, so -- Okay. The next one up -- I'm not done yet, so I'll finish while we're going on. Item #9D PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13209, HEALTHCARE MEDICAL CENTER IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is RZ-2008-AR-13209, Michael Corder for the Healthcare Medical Center in Golden Gate Estates on the southwest corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had been carrying on multiple conversations with Mr. Corder concerning the various issues on this. I know that occasionally I would run into a resident of Golden Gate Estates and we would just chat about it, but I honestly don't remember names and places because it happened over a length of time, so I'll have to leave it at that. And everything I know and questions certainly will be asked today. Mr. Fernandez, it's your show. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Good morning, Page 79 July 3, 2008 Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, from the firm of Planning Development, Incorporated, representing Michael Corder requesting the rezone to the C-3 zoning district as further restricted by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and GMP for a 2.- or a 6.25-acre parcel located near the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. If you look at your screens, you'll see that it's adjacent to the corner parcel which is designated from a zoning district point as Snowy Egret and it's proposed to be Walgreen's. This is located within a neighborhood center in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This property was incorporated into this particular neighborhood center just this past December. Included in that approval were certain stipulations for incorporating into the ordinance, and those provisions involve relegating the parcel to medical uses for medical uses and clinics for 60 percent of the square footage that was to be approved, and the balance would be available for medical-related uses, professional office, and other types of medical-related uses such as wellness centers. The total square footage that was indicated on the zoning ordinance that approved -- or the GMP ordinance was 60,000 square feet. The TIS that was submitted to the county staff was for 60,000 square feet. The outcome of that review on the TIS was recommendations by the transportation department which we've accepted which would stipulate that we can only build 40 percent -- or excuse me -- two-thirds of the project's square footage or 40,000 square feet of the total 60,000 prior to certain improvements being made to the roadway segment east of Golden Gate -- or east of Wilson on Golden Gate Boulevard. In review of the staff report, we're in agreement with staffs position. Essentially what they've done or what we believe they've done is incorporated the GMP requirements as development standards Page 80 July 3, 2008 and placed it as a stipulation in the proposed approval ordinance. There are two areas that we would like to review that we are not in agreement with, although prior to today's meeting, talking with staff -- and they're here, both from zoning staff and also compo planning -- we believe we now have a meeting of the minds, but I'll let them speak to that themselves. The two issues that are outstanding have to do with item K on the proposed zoning ordinance, and that's labeled consistency with Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code, and the second item that we'll talk about has to do with the proposed list of permitted uses. The text that we're proposed to change on Exhibit K, as you can see, is just to provide for the chance that there may be in the future an inconsistency between the zoning ordinance and the Growth Management Plan, and it simply provides for in that case, the Growth Management Plan would rule, and I believe that's something that's desirable both from staffs standpoint and ourselves. And the second item that's part of that sentence -- or part of that stipulation is relative to -- instead of making it specific at the time of issuance for that consistency, but changing that to time of application. That's consistent with your SDP provisions that, when you submit for an application for an SDP, that you're consistent with GMP and LDC, and that -- should something happen in between, once you've started that process, you're still governed by the applicable portions of those documents throughout that review. And we understand that staff is going to indicate to you that they don't have a problem with that portion of it. If I can now go to the list of permitted uses, staff had -- one of their concerns -- we had made an application for the C-3 standards subject to those further restrictions. Again, very consistent is -- we asked for no deviations from the code or the Growth Management Plan in our application. Page 81 July 3, 2008 Staff felt that to enhance the ability for management and review of future SDPs of this project, that it would be prudent to include the specificity that's being proposed as part of the ordinance. To do that, they had to come up with a list of permitted or proposed permitted uses and, of course, incorporate the ones that are being proposed as prohibited uses that are listed in the GMP. The list that you have originally in your packet, I believe, were numbered fewer than what you're seeing here on our screen. And it's our understanding that the initial review of those uses was based on whether or not staff made a determination that those were professional uses, a use that would require some kind of higher degree education or degree from a university to say that it was professional in original. We disagreed with that, and you can see that we've asked to add advertising agencies, SIC code 7311; debt counseling, 7299; insurance agents and brokers, 6411; loan brokers, 6163; and optical-- or public relation services, 8743; real estate, 6531 through 6552; tax return preparation, 7291; and title insurance, 6361. In addition to that, there was one medical-related use that we would -- we wanted to add, and that was optical goods stores. Two of these uses were actually referenced in the minutes of the prior approval for the Growth Management Plan. One had to do with the discussion regarding a Lens Crafters and whether or not that should be considered part of the 60 percent, and it was decided that that would be part of the 40 percent that we are allowed to do as a medical-related use, and another one before the BCC adoption hearing in regard to tax preparations. Those are the additional uses that we're looking for. And then on the last item in discussion where it says, any other medical office, clinic, or professional office use, we would like to include and add to by saying medical related, consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So we want to add those two words in there, medical related, should there be a comparable use that we are looking for in the future. Page 82 July 3, 2008 With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into questions, can you repeat the last addition you were trying to add? I was reading something else when you were saying it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. The last provision that was being proposed in the zoning ordinance, it says, any other medical office, clinic, or professional office use. In that portion of that sentence, we want to add after the word clinic, medical related and, of course, that's consistent with the words that are in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm certainly going to have a lot of questions. But Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you just have to put me back on track because -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I have an Exhibit C that was handed to me, and then I have the document that was in the -- here in connection with it, staff report area here, for permitted use where, of course, they start out with prohibited uses. But you recited a bunch of numbers, and I was trying to follow you and I couldn't find them on this new petition, Exhibit C. MR. FERNANDEZ: That petition C, or that Exhibit C, is the exhibit that was created by the County Attorney's Office and did not incorporate these. These are ones that we had proposed to staff and they did not include as part of that Exhibit C. And that's why you're not seeing them in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. And that's fine except that as a grouping, I have no clue as to what all they represent. So if you want to make a case, we'd end up going down one by one, I surmise. I mean, I don't know. I heard you recite a bunch of numbers in a general category, and I was not able to follow it adequately, and I feel -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Page 83 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- wholly inadequate to be able to make a judgment based on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Let me have -- ifMr. Corder would be so kind as to pass these out so you have the list in front of you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that would have been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. FERNANDEZ: What I would tell you is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what Mr. Murray's frustration is, is the same one I expressed to Mr. Corder last night when I spoke with him. I know his proj ect has been accepted more or less by the neighborhood. I think he's done a very good job in making -- putting this project together. I really had a lot mundane questions to ask that I have to ask for the record today. Yesterday when I saw this list, I was surprised only because of its lateness. That causes a problem and one that I'm more concerned about, analysis from a staffs perspective, and then from the county attorney's legal perspective in whether or not that changes any of the advertising that was required. So, you know, sending it out the night before or the day before or bringing it here today is really a problem for this Planning Commission to deal with, especially when, as Mr. Murray aptly pointed out, these codes contain a series of multiple uses behind each number. You've got to pull up the code, you've got to look at all the uses to really understand what you're trying to say. And I'm not saying they're objectionable. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just puts us in a very difficult position on one so sensitive as this. MR. FERNANDEZ: I may be able to clarify some of that in that basically our application was strictly for the C-3 zoning district. Staff reviewed the entire list, so they came up and they extracted these from it. Page 84 July 3, 2008 All the uses that are being proposed -- and staffs here that can verify that -- these are all uses that are in the C- 3 district that are actually listed except for the optical store, which they have advised is not listed in any zoning district, and it's one of those it's comparable to, and that's how they permit, let's say, a Lens Crafters. But all these uses are listed in the C- 3 zoning district, which is permitted by the GMP, and were requested and reviewed by staff. And we -- once we saw the list -- once we received Exhibit C, we did provide them with this list -- actually something more extensive than this -- of ones that we wanted. It's our understanding that they just failed to put into your packet our list so that you could see the comparison between the two. But as I understand it, they're here today and they can address these issues relative to any objections they may have. But I think we're on the same page now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only thing is, Mr. Fernandez, they may have put the wrong one in the packet, or however you're suggesting, but we got another one handed out to us this morning, and so that means, not only was it wrong in the packet a week ago, it was wrong when they handed it out this morning. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, this is -- this is ours. The original one was a draft that was created by Mr. Weeks in working with the County Attorney's Office list. This is our requested list after the review that staff -- the initial staff review. And, again, we didn't get our copies until -- of that document till the 20th. So we responded to them on the 23rd, which was, you know, quick turnaround considering that was Friday afternoon to Monday morning in that. But, again, these are all C- 3 uses in there that are already listed and would be permitted. And as you look through the list of uses, you'll see that, in our opinion, that there are -- they are professional, they're not -- they don't have -- they're not a restaurant, for instance, Page 85 July 3, 2008 that may have exterior impacts. These are all contained within the building. They're all uses that we would anticipate having a market for in the Golden Gate Estates area, and it's relegated to the 40 percent of the square footage that's being approved for this project. And so that -- that is the complement to the 60 percent of the medical and medical related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hadn't actually finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't know, Mr. Murray. Go ahead and finish. Then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to -- again, you made a statement now that even perplexed me more because of the fact that you said that these are your stipulations yet you, in addition, recited a series of numbers that I do not correlate here. And so I -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The ones that I just handed out, I think I read it verbatim. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe you did and I was a nanosecond behind you, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I could not see them on here in time. So you're saying that the items that you recited are all on here and no more? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct, sir, and the ones that I read -- the ones that I read are the ones that are in blue, and those are the ones that are in addition to the ones in black that staff was originally proposmg. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No blue. MR. FERNANDEZ: The ones that Mr. Corder just handed out. MR. MOSS: May I make a point of clarification, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: For the record, John David Moss. The version that sent -- that I gave all of you this morning is the version from the Page 86 July 3, 2008 County Attorney's Office. Margie noticed after this had been published that the height requirement was missing, and so she wanted to incorporate that into the document, and that's what I've given you. Mr. Fernandez is proposing additional uses. So this -- what he's proposing has nothing to do with what you have in front of you. He does have copies of the same exhibit with new uses highlighted in blue that he would like to incorporate now. And it's my understanding that comprehensive planning staff did not approve of these uses at first. But Tom Greenwood is here from comprehensive planning today, and it's a different story. He says that he -- as least as I understand it now, he doesn't object to these uses. So you'll probably want to clarify that with Tom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to need a lot of clarification. It's your presentation. You need to confirm you've analyzed these new uses and you have no problem with them. I need transportation also to confirm they've analyzed these new uses and have no problem with them, which means I'm going to ask you when you received them. Because if you received them last night, you must have done some homework. I want to know that. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? Or Mr. Murray, did you finish? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, now I'm clear. Now we know what we're talking about. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. I thought they'd been passed out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The transportation study that was done was done on the basis -- and your staff will confirm this -- of 60,000 square feet of medical use, which is the most intense use that's potentially on this property, so that all the uses that we're looking here will be -- are proposed, that will be less intensive than what was reviewed by staff. Page 87 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you were next. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But this list gets further and further away from medical and medical (sic) that was the subject of the GMP amendment and what the community is wanting out there. Secondly, you want to add language here that says, ifthere any conflicts we go back and rely on what's on the Growth Management Plan, but what I have from our compo planning people, which should be directly out of the Growth Management Plan, are a list of 16 or 17 things that don't encompass any of this. MR. FERNANDEZ: It encompasses only -- they encompass the ones that are in black. Ours are the ones in blue. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand. MR. FERNANDEZ: Understand that the approval at the GMP was that 60 percent was supposed to be medical and medical related. Some of these uses, as I've stated for the record, are uses that were actually discussed in public hearing -- I have copies of the minutes -- that basically say that there's 40 percent that are either medical related or professional, such as -- a Lens Crafters was actually specifically mentioned in the public meeting. Professional. The uses that we're suggesting here include Realtors, tax preparers. Again, office uses is what we were discussing relative to that 40 percent. So you still have a provision that says 60 percent. So out of the total 60,000 square feet, 60 percent has to be either medical or offices or clinic. Medical related and office have to be that smaller portion. So the Lens Crafters, for instance, would be in the 40 percent category, and that was a change that this body made with concurrence of the BCC. So I believe this addresses -- this is what the community was looking for. Weare not asking for any deviation. Weare consistent with what we've -- what was the original request. We're not looking for any variances from the code whatsoever. Page 88 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. The -- I received this morning this Exhibit C in which there were 17 permitted uses indicated. Now you've supplemented that with an exhibit you've just distributed which shows 26 permitted uses, which has both the black and the blue on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But for the prohibited uses, there are 15 shown on what I received this morning. Does that same 15 still prevail in the one you handed out now? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I'm only addressing two items in that -- in the staff stipulations that are incorporated into the proposed zoning ordinance, and that's A, area A, and item K. Those are the only two areas where we have -- we didn't have consistency between what we were proposing and what staff was recommending in their initial staff report. But I believe they've had an opportunity to review these uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You had a neighborhood information meeting on May 29. I'm going to make a presumption that these in blue were not conveyed at that time to those people present. There were five according to this document. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll try again. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On your -- on the list that was handed -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- there are items in blue. They are the ones represented by you as being additions. MR. FERNANDEZ: At that neighborhood information meeting, what we discussed was all C-3 uses that were consistent. There aren't Page 89 July 3, 2008 a list of uses discussed at that meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There weren't -- in other words the people -- okay. Let me go further then, because the project will be governed by Golden Gate Area Master Plan and it stipulates land uses limited to medical offices, clinics; professional offices, except surveyors; and medical related, such as a wellness center. Now, I realize there's a proportion here. I'm not trying to nitpick, but I am trying to get to -- Commissioner Caron made the point that I had hoped to get to myself, but I'm glad she made it. Point here is that the public -- and I recall, this is, I think, the third time we're seeing this. The public has expressed the desire to have medical. And I recognize the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- business plan, you want to do something that will make you successful. I don't have a problem with that part of it. My question simply relates to -- and it does appear that we are certainly within the concept of professional, but we are going further out from the medical related. And I'm only asking you whether the neighborhood has had an opportunity to review and be aware of the changes in perception, or at least my perception, maybe their perception, that -- have you spoken to anybody prior to this event today regarding these additions? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, there -- when we made our presentations -- and you can see the notes that staff incorporated into your staff report -- we -- at that time we discussed that 60 percent would be either medical or clinic, so that 60 percent is -- you know, is separated from the balance of the project. So it's the 40 percent we're discussing, and that 40 percent would either be medical related. And when you say we're getting further away from it, the only medical related one that we added was the optical goods store. And in the minutes of the CCPC public hearing that we held before you, Lens Crafters was actually discussed as an Page 90 July 3, 2008 example, and I have the minutes. I have a copy of the minutes here. So that's the only one that we've added from a medical related standpoint. All the others are incorporated. So then going a little bit further, the only ones that we're discussing is whether or not those uses, those other uses that we're proposing are professional offices. And, again, none of these are exterior impact, and we would suggest to you that they are compatible and they are professional uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, I don't think you answered my question. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think they're comfortable -- the neighborhood's comfortable. And I also think we also have some letters of support from neighborhood leaders, that they've considered the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's great. Let me just then make my point as clear as I can because I feel I'm not going to be able to qualify these things effectively, and I'd like to. So i[I were to be arbitrary and say under, for instance, item 7, debt counseling, whereas group -- is under group 7299, just limit that to debt counseling, you'd be happy; would that be correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly-- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. That's exactly what those words are intended to do, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you wouldn't go beyond in 7299 assuming there were three or five or nine or 12 items -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No. There's actually -- that list under that number, you're right, is probably 50 long. That listing, the way it's written, no other miscellaneous services, is the use of the words to say, that's it. There's no other. That other -- those other uses in that table do not apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now ask the same question, Mr. Page 91 July 3,2008 Murray, of number 8. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You picked the one -- you picked the one that was singled out to be restricted and qualified to just what it said. Now ask the same question of number 8. Mr. Fernandez? What is -- on number 8, what are you including in number 8? All uses in 5912 or just drugstores of 5912? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would have -- like you, I'd probably have to go by -- from our standpoint, that is a category that is acknowledge in the G -- in the LDC, and we put it there as that category, so we weren't going through and analyzing each individual one. So, no, we did not do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't ask -- you missed my question. The question I asked was specifically, under number 8, drugstores, 5912, are you only including drugstores under 5912, or all the uses under 5912? MR. FERNANDEZ: This would provide for all the uses under 5192 (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Therein lies the problem which I believe Mr. Murray's trying to get to is that you have provided new information here to this board today with a series of numbers, loan brokers, 6163. That would mean by your current interpretation, all the uses listed under 6163. Optical goods stores -- for whatever uses there are under each one of those categories. Public relations services. It would contain all those uses. Real estate, 6531 through 6552. That would contain every number in between plus every use under that number in between. I'm not saying they're bad uses. I'm just saying, that's the kind of research that I think Mr. Murray's trying to say we haven't had the opportunity to do. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. But I would tell you that they're already in your LDC, that they are under the C-3 zoning district, and Page 92 July 3, 2008 they're consistent. In fact, the drugstore is one that staff didn't have an objection to. And, of course, next door we've got a Walgreen's and-- proposed. So that -- you know, you understand that's the category that, for instance, a Walgreen's falls under. But I don't know -- are we -- do you want us to try to go through and go through each one of those? Because even in that list that was created in those documents and that book, which is dated 1987, there's probably -- when staff gets these occupational licenses, they have to interpolate to see if those uses, as somebody comes up to the counter with an occupational license, if it fits anyone of those myriad categories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the process, Mr. Fernandez. I think a lot of what will happen in this meeting today will stem from different things I've got to bring up, but also I'm concerned about the county attorney's position in this. I want to know what they have to say. And, Heidi, basically the question is -- MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that staff had produced a list of uses that went into the packet and I assume was the official list that probably went to those that would have inquired what's being used __ what's this property being zoned for. Mr. Fernandez is -- last night emailed me that list, or he didn't. Somebody emailed it to me. I think it was staff -- and it was passed out and discussed here at this morning's meeting. How does -- does that provide -- because of the uses that are included and because of what we heard as testimony, is that adequate to have covered them in the neighborhood informational meeting or should there have been an additional NIM to discuss these uses or is one needed? MS. ASHTON: That's a very good question, because I'm looking at the notice, you know, that was advertised in the paper, and that was Page 93 July 3, 2008 pretty generic, so anybody who would have looked at that would have come in and, perhaps, looked at the -- at the ordinance which probably wasn't finalized until last week. As far as the neighborhood informational, Mr. Bellows looks like he would like to comment on that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The neighborhood information meeting didn't list all the uses specifically, like the county attorney has indicated. It is a generic C-3 kind of use allowed or proposed. So given the fact that it wasn't advertised for specific uses, then -- and this isn't a PUD document with specific uses listed, the -- review by our comprehensive planning staff decided that -- or determined that because not all the C-3 uses were consistent, in their opinion, with the neighborhood center criteria, they felt that it was important for them to make that distinction in this ordinance. So there shouldn't be an advertising issue in regard to limiting the uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: But i[I could interject for a moment -- because I'm not the attorney who actually reviewed this item on behalf of our office. But in sitting here listening to Mr. Fernandez's presentation, there are a few items that are on the permitted uses that I have not been able to confirm that they are listed under our ordinance, our most recent amendment of 2008-11. And if I could just mention those items, if it's okay with the Planning Commission, and you could explain how they fall under the category. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think your staff is here, and they have reviewed and they have identified those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know, the problem here is, we are now trying to accept this rezone on the fly at this meeting today. MS. ASHTON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is really inappropriate. Last night Page 94 July 3, 2008 when I got this, I talked to Mr. Corder; I told him it would be a problem. I was trying to work with it. I went through as many of the uses as I could. I understand the uses. I do have questions about a few of them, but that doesn't provide for the rest of this board to have adequate time to review it. Mr. Schiffer, you've been very patient. What did you want to say? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michael, you, in your application and development standards, you have an Exhibit A. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exhibit A, to me, clearly lists what principal uses are. They're the medical clinics as provided in C-3. That's what the neighbors think they're going to get. Medical offices, as provided in C-3. And then I don't want to read the other ones, but then didn't the nightmare come about when somebody in staff decided, let's list those? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially there's nothing that you haven't done in Exhibit A that this represents. The problem was when they listed it, they missed some of the things that are outlined in Exhibit A, so you came in and, in blue, filled those in to show us today that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. And staffs here, and they'll tell from their own review whether -- how they feel about these additional numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me keep going. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, no one's being bluffed here. I think this is what everybody expects. I actually -- I prefer the way it's written in Exhibit A, I mean, because that gives some latitude in the future as to what things are. The other concern I have is that whoever wrote the Exhibit C Page 95 July 3,2008 today that showed up, it's actually less clear than the way you wrote your Exhibit B and your Exhibit C. So there's some danger -- somebody decided to rewrite it. They essentially rewrote it that only the one -- medical offices and clinics are the only required one-story building, yet you require all buildings. So what would be the problem with just using -- as Michael did it in the application -- using these Exhibit A, Exhibit B, they're very clearly done, and let's just stay focused on that rather than staff rewriting everything and throwing it at us at the last minute, because we could make mistakes. I think the way the thing's written in one story here would be a mistake, because I could argue that a professional office could be two story because of the way it was written over the weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, using your example, we could shorten the meeting, because I'd recommend right now a motion to deny, and then we could hopefully take a vote and settle this. The whole purpose of them even being allowed to expand that neighborhood center was a specificity that the neighborhood demanded. If we're going to move away from that, then I have a serious problem with this, and I think the Board of County Commissioners would have too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, do you have the Exhibit A that was presented in the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the entire application, Brad. I have probably 200 pages here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then what's wrong with the permitted uses that were outlined in there, what's wrong with outlining it that way? I mean, what you're saying is, you really want to reach in and pick out of the C-3 everything that's either a medical clinic, a medical office, a professional office, or medical-related use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to pick out as specific a number as we can, and that's why the numbers here may not be good enough Page 96 July 3, 2008 unless we know what's under each one of those numbers. And I think that's what this board should do. The flexibility you're trying to build in is the problems we've inherited in this county for the past two decades, and I'm tired of it. So no, I'm going to go in the opposite direction you're going. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And so what you're saying is that someone could come in with a permit with something that you feel is outside one of the SIC code numbers and they could claim that's a med -- I mean, the principal uses are defined in four good categories. I mean, how can that be abused, how can that be causing the problems of this county? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's in the standard zoning. Remember, this is not a PUD. This is not a PUD. It's a standard zoning district, which is actually further restricted. And so all we did -- we haven't asked for any exemptions. All we did is came back and said, it's further restricted, medical clinics as provided in the C-3 zoning district list of uses; medical offices, as provided through the C-3 district list of uses; professional offices, except surveyors, as provided within the C-3 zoning district; medical-related uses, such as a wellness center, as provided in the C-3 zoning district. Those -- that's the complete list. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And so the activity you're discussing here today is the administrative task of going through the C-3 district and listing what those things are. Staff did it. MR. FERNANDEZ: My point -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me continue, Mike. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staff did it, and Michael's upset and gives us another list that he's saying, hey, you forgot these. That's the blue. So essentially that's what we're doing is we're going through and administratively pulling out ofC-3 all of those things that define those four things that he required as opposed to letting staff do it at the time of a permit. Is that what we should do? Then-- Page 97 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just did it last week, in the last one that came forward we did it. With every commercial parcel that's come through, we have gone through and been very specific. And the reason this is even coming up is because the applicant didn't do what he said he was going to do during the adoption hearing, and that is, put this in the form of a PUD. They are coming forward with a straight zoning. That's not what we were told in the adoption hearing. So I'm still willing to work with it. I like Mr. Corder in the sense he's honest, he's trustworthy, he's done a good job, he's gone out to the community and reached out. We've just got to clean it up to make sure that in case he wasn't here, we still get what he told us he wants -- he's willing to do. And I have no problem with working our way through this document, but that's what I think needs to be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What staff has done is they've gone through it and they've parsed out what they feel meets those four. Michael's added in blue what he wants to complete the package, and it's done. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I believe we have staff concurrence now on the list that you've seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I have printed out every one of the numbers that's on our sheet right now. I have listed and read every single sub-element to those. When I got the opportunity today, I was going to walk through those with every one of the members on here so you all could be aware of it, but I wanted you to have the opportunity to express your frustration over the way this was done because equally, too, I was as frustrated, and it shouldn't have been done this way. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Because none of the rest of us got to look at our SIC code book and see what the uses mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I didn't-- Page 98 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't use my book. I used that link I sent you all. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, the link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you send that to everybody, Ray? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I haven't gotten it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I sent it to you right at -- at the meeting last week, I sent you that OSHA link so it gives everybody the ability to -- MR. BELLOWS: I forwarded it to Sharon to do, but I'll check on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I just sat down and -- yeah, I ran the link and typed in each one of the numbers and got the sub-list, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just continue a little bit. I mean, I don't think it's the task of the Planning Commission for each one of us individually to run through the SIC codes. First of all, I think the codes are appropriately named. So the -- what I think -- I mean, is there anything if -- since you have done it, Mark, is there anything that doesn't meet the principal uses he has in Exhibit A of his application? And ifthere is, then we should take it out. Ifthere's some more in there that he's missing, we should add them in. But the point is that I really like the way he did it in Exhibit A. I think if you want to spend the time and let's go through it. But I certainly think staff should go through it, and if staffs going to go through it, then maybe what they should do is, when they go through it, list the group and then list everything that that group includes so that we can review these things quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. Relative to that -- your commenting about Exhibit A, does not Exhibit C -- is it not your Page 99 July 3, 2008 intent, Mr. Fernandez, to make Exhibit C subordinate Exhibit A? MR. FERNANDEZ: Our Exhibit A was provided as part of the application as information. Exhibit C was created by county staff as their stipulations for approval. What we did is commented, basically, on Exhibit C as it was provided and say, these are the additional uses that we believe are missing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you not intend for it to become the subordinating document? MR. FERNANDEZ: That was our intent. We assumed that this would be a quick, easy process for someone to do. And it seemed it was mnocuous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, please take note in the future if you come before us and I'm here -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if you give us SIC codes in general and I don't have an opportunity to look, I'm not going to be real keen on doing it. So we'll do it today because we'll accommodate -- I mean, but my goodness. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask another thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially what we're going to do today is not create an Exhibit C. You have an Exhibit C in your packet that's a list of developer commitments. I wouldn't want to think that this is trumping that. Essentially what we're going to do is we're going to go to your Exhibit A, permitted uses A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr. Schiffer, I don't know where -- you do this a lot. I'm just getting a little frustrated. We have an exhibit presented to the county staff by the county staff to us, it's an ordinance, and to it is attached Exhibit A, which is a legal description. So your references are becoming confusing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just looking at Michael's exhibits in the application. Page 100 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So these don't get carried forward? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the documents prepared by staff for this board to review, not the documents that were supporting documents from the application. You can review those, but what we're voting on is what the ordinance is that the county staff provided us with. MR. FERNANDEZ: Growth Management Plan -- growth management did not feel comfortable with this list, with our Exhibit A. They insisted on creating their own exhibit, and that's what you see in your Exhibit C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what they've done, Michael, is they've taken your exhibit, your numbering, and they've totally redefined it and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: They redefined it -- for instance, like you said, we did have one story and we did have it so it applied everything. They just rewrote -- in fact, they missed that one. So they tried to put everything over, but they missed some of the uses that we believe are consistent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think my problem is that I kind of like the applicant's. The way he outlined it is clearer to me than the way the staff outlined it. That's my concern. But anyway, we'll go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Exhibit C has been request -- has two changes to it. One is given to us by staff that restricts the height to 35 feet, and the other is suggested by Mr. Fernandez that adds a bunch of uses, and that's kind of where we're at. We've now found out from staff and the county attorney that the neighborhood informational meeting was most likely appropriately held because of the way it was advertised and referenced. We found -- we're going to find out from staff during the staff report whether or Page 10 1 July 3, 2008 not they've assessed this project based on uses Mr. Fernandez wants to add, and now it's up to the Planning Commission to decide if the uses can be analyzed by us in a manner that we can fully understand. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good logical statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I can move through the uses one by one in Exhibit C that are highlighted in blue and tell you what they represent. I can certainly tell you whether I think from my opinion living in Golden Gate Estates, having been on all the committees that were involved in writing this particular GMP amendment whether or not it's something that is offensive in regards to the 40 and 60 percent split, or we just go right to the bottom line and tell you -- I can tell you which ones I think there are, because a lot of these are innocuous uses that don't have a lot of -- don't have anything outside of professional offices. And professional offices, I think, clearly was the intent of what that 40 percent should be. And that just takes us down to a few of them that I think are problematic. For example, you'll find under optical goods store, just two uses. Optical goods stores and opticians retail. I don't think anybody would have a -- would take offense to that. You'll find under drugstores, apothecaries, drugstores, pharmacies, and proprietary stores retail, all involving drugs, or uses of that related nature. You'll find under land subdividers -- well, no. That one's already here. Real estate, 6531 to 6532. For example, that includes abstract offices, title abstract companies, title and trust companies, title reconveyance companies, title search companies. None of those issues -- and that's typical to the ones in blue that have been added. I don't think any of those are problematic for this area of the Estates. The only two that I had problems with were number 24 and 25, the veterinarian services, number 24. And I understand its intention is veterinary with -- excluding outside kennels, but that has four listings; animal hospitals for pet and other animal specialties, pet Page 102 July 3, 2008 hospitals, veterinarians for pet and other animal specialties, and veterinarian services for pets and others animal specialties. On that one, I wasn't sure how far astray we were getting by putting in pet hospitals or animal hospitals for pet and other specialties. I understood that to mean veterinarian offices. If that's what you're trying for, then I'm satisfied that that gets us there. Is that what we're -- the objective was, was veterinarian offices? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think based on this, that that would work. Number 25 is the hardest one I had coming to grips with, and I think we actually discussed it in the adoption hearing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That we didn't envision a Gold's Gym being out there yet the reference of the group 7991 and the way you word it doesn't exempt that from happening. So I need to understand what you were getting at. Wellness center is a good thing. Physical therapy is a good thing. Rehabilitation, diet, and nutritional services are a good thing, but they have different SIC codes, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The -- basically our understanding -- and reading through the minutes -- when we first came to you, we actually had the 60 percent being medical and medical related. In fact, it was in your conversation with myself that you said, no, that's inappropriate. And we talked about that Gold's Gym and you said, we can't have that as medical related, so that can't be part of the 60 percent, but it can be part of the 40 percent. So that what we've got now is that that kind of use, physical therapy, you know, these other uses that you're talking about here, physical fitness, wellness center, that would be part of the 40 percent and not part of the 60 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 40 percent was supposed to be professional offices, just not necessarily medical related. Page 103 July 3, 2008 MR. FERNANDEZ: No, no. You took out the medical related from the 60 and you relegated it to the 40. So now the 40 can only be used for medical related and professional office. That's more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: That was based on your approach and that meant that uses that were medical related, like the Lens Crafters, you said, and like, you know, a physical fitness center, would be in the 40 percent, and you were comfortable with that as long as it wasn't of the 40 percent and not counted as part of the 60. So with that clarity, maybe you have a greater level of comfort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it still meant the 40 percent was medical related and professional offices. So how does this fit into either -- how does -- and a wellness center's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like your reference of7991. That's what concerns me, because that's a physical fitness center. And in the SIC codes, it could get -- I don't know how to -- I don't know __ there isn't a definition for wellness center, so I don't know how to get there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. In fact, that's staffs problem. I didn't write this. Staff wrote it. They had the same problem you did, and they said, this is the best that they could come up with as the appropriateness. This is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- what they came up with, as you can see, it's in black lettering. It's not lettering that we proposed. But you're right, this is -- it's a problematic one because it's kind of a mixture, and this is what staff came up with that they felt they could work with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, you know, this recalls another one that -- and it's one of the major problems that the other one had, Page 104 July 3, 2008 and that was -- I think it was the Heavenly, you guys called it, PUD, and you were the applicant on that, too. MR. FERNANDEZ: It hasn't come before you yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the application was sent out. It got continued. But what happened is, that had a reference to a physical fitness center in it as well with an upside of -- with no limitation on the square footage. That's what made me realize this -- we can't have that happen. That kind of flexibility can't exist in our -- in these approvals. And that's the same thing I want to make sure doesn't happen here. I know the square footage can't get there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we've got to get this narrowed down so we know what we're talking about and not leave it so open ended. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez is saying -- I think he's talking the singular you, not the plural you when we mention Gold's Gym, because I recall -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- I recall testimony being given by a couple of the individuals who were very frustrated to think that there might be a Gold -- Gold's Gym. MR. FERNANDEZ: As part of the 60 percent, I believe-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or -- no. Just at the location, they were upset about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, in total. MR. FERNANDEZ: But understand that the way we've crafted this, we've come in not for a PUD, we've come in for straight zoning. Each footprint of each building is limited to 5,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you intend to have a Gold's Gym or anything like that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. Physical fitness -- we haven't heard from a prospective fitness center, but we certainly, from a rehab Page 105 July 3, 2008 standpoint -- in fact, the one I went to would like to have a place out this way, and they have physical fitness that would go into a place like this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess I'm trying to honor the people who had come to our last meeting thinking that they were making the point with finality, and we're now at another meeting and they're not here because they thought the issue was concluded. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm open to suggestions on how to re-craft that item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. I think we -- between the commission and you, we'll do a good job on that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Because I think staff -- staff had that same -- it was difficult, given the SIC code limitations, of coming up with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a suggestion-- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the concern I have is your SIC code reference. So if we were to say a wellness center that offers a combination of physical therapy and rehabilitation or diet and nutritional services, that will get you what you want, it gets you away from the opportunity of what 7991 opens it up for, and it leaves it into the realm of a medical, more or less, facility that -- it may not be medically -- not medical office, but it's something of that -- more of a wellness nature. MR. FERNANDEZ: If it can be phrased so that all those components don't have to be present in one facility, because they may not do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. MR. FERNANDEZ: And also so that -- you didn't mention physical rehab, for instance, is critical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to take a break for lunch, and while we're at lunch, you can come back with some Page 106 July 3, 2008 suggested language. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Super. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any -- we'll spend another -- let's spend another four or five minutes and wrap up, and then we'll go to lunch at 11 :45. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's all right. I think it probably is wise to work on this language over lunch because my only point was to try to rework this language, so I'll take the extra time as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Strain, from your comments, are we saying -- our client's asking is, then the rest of it's fine, all the blue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went through the rest of it. If staff has analyzed it from impact perspectives and doesn't have a problem, I think the rest of it falls within the professional capabilities that this is intended to be. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where I'm at. I mean, I can't speak for all the Planning Commission members here, but I have reviewed each one of the SIC codes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if somebody wants me to give them to them, I can hand you the packet, you can look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to go on the basis of trust of the Chair, that he's done a fine job, as he typically does. So I'm going to be satisfied with his statement in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had one question. I don't think I was present during this thing when it first came up. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we trying to prohibit a Page 107 July 3, 2008 gym, a workout facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we break for lunch and come back here at 12:45, and by then we'll have new language for this and maybe blow through the rest of this a little bit quicker. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Maybe we'll have another list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we'll have another list, yeah. Okay. We'll take a break. We'll come back at 12:45. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. We'll resume our Planning Commission meeting from our lunchtime. Now that everybody is probably half asleep, we'll try to go through the language we didn't finish off before we got to lunch. Where we had left off was we suggested to the applicant that they look at possible language to reidentify item 25 in their list of uses, and hopefully that got accomplished. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I believe we do have some language that will resolve it after reviewing with staff. The text we've come up with is, wellness center, including one or more of the following: Physical therapy and rehabilitation, diet and nutritional services, medically-related (sic) physical fitness, excluding health clubs and gymnasiums. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, do you have that in a written format, or is it -- because I've got to get this written down so that if it works, we've got to make sure it's in the consent agenda properly. Were you able to have it typed up or not? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, we did not go to that trouble. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then say it again really, really Page 108 July 3,2008 slowly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's start all over again. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wellness center, including one or more of the following uses. MR. FERNANDEZ: Physical therapy and rehabilitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Diet and nutritional services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Medically-related physical fitness, excluding health clubs and gymnasiums. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A question regarding that, i[I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no objection to it, so don't misconstrue what I'm about to question. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The way you phrased that suggests to me that although you may have a rehabilitation center, there may be somebody who doesn't really require rehabilitation, per se, but whose doctor recommends that they go and take an extraordinary effort at exercise. Would they be able to use this facility based on what you've just indicated? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read that one more time for the record so that everybody hears it. Wellness center, comma, including one or more of the following uses, comma, physical therapy and rehabilitation, comma, diet and nutritional services, comma, medically-related physical fitness, excluding health club and gymnasmms. Page 109 July 3, 2008 MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we're going to strike the reference to the group number and that verbiage that says, a combination of physical fitness facility. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that gets us there with that use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comment? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have one issue. Does a membership -- would membership come into play here? In other words, the clubs and gymnasiums are generally a membership base. MR. FERNANDEZ: We brought that up with staff, and we count five or six ways of getting around it, so we have said, excluding gymnasiums and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's better this way. It's more direct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if that works, and I think it does for everybody here, I don't have any other concerns with the uses other than listening to what staff may have when they get their turn up here. So does anybody else on the commission have any concerns at this point? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, when a number is given after a group here and there's a group number such as 8721, does that mean everything in that group as far as the codes is applicable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, it did. And that's what -- I've pulled all the codes, and I went through all those. And 8721 is -- I can read you what six elements are there; the accounting service, auditing service, bookkeeping and billing service, CP As, payroll accounting Page 110 July 3,2008 service, and public accountants certified. They're all uses that would be pretty much benign in professional offices. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That applies to all the others, too, in the list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I've gone through all of them myself, for what that's worth, and I think they meet the intent from my understanding of it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, had you finished your presentation when we started on this tack? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. I think the only items we said we had outstanding was item K, which we went through earlier, and then that list of uses, and then there was that one additional word that we added to the -- what number is that? Where we added medical-related to the list of uses that you request to the BZA. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And since B is a list of prohibitive uses, is there a danger in listing prohibitive uses such that if you miss something? I mean, prior to that, you said, here's what's allowed, thus everything else isn't allowed. Now that we're listing prohibitive uses, bully and logic can get a little foggy because I could come in there -- I mean, why do we have prohibitive uses that obviously -- maybe the hospital was a good idea, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The only reason that that list is there is because that list comes directly from the Growth Management Plan, and staff wanted to include it to aid in the review of the SDPs, but it's the same, word for word, as the list that's in the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would we be able to then -- we would never have been able to allow one of them anyway, so that kind of goes without saying. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the problem is with this particular Page 111 July 3, 2008 use going in with a straight zoning, it becomes not so obvious when stafflooks at a zoning map and sees C-3 there. So now when they look at it, they're going to understand that the C-3 has an ordinance attached to it that has an exhibit that respells everything out. That's why -- that's why everything got restated here, just to be safe. This is not the ordinary way of doing this kind of a project, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Are we going to go through the rest of the list, Mark, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's up to -- yeah, we can go through everything. I mean, basically we've finished up the issue we were on, and now we're opening up to questions ofMr. Fernandez. So Brad, do you have more or do you want -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do on C, but maybe these are -- since staff wrote this, maybe we should discuss it with staff. Michael had it organized pretty well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. My understanding is that that's just staffs interpretation of bringing it over from the GMP A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we then finish up the questions ofMr. Fernandez, and then we'll go to staff and their normal presentation. Does that work? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If so, do we have -- does anybody have any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifnot, I'll see i[I have any. I think most of mine will probably be of staff, too. Yeah, my questions remain for staff now at this point. Can we have staff presentation, please. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Kolflat? You're right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, just a matter of interest, Page 112 July 3, 2008 what is a bollard, B-O-L-L-A-R-D? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a slate table with little balls on it and a cue. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a decorative lighting feature about 40- inches high or 36- inches high -- MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with either a sidelight or a downlight that limits the amount of intensity light can spread. MR. MOSS: Yeah. In this case, it's a light feature. It's not always, but that's what it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the added capability of stopping a vehicle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that wouldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does have a function. MR. MOSS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: For the record, John David Moss, department of zoning and land development review. Staff has reviewed this application and has found it to be consistent with the stipulations attached to the ordinance consistent with the Growth Management Plan and with the Land Development Code. The applicant is not requesting any deviations or variances, excuse me, from the C-3 zoning district. A couple things I would like to point out is the lighting reference in the staff report talks about tower lighting, regular parking lot lighting, and actually if you look in the ordinance, the correct sort of lighting is described there. It is going to be bollards. I just wanted to also remind you that height will be limited to 35 feet in one story as required by the Wilson and Golden Gate Page 113 July 3, 2008 Boulevard neighborhood subdistrict of the GMP. With regard to the modifications proposed by the applicant today, staff is supportive of those. All of the uses proposed are consistent with the C-3 zoning district. And staff also supports the modification in K, item K in Exhibit C that Mr. Fernandez proposed as well. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them. Tom Greenwood is here also from comprehensive planning, and because most of the issues surrounding this rezone centered on comprehensive planning issues, he'll be here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. David, the one concern I have is that in C you guys limit the one story to only medical offices and clinics. So how are we going to write that, because every building on the property is one story. MR. MOSS: That's right. That's the way it should be, and I don't know why it was written that way, and maybe Tom could shed some light on it. Maybe it's just an oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be better placed under maybe I, architectural theme, or does is just -- does that not pertain to height? MR. MOSS: No, that seems like a logical place to include it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about in standards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the one concern I have is that there is a table that Mike presented, his Exhibit B, just to make sure there's no confusion, that does clarify everything rather succinctly. Is there any reason why you guys abandoned that format? MR. MOSS: Again, that was comprehensive planning who revised that, and I think the reason is because they wanted to list all the uses specifically. They didn't want to include all the uses specifically. They didn't want to include all the uses normally permitted by the C-3, so that's why they decided to name them, but-- Page 114 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're past uses now. We're into the geometry ofthe site. That's -- I mean, I think one's clear, one's subject, like it is in C, to error. So what are they going to do with C? We're going to move that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're taking C-3 and moving it to 1-4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In the thing that, again, Michael proposed, there was some limitations on curb cuts and things that are not in the staff exhibit. Is there a good reason for that, like it meets the code? I mean, there's a limitation for curb cuts yet that didn't make it into your -- MR. MOSS: Michael, where is that that you're -- I didn't see any of that. I just saw the proposed uses and then a revision of section K as far as when the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if you look at Michael's on Exhibit B, E, there's some things in there that are -- have not been carried forward. There may be a reason, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. Those items are all included in the GMP A. Staff just did not bring them over to their exhibit. But they are part of the GMP A. We were proposing no new standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, Mark, back to the, better say it then to let them go back to the thing. Let's move everything over that's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know if we need to -- we could do that, Brad, but then -- I thought the things that were moved over would have been the things that could most likely have been easily missed and maybe have a history of being missed. We have projects in the community that have had uses where they weren't supposed to be. We have projects in the community that have double stories where there was only supposed to be one, and things like that. So I think what staff was trying to do was point out the most obvious and most critical in that regard. Transportation staffs not going to allow any more than they have to anyway. So even getting to Page 115 July 3, 2008 three is probably going to be an argument. And if the applicant wants to use proof that he can have three by producing the GMP language, so be it with the applicant, but at least he'll never get more than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. It's a good policy for uses. Don't worry about the other stuff or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm not saying that. I think it's more -- this stuff that's here in this zoning document is the stuffthat's more easily missed as compared to some of the other items, and I think that's a critical point. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But they missed the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which is what we caught. COMMISSIONER CARON: Luckily. But it would seem to me that you would start with a document like this and edit it if there are problems. In this case, what we needed to do was add another exhibit to do all of the permitted uses. And why we wouldn't carry everything over into the LDC, I'm not sure, because we use -- that's where everybody usually looks, even though it's obviously the subject of a GMP amendment. I would think it would be easier if the whole thing got moved to the LDC as well even if it's a duplication because that's where people look first. Is that crazy or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, aren't -- but see, I think the standards that you see here are standard C-3 zoning elements with the exception of 35 feet height, which is a GMP requirement. MR. MOSS: Right. There are other provisions that are not C-3 zoning ordinance -- they're zoning district provisions. They're GMP provisions. And you're right, there should be something in our LDC that allows us to implement these provisions of the GMP, and there's no mechanism there, and that's why we find ourselves in the situations that we do, having to transfer all of these GMP provisions into the zoning ordinance. Page 116 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's also why in the GMP, we strongly encourage doing this by method of a GMP and not a rezone. MR. MOSS: Right, and that was the hit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that decision has caused a lot of calamity that probably wouldn't have been here had we not gone that route, so -- MR. MOSS: You're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My turn yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. I did cut in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You know how Ms. Caron is. What can I do? COMMISSIONER CARON: Pushy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know you inherited this from another person. MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm looking at the report here where on pages 14 and 15, 15 in particular, we see a couple of terms are deemed inconsistent, and then it references, as long as it -- as long as it comports with the stipulations at the end of this report, problem is, I don't see the stipulations at the end of the report. MR. MOSS: Oh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so I would urge you before you get to BCC, to somehow, if you're going to continue to remain the author. MR. MOSS: I think I will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I would urge you to make sure -- I'm not sure. I think that this is the most ideal, I recogmze -- MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- brings it out. Page 117 July 3, 2008 MR. MOSS: They're the stipulations that are in the ordinance, you're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but it references another location -- MR. MOSS: I know, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and it could be a tripping point. MR. MOSS: No, you're absolutely right. I'll make sure that that gets corrected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you. That was it for me. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, he will be continuing with this petition to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had one other question. There is a developer commitment in here for buying bus passes. I just had never seen that by transportation, and we're -- I'd just like to find out more about that plan. MR. MOSS: They're aware that you were going to ask that, so I'll let Nick -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to have 9.75 bus passes purchased instead of 10. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was looking for 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy medium. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. I'm here to answer your questions. We are looking at, as part of the TDM strategies in the urban area of the TCAs and the TCMAs, which are those concurrency management areas, you're encouraged to look at different ways to encourage people to find alternative ways to get to work. This is on a CAT route. May not -- it may seem innocuous right now, but we're trying to encourage people to take the bus. With Page 118 July 3, 2008 policy 5.1, when the adjacent roads don't have the capacity for the project, you're allowed to propose mitigation. And one of the things they can do is to say, hey, we'll encourage people to take transit. These bus passes could be purchased and left in the medical office centers for employees or people that regularly come to these medical centers to encourage them to take the bus to these places like this, so that's why it's in there. And it allows the opportunity to subsidize that transit system, which may not now be viable as much as we'd like it to be, but in the future, to be, you know, part of our network. COMMISSIONER CARON: Who's going to get those 10 passes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The applicant would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The applicant's got to buy them, and then what does he do with them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: He would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Take a bus to work? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- pass them out to the employees or to -- the applicant or the PUD would pass them out to the people who would rent or lease those places and say, does anybody want to use these passes to get to work or offer them up to people who visit the medical center. If no one uses them, that money would go towards the transit system because the passes have been purchased to subsidize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you ever watch what happens with wellfield easements and parks and recs. wanting exactions and -- but they don't include any of these in the AUIR, they didn't -- this really smells. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I could easily say, pay more towards an intersection improvements. Pay your fair share. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then do that. Let's be black and white about tying it to a need that is generated from the site, a rational Page 119 July 3, 2008 nexus, because arbitrarily saying, well, this project, I think we want 10 bus passes from him and we want 30 from this one and three from that one, it just doesn't sound well, it doesn't work well, and it smells, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I respectfully disagree, and I'll put my case forward. Public transportation is one of the hardest issues in the state to quantify the need, future need, what it will take off the network. But I can tell you we're going to be involved with the RLSA review. Setting up a public transportation system that's viable, people will say, well, you don't have the need today. Well, if you don't consider it today, you're going to lose that ability in the future. Purchasing bus passes, passing them out, really encourages people to take the bus. It's not a -- monetary-wise, it's not a lot of money, but it starts that mentality, and if every development as it comes forward starts considering things like that, it's an improvement. We mentioned it to the applicant as maybe a good idea. They said, yeah, we can work with you on something like that. We want to take some trips off the road. If they're inconsistent with policy 5.1, they can propose any mitigation they want to the board. And saying to the Board of County Commissioners, we want to encourage public transportation, we think, is mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is a bus pass annually? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think an annual bus pass, I think, is going to be 200-and-something dollars. I'll find the exact amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's say 300. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Say 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at 3,000 a year for five years. That's 15,000. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we change the third bullet, make payments for the project's fair share up to a maximum of $45,000 for intersection improvements proposed for Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard? Page 120 July 3, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: If that's what you want to do, that's fine. I'd still encourage the bus passes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just think it's a lot more rational. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to go to the -- maybe the other side of your argument. Coming from the world of transportation myself, and I remember especially in the metropolitan area -- and I believe I'm right, although I could easily be wrong -- my recollection was that the federal government and state government, at least in New York, offered to give grant money to organizations and businesses, in fact, that they got some kind of benefit for providing opportunities for public transportation use. And I can see the advantage of that. I fully agree that it's -- as quantifiable, it becomes problematic, but I applaud your effort to try and initiate better use of the CAT system because that's the only way to build it, you know, effectively for that kind of thing. I don't -- I won't take argument with either side, but I do see the side that you're referencing. I would hope that there's a better way of referencing it or providing it a better stature, if you will, and I realize you tried. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nick, I spoke to you about this before. I understand why you want it. I think it makes a lot of sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just am going to try and figure a way out not to make it arbitrary. Seeing as it's used as mitigation, unlike the well field, which is just an extraction, is there a nexus between them, X amount of trips versus X amount of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's hard to quantify that, because transit systems throughout the state, throughout the country, to determine what kind of benefit or what kind of draw they have, a lot Page 121 July 3, 2008 of it's based on headways, how often a bus shows up at a bus stop. If you were going to leave the Estates to come into work -- I think one of the planners, Mike DeRuntz, takes the bus into town. If you have to wait an hour and a half or an hour for a bus to come by, you're less likely to use it. As that headway drops down to say, a half hour, 15 minutes, well now, I'll wait 10 minutes at the end of my street and I'll take a bus. I won't wait an hour. And the only way you grow that system is by encouraging its use. So it's one of those -- to quantify the -- Richard Shine, the FDOT's bus transit person, will tell you it's one of the hardest things to quantify because there's a breakpoint in an urban area to a suburban or rural area where, you know, as it builds, it becomes more viable, but if you don't put effort into it, it will never become viable. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm halfway there. I can understand the reasoning. And if it is used in mitigation, we need some kind of rational nexus. Again, wellfields is just an extraction. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if they purchase bus passes, they have bus passes in their hand. They're not going to just throw them in the trash. They're going to pass them to somebody who will use them, so it will encourage ridership. I mean, if that office building has lObus passes and they say to their employee, there are bus passes here, you or anybody else can use these bus passes? Well, someone's going to take ahold of these bus passes and start riding that transit system. And that was the idea behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, this is a nice medium -- well, actually a small proj ect compared to most in the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many bus passes is Big Cypress or Ave Maria paying for? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hopefully they're going to build a Page 122 July 3, 2008 transfer station and pay for buses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they're going to have to have bus passes, too? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're going to do the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When every project comes forward, you're going to say, bus passes is an alternative? MR. CASALANGUIDA: God, I don't want to spill the beans, but as part of our RLSA review, we would like them to build and fund a transit system in the rural area with transfers between these rural villages to the airport and into town, because if they're going to claim these capture rates and use rates that are high, they have to provide public transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I'm very concerned that there's no logic to how we arrived at this, and so that's where I'm at. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand. It's difficult to quantify, Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, I mean, I've lived where I've had bus passes and they weren't transferable. Are these in Collier? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll find out, but typically they can be maintained with that organization. I don't think our CAT director will have an issue with that. We've spoken with Diane Flagg when it was Diane Flagg. She said no, that she'll honor those bus passes to be -- to tie to that organization or that building. They can be used transferable there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So people can use it coming and going all day long? MR. CASALANGUIDA: She's not going to have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can do a straw vote on this issue or -- Page 123 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sure. That would probably be a way to do it. I'm just wondering, will the -- so that if someone wants to use these bus passes, they've got to go there when one of the facilities is open, get the pass, flag the bus down, or where do they go to get the bus? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The bus would stop at that intersection as part of the bus route. The idea is that there's a bus stop there. If you have 60,000 square feet of these uses and they're buying them every year for five years, their passing them out to their employees or users there, someone's going to say, well, I'll take a bus pass. Maybe it will take me -- on a weekend I'll use the bus instead of taking a car, or weekday. And we're trying to really encourage that program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the people that are using the bus, how do they get to this location? MR. CASALANGUIDA: From another bus or the transfer station. Another bus site or transfer station. If it's in Immokalee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're already on the bus, wouldn't they have a bus pass? MR. CASALANGUIDA: To get on the bus, you need to either payor have a pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if they lived out in, say, Immokalee, and worked here, they could take the bus to here to go to work and then take the bus to go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when and ifhe has employees in the next five years and when and if they live in Immokalee, they can utilize this bus pass if they know it's there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or in the urban area. If they live in the urban area or they live along the route. The CAT bus stops at all different locations. Anyplace you can pick up a bus, you can show them your pass, get on, and come to this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As sparsely populated as Golden Gate Page 124 July 3, 2008 Estates is, not many people are going to be walking to this location. They're going to be driving and stuff like that. I understand now you're looking at it as a transfer point for people going elsewhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't see how that's helping and benefiting transportation. Yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just further, as I was giving a lot more consideration to it, my recollection is even clearer now that this program that I'm referring to that I hope is still extant, actually was -- when I said grant money, I was thinking the government at the time, but that was in error. Monies were payable through a government entity to businesses who would acquire the commuter tickets, or whatever they happened to be. Maybe -- I mean, I think it's a good idea to progress forward. It may not be appropriate today. But I think that maybe the owners of the property and the entities there might be the way to go rather than commit to something that we can't really modulate effective. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You try and -- I mean, I get heat all the time when you go to a public meeting; you're just building roads. You're not encouraging transit, you're not building enough pathways. If they're willing to pay a fair share towards the intersection improvement, that's a physical improvement you're going to see. As a part of this, we're trying to say, also encourage public transportation, trying to spread those things out a little bit, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Mr. Schiffer's idea ofa straw vote's not a bad idea, so why don't we just do it real simple. There's a bullet added to require 10 annual bus passes for a period of five years as a mitigation of traffic to this project. Those in favor -- those in favor of seeing that bullet remain in the -- as a condition, signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 125 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. Those against would be the three remaining, so the motion carries, 5-3. It stays in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For clarification in discussion, Mr. Strain, I think it was that they would just be purchased annually, not prior to Certificate of Occupancy. I think upon development -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever it says, yeah. I mean, I'm-- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. Talking to Joe about this -- and you need an enforcement issue. We'd rather just write the check for the $15,000 and say here for the bus system, and hopefully that reduces the overall cost of the bus system for everybody and encourages ridership. But there really isn't a good mechanism for saying, you have to buy lObus passes every year. So in other words, like year two comes around and say, how does -- who's going to come and collect from us, and what are you going to do to enforce? We'd rather just pay toward that fund rather -- so that we have a measurable action that we have to do, if that's the wish of this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the wish of the Planning Commission was just expressed to leave it in. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Can we change it to that form? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any solution will be better than what's here, but I don't know if -- you guys want to bring it back up again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't. I mean, I don't want to change it, because the intent of this, Michael, is to get people Page 126 July 3, 2008 to start to test, taste, what it's like to do transit and just help blossom -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would encourage you to present this argument to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because hopefully they'll see that this-- might be a better -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It will hopefully be on the summary agenda and we wouldn't have to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, could you negotiate a five-year pass with Diane, and then let them just buy it five years ahead of time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can -- I think we can work something out like that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ifwe can do that, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to -- you can't talk off the record, Mr. Fernandez. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maybe the way to clarify it is they'll purchase up -- five years of 10 annual bus passes up front, and the county will provide it to the owners of that development annually for them to use so that they would do it as a one-time payment. We would give them to them every year for five years, 10 passes. That works? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up front meaning when? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Prior to the -- prior to CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to first CO? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you can't answer from your seat, please. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As long as they're going to be Page 127 July 3, 2008 given to the employees, not sold. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. They wouldn't be sold. They would be given to that PUD site. We'll drop them off to them. We'll make sure they get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what the deal would read, purchase 10 annual bus passes for five years up front prior to the first CO. Is that clear enough? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of course the County Attorney's Office will bring it back in a consent form, so ifthere's any massaging needed, they'll take care of that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fair enough. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to say I think it was -- Mr. Vigliotti's comment was important. We don't want them to buy these and then go sell them to their employees either. We want these to be given to the employees. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't stop bus scalping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've reached a little more ofa compromise. I still think it's wrong and I just want to make that clear for the record. I'm not going -- it's not worth seeing the demise of this project for that or having them to have to go through any more effort, but I certainly don't think it's right. Ms. Caron? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I appreciate your concerns. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And I'd just like to follow up on that, too, because I brought up the issue, and I think there is an issue here that relates back to things like the wellfields and the extraction for affordable housing and all the other things that we've done temporarily and/or for reasons that mayor may not have been valid at a given time. So I think probably working on a standard that applies to everything and everybody is the way to go, Nick. I think you're going Page 128 July 3, 2008 to have to work on something better than -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think as part of the RLSA in your next -- which is next year, your next year's long-range transportation plan update, you're going to see a bigger segment of public transportation being codified into that thing, or at least being required. Your rural area development has to include it with these cities and towns that are coming on line. Has to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you incorporate into the AUIR the mass transit element that's allowed by Florida statute? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe can do it that way, we will do it that way. But I think it had to be -- go through the RLSA and LRTP review as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but as far as county goes, it's another element to the AUIR. Why don't we incorporate it and do it and set up a progress schedule and take a look at it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can do that. It would take me longer than one month to do it, and my first draft of the AUIR's due in a month so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give it over to Mr. Schmitt's staff. His staff -- I mean, they've got plenty of time on their hands. Didn't you know that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Joe said he wanted to do it himself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see him back there shaking his head. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And before I -- just to close this out, Nick, I think the real beneficiary of this is the employee who can figure out how to use the bus and save all that gas money now. So the prize is theirs. In the parking prior to that, he does note that the parking for the Page 129 July 3, 2008 site has to be figured out at the ratio for medical parking, but we dropped the ratio from the staff version. Is there a reason you dropped it? I would be concerned if it changes, you want it to change with it, or why not lock in that one to 200 that exists? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Parking wouldn't be me, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm talking to John. I'm sorry . MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, Commissioner. What was the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the commitment that it would be medical parking, in Michael's version of it he actually states the one to 200. It's not stated in the staff. Is there a reason for that? I mean, it could go both ways in a code change, but -- MR. MOSS: I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be D-l that would be where it's been taken out of. MR. MOSS: I'm not sure why that was deleted. Ray, do you happen to know? MR. BELLOWS: No, but I don't have a problem revising it to include that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number are you on, Brad? I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that was actually D-l, but -- and in Michael's version it was Exhibit A again, B. But I think, you know, let's just stress that to make sure that that's the ratio that they do use and they don't find other medical things in there. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the language right so I've got it written down right and we can relay it to staff when we make our stipulations. J.D., how do you see -- how do you read that language? I'm trying to look for the reference to it in here. Page 130 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two of five. MR. MOSS: Yeah, maybe Commissioner Schiffer can do it. He's actually looking at Exhibit A from the applicant's application, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's look at -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's look at the ordinance. MR. MOSS: The ordinance is D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit C. MR. MOSS: On page 2, right. Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be D-l, you want to-- MR. MOSS: Letter D, 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What language will we actually rewrite there? What would be the rewritten part of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we use my -- it says, this parking ratio is one space per 200 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Problem with that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Land Development Code, I think, has a more restrictive use for medical uses. And I think the concern was, if it was more medical uses than office uses, then they might find themselves short of parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we say that this parking ratio will be per Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what is the Land Development Code, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That is for medical, that's correct. MR. MOSS: One to 200 for medical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what this sentence is saying is, no matter what you use, the parking for everything in this building, whether it's professional, you know, retail, everything is one to 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as the language that's being Page 13 1 July 3, 2008 added to the end ofD-l, would it be simpler, because the code can change over time, simply saying, this parking ratio will be per the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Would be better, definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody listening? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am. MR. BELLOWS: I think that's -- we have Tom Greenwood to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, come back with something, will you? MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood with Comprehensive Planning. I direct your attention to the top of page 14 of your staff report, the very, very top of page 14. That language there is actually right out of the -- pardon me? That language is right out of the neighborhood center standard for this property, and that was part of the ordinance that approved this Growth Management Plan amendment. And that's the reason the language is shown in Exhibit C to the ordinance. That's where that came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we need change it then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's -- well, Michael had, and again, it goes back to this, is that Michael had exactly that, plus he added to that the actual ratio so it was understood what the ratio was. So it's no change from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the ratio changes in the Land Development Code and it's in here, then it doesn't self-adjust. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that why we didn't do it with uses and things? But I mean, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the uses aren't in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Take it out. You don't need it. I mean, it's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, Commissioners? The way then Page 132 July 3, 2008 Growth Management Plan was actually written, per the GMP so that it couldn't be self-amending, it's specific to a specific code as amended, not as may be amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, right. MR. FERNANDEZ: So it's going to be one to 200. It won't change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good reason, Mark, why it might be good, because if the code does change, you don't want people to go with the change. You want them to stay with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't care -- I'm just trying to understand what's going on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I'm reading -- we're reading too many different documents. Mr. Fernandez's document is not what's for discussion here today. It's back up to the ordinance that we're here to review. The ordinance language is what I thought we were trying to fix. The ordinance language D-l says, the entire project shall be subject to the parking requirements set forth in the Land Development Code for medical office and medical clinic uses so as to allow 100 percent medical office use, okay. The GMP, from what Mr. Greenwood just says, on top of 14 says, parking for the entire project shall be that required for medical office or clinical use by the Land Development Code, and it recites the ordinance number, so as to allow 100 percent medical office use. What is wrong with those two statements? They're the same thing. Why are we talking about it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, no one's saying anything's wrong with those two statements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What we're saying is, past those two statements, which are identical -- and they're even identical in Page 133 July 3, 2008 Michael's version of it -- is the requirement that he actually stated the requirement because this is going to be locked in time, and that requirement is one to 200, that's all. It's, do we want to add the addition to those statements, the actual ratio that will be calculated? Actually, the point Michael made is that if the code changes, this thing won't change anyway, so I think it would be a good idea to lock it in at the ratio that it should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you said past that point as if -- did staff put it somewhere else that they want one to 200? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you getting the one to 200 from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm getting the one to 200 from -- you know, it goes back to something you and I have been jumping around on, is that Michael did a really good job, I think, of qualifying the thing. In there he put that qualification. I think it's a good idea to continue putting that qualification. The one to 200 came from -- you saw the exhibits that were in the application that Michael put together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw them, but I didn't really pay much attention to them because they are not what I was considering here for this property. It was the ordinances that we were considering. So, no, I saw it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think they were in conflict. I think -- so, you know, one of the things that he did -- I mean, all those things that we've been adding are things that I thought he did better than the staff report, and I'm just getting them back into it. I mean, you don't need to put it in. Ten years from now a guy's designing a building, whatever the code says, he's got to go back to one to 200 and figure out what the code was at today, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it's --let's give him Page 134 July 3, 2008 a clue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the staff at this point then? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., on page 14, I know this is cleared up but Ijust want to make sure it's understood that way. Because of the different criterion that Comprehensive Planning said needed to be changed or accompanied, they list the stipulations. The one on C on 14 talked about having the facilities -- the lighting facilities at 25 feet high. We know that's not the case. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's bollards. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And everything is fine with that? MR. MOSS: In the ordinance it's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And all the rest of your stipulations are on here in order to make this consistent, got incorporated into the ordinance? MR. MOSS: They're incorporated into the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, J.D. MR. MOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody want to rebut the no registered public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, let's close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Before we get into the motion, and Mr. Kolflat had suggested this a long time ago and I had been forgetting to Page 135 July 3, 2008 do it. Let me read the stipulations I have written down so that if there's any further discussion or need, we can do it outside of the motion. First of all, it would be consistent with the staff stipulations and staff language. It would be -- that's number one. Number two, the services provided to us in Exhibit C as handed out by Mr. Fernandez with the changed language in the blue and red text, would be accepted, and the Exhibit C that was handed out to us today by staff, that portion pertaining to the changes of the height would be accepted, and then Mr. Fernandez's language as amended in number 25 would be accepted for the wellness center language that we previously discussed. And now I think I've read it enough times to staff that I don't need to read it again. And then the number three would be -- well, number three is the limitations of the height noted on the new handout for C. Number four, that height reference would move from C-3 in the latest handout to 1-4 and become the same thing but would be placed under 1-4 instead ofC-3. Number five, the applicant would purchase 10 annual bus passes for five year up front prior to the first CO. Does anybody have anything else that needed to be add? Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. You changed veterinary. You changed that to just veterinarian office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: And eliminated the SIC code. I believe that's what you wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we were talking -- yes, sir. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. And then 26, I guess, you accepted that medical related? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 136 July 3, 2008 MR. FERNANDEZ: And also K. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said all the other language with the exception that was stated. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that petition RZ-2008-AR-13209, Healthcare Medical Center, that we would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners according to the stipulations as just read by the chairman, and peace be with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. Discussion? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Only does the petitioner acknowledge that he accepted these stipulations, for the record? MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez for the petitioner. Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, before we vote, is staff crystal clear on these stipulations? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 13 7 July 3,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. You'll be on the consent agenda in two weeks, and maybe you'll stay on the summary for BCC, it looks like. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So congratulations. And thank you, Mr. Corder. I haven't seen anybody ever work so hard with a neighborhood as you have, so thank you for all you do. MR. FERNANDEZ: I never have either. Item #9E PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-12861, G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES II CORPORATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item, petition PUDA-2008-AR-12861, Kevin Ratterree ofG.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation. It's involving a text change to the Terafina PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this applicant, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the commissioners? Anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a phone call from a Ms. Ebert in Page 138 July 3, 2008 Olde Cypress. We talked about it briefly, and I think anything I had to say then I'll resay today. So with that, we'll go -- move forward. Presentation by the applicant. I guess, Mr. Duane, you're doing that. MR. DUANE: For the record, my name is Robert Duane from Hole Montes and Associates. I have Kevin Ratterree, Senior Vice-President of G.L. Homes, with me today. Mr. Chairman, our presentations are going to be relatively brief, if we can just kind of do them in unison and save for questions after we've finished our brief presentation, I'd appreciate it. Most of you are probably familiar with Olde Cypress. The master plan is indicated to the right of the aerial photo. It's one mile north of what is going to be the future extension of Logan Boulevard. It's a 650-acre PUD that was approved for 1.3 dwelling units per acre. It's relatively low density. You'll see a very large preserve area on the plan. Approximately 275 acres or the eastern half of this property is maintained in a preserve area. That is also shared with Olde Cypress to the south and with Marisol to the east. Our request before you today that has staff support is to reduce our zero setback yard requirements from zero on one side or 12 feet to zero on one side or a minimum of 10 feet. The developments that are around the subj ect property that I just mentioned to you, Mirasol, Olde Cypress and actually Parklands to the north of us have a similar standard in the 2,000 acres or so of three large planned unit developments that surround this property. I'd also note to you that there are numerous other examples of lO-foot zero lot line setbacks that have been developed in Naples, including Island Walk, Verona Walk. In fact, Saturnia Falls, which is another G.L. Homes project on Immokalee Road, which is on the south side of Immokalee Road just to the east -- to the east of this, has developed a similar product in their community which uses the zero Page 139 July 3,2008 and the 10- foot side yard setback. Their desire is to use the same product that they've used in Saturnia Falls in this particular project. They've built that product throughout the State of Florida. Accommodating that footprint on this lot means we need to reduce it by two feet. My client thinks that gives him a little less utility of the unit and actually may have the un -- or may have a consequence of even going up, perhaps, on a second floor to accommodate some of the square footage on a product that he feels works relatively good that's been tested on a lO-foot side yard setback. I would also, just to wrap up here, would note that our Land Development Code in section 4.02.04, which are your standards for a residential cluster development, really are the only references in the LDC to zero lot line development setback requirements. Cluster developments have to be approved with a conditional use. But it set forth some minimums as guidelines, minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet for zero lot lines. G.L. Homes lots are between 4- and 5,000 feet. The guideline in your code is 10 feet for cluster developments for zero lot line. And for non-zero lot line, it's five feet on each side of the dwelling unit or 10 feet in between structures. That concludes my presentation. We think the request which, again, has staff support, is reasonable, and I'm going to now allow Kevin to make -- bring up a few other points before we get into questions. MR. RATTERREE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Kevin Ratterree with G.L. Homes. Weare the owner and developer of this property. Just want to make one correction to Bob's statement. He referred to our existing project as Saturnia Falls. That project is actually Saturnia Lakes. This project is actually Saturnia Falls that we're here for today. That's the name of the project. Terafina was the PUD name as it went through the approval process. After having been here this morning, I'm kind of hesitant to do Page 140 July 3, 2008 this, but I need to do something because it was asked of me of the district commissioner, so if you'd just give me some indulgence for a minute, I want to give you a little bit of a history lesson as to why I'm going to do what I'm going to do, and then hopefully that will leave this issue and we can move on to the 12- foot versus 10- foot. When this PUD was approved, our project had an obligation to build Logan Boulevard from Immokalee north to our project entry. That same condition obligation is in the Parklands DR! development order, but in their case it's from Immokalee all the way up to Bonita Beach. When we were going through the approval process, Ronto represented to the Board of County Commissioners that because they were significantly ahead of us in terms of their entitlements and permitting for their property, that they were going to be building the road, and the district commissioner and the local residents asked us to enter into agreements relative to some landscape improvements on the west side of Logan Boulevard and monetary contributions to another community. Those agreements were done outside of the purview of the public hearing PUD process. They're private agreements between G.L. Homes and those adjoining communities. I've been asked to include those documents as part of the PUD. I have no -- I didn't say obligation. I have no obligation to do it; however, I have no objection to doing it either. The terms of the agreements are not changing. The agreement's stand on face for what they are relative to what improvements we have to do associated with that. So I just wanted to submit those to the record because I agreed to do that. They don't really have anything to do with the petition that's before you today, but unfortunately because of the way advertising works, since they weren't part of what was advertised, me, as the petitioner, I have to bring them up during the course of the public Page 141 July 3, 2008 hearing and have them submitted as part of the public record. So if you would like me to do that, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to do that. Just to be clear though, they're just basically private agreements between us and those adjoining communities relative to what obligations we would do and perform associated with the construction of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have enough copies to pass out is what -- MR. RATTERREE: I have enough copies of the language that will go in the ordinance. The actual agreements themselves, I have one copy of them. Again, because they're private agreements, I didn't think we needed to delve into the details of those. The one note that I will provide is one of the agreements relates to a common berm between our property and Olde Cypress to our south. That common berm is actually already part of the existing PUD approval. It is Exhibit C of the adopting ordinance. So that agreement actually was covering what is a portion of the existing PUD approval. So I have the language. If I can get Bob to pass it around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to at least see the language and -- MR. RATTERREE: Sure, absolutely. All it basically does is reference the agreements and that they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought -- Mr. Murray, you had something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you're intending to use them as currency -- MR. RATTERREE: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in this forum? MR. RATTERREE: I was just simply asked to provide those as part of the public document so that they're clear that those agreements were entered into. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate they may be Page 142 July 3, 2008 just acknowledged as information, but clearly we don't get involved in private matters. MR. RATTERREE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I don't know what this will serve. MR. RATTERREE: I was asked to do that. I have no objection to doing it, so I did it. That's why I did it. MS. ASHTON: Ifthe commission so desired, you could recommend that the board find that as part of one of their whereas clauses in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I realize there's a way to -- a mechanism to put it in as long as the applicant agrees to it. It's not one we could force on the applicant if they didn't agree. So they are agreeing to it, and if we don't have any objections to it, it could be added. So as we go through the meeting, we can take that into consideration. MR. RATTERREE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to finish with your statement? MR. RATTERREE: Yes. Back to the petition that's before you. As Bob said, this is a footprint and a design that we have done in our other communities throughout the State of Florida as well as Saturnia Lakes to the south. The fundamental difference is that the two-foot change in footprint simply means that we have to redesigned existing product to take two feet out. The net result of that is the product itself becomes a little less attractive in terms of the configuration of the interior unit. The bedrooms get a little smaller, the square footage gets a little smaller. The practical application of that, through the course of our developments, is that this single-story product becomes basically a product that we don't see a lot of people purchase on the sales floor Page 143 July 3, 2008 because the resulting square footage of the unit goes down to a point where they want to get into that second story. So the net impact is that we actually sell significantly more of the two-story houses than we do the one-story houses. We're simply asking for what we've done before in the past in the Collier County community as well as what the surrounding communities around us have as their adopted regulation, which is 10 feet. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This agreement indicates that it was between the Olde Cypress Development Company and your company. It's my understanding that the northern part ofOlde Cypress there has already been turned over to the subdivision master association. And was the association -- homeowners association involved in this agreement? MR. RATTERREE: The answer is yes, the master association was involved. The communities of Strada Bella and -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ibis Landing? MR. RATTERREE: Well, it's the two immediately to our south. Strata Bella and -- boy, the name's escaped me off the top of my head. Those two communities are a party to the actual agreement. You can see them listed in the title clause. Also it is successors and assigns and title in the document itself. So when the master association turns -- or the developer turned over to the individual association, they became a party to the agreement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But isn't Ibis Landing a subdivision that's just to the south of your property there in Olde Cypress? MR. RATTERREE: The names of the community are Strata Bella, and it starts with an S. And unfortunately it's not kicking in my Page 144 July 3, 2008 head as to what it is. I don't believe it's the name that you referenced. But that common berm -- just to be clear on that point -- the common berm -- and basically the theory behind it was, we had a IS-foot perimeter PUD obligation. Olde Cypress had a IS-foot perimeter PUD obligation. We met with Olde Cypress and we worked together to come up with a common berm. So instead of them doing 15 and us doing 15, we came up with a common berm so we would use all 30 to get the berm elevated and then put the wall on top of the berm and then the landscaping. That cross-section is actually in the existing PUD document. It is Exhibit C. So we are obligated under the PUD document to develop in accordance with that cross-section irrespective of there being a private agreement with the adjoining community to do the very same thing. That cross-section is actually in that same agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so you can help me understand something better. If we -- as Heidi, our counsel has indicated, we could put it as one of the whereas clauses, how could we pass judgment on it if we don't have a copy of the aforementioned attached which, by the way, I don't want? MR. RATTERREE: Yeah. I don't -- I'm not asking you to pass judgment on it because you have no judgment on it. It's a private agreement between two parties. It doesn't change -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm still trying to understand where it belongs and what it would do, what it will achieve for you or achieve for the county. MR. RATTERREE: I think the thought process by making the request was that it just be part -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, before you continue, both Page 145 July 3, 2008 of you are starting to talk over one another. MR. RATTERREE: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's having a hard time keeping track of it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I had the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so when one finishes -- well, you do, but you've been asking him questions and he's been responding, and we've been starting back and forth before everyone finishes. So go ahead, Mr. Ratterree, but please wait till each other finishes. MR. RATTERREE: You were in the middle of your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember what that was anymore. Elderly problem. What can I say? Go ahead, sir. MR. RATTERREE: Okay. I think the nature of your question was, the answer is that they are private agreements between two private property owners. They are part -- they are being submitted so that they are part of a public record so that anybody who wants to obtain a copy of those agreements can come and obtain a copy of the agreements so that they're just part of public information relative to what obligations there are between this developer and the adjoining communities. That's all. It doesn't change the material -- it doesn't change the agreements whatsoever by making them public. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've helped this individual. Thank you. MR. RATTERREE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your testimony you were describing how by doing this would allow you to make a smaller product, is that what you said? MR. RATTERREE: Well, what it does -- let's just use, for an example, zero lot lines typically come in the form of either a 45- foot Page 146 July 3, 2008 wide or a 50-foot wide product. On a 50-foot with a 10-foot side setback, that means our building envelope is 40 feet. That's what we typically build with a lO-foot side. That's actually the Florida Building Code. That's the code that's codified. By staying with the zero to 12, that simply means that that 40-foot envelope reduces down to a 38-foot envelope. On the 45-foot, that's a 35-foot envelope, which means you drop down to a 33-foot envelope. It's just basically taking two feet out of the available square footage of the house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, because I understand. But I mean, your minimum doesn't change, but you're not at the mlmmum anyway, so-- MR. RATTERREE: The minimum lot size, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just for the record, this will enable you to build the same product as Satumia Lake? MR. RATTERREE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. It's a nice product. MR. RATTERREE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And a very nice development. MR. RATTERREE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ratterree, at the neighborhood informational meeting, you stated the following: That the change would enable them to build homes with rooms that were two feet wider, creating a much nicer end product; is that true? MR. RATTERREE: That would be correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just build wider lots? MR. RATTERREE: Well, that's a fair question. I think my response to that is, we have spent a considerable amount of time and money on this project already. For those of you that don't know, G.L. Homes built Logan Boulevard between Immoka1ee and Vanderbilt Beach. It was a nine-million-dollar road. It was associated with this Page 147 July 3, 2008 product. Not a condition of approval in our development order. You're not going to find it in there, but we were requested by the county, because that was a public road and needed to be built and there were no public funds to build it, we were requested, we agreed, entered into a developer contribution agreement with the county to build that road. We have built that road. That road has been open to the general public for over a year. So we are $9 million out on what is, in effect, an impact fee creditable agreement. We haven't pulled the first permit because of the litigation associated with the environmental issues associated with all of these properties out here. We have a significant amount of time and effort invested into this property already. The public has benefited from it. We simply are trying to get back to a product that we have done historically that's worked, it's favorable in a marketplace, and that's all we're trying to do. By doing that, the end result is, by doing your request, we simply just start losing units. In fact some of these agreements are all based on us having 850 units. They become null and void if we have less than 850 units. So the reality of it is, we're just simply trying to live with the 850 units that we committed to build. We're just trying to build a project that we have a history in building and have success with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's -- have you -- I mean, you're talking a two-feet wider lot line. You've got a variety of product you can put here. So you can't make up -- say you do one of the southern parcels with this zero lot line at two feet less and you lose one lot on each side or two lots total, that's two units. You can't make up two units in any of your multifamily anywhere else on the product? MR. RATTERREE: Well, we -- we are a single-family builder. Although this PUD has the right to build multifamily along all of these residential pods, we are a single-family detached builder. That's what Page 148 July 3, 2008 Satumia Lakes is. And so we were trying to keep with that same concept. Yes, we could change from zero lot lines to townhomes and build the same number of units, but we would be moving to a product that's not within our comfort zone, so to speak. We were trying to stay within our comfort zone with product that we've done before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice that staff has cited other projects as a basis as to why you would be compatible and you fit in with the neighborhood. What they've failed to notice is that all the other products were approved long before you were. Your project, its first approval occurred in '01 -- was number -- ordinance 01-71 back in 2001, I believe, and renewed in 2004. In 01-71 you wanted zero and 12, in 04-15, you wanted zero and 12. So you've never needed any more than that. And I was -- been on this commission at the time we had Ken Abernathy here who, rightfully so, pointed out through discussions with Joe Schmitt and others that getting too close together was posing problems. By the time you put your air-conditioners in, pool equipment, anything else, which takes up to three feet off the side of the house, you now have six feet out of 10, you've got four feet left. Just getting back to the -- any lakes in the back or any preserve areas for maintenance and other routine chores was becoming a problem. And we set it at 12 feet and we've historically done that on this commission for years because that seemed to be the most practical to help with those issues. We haven't gone back on that since it started, and this is the first time I've seen it requested. And knowing the history as I know your planner knows real well, I'm a little surprised that you were corning forward with it today. I understand your reasoning. I understand the advantages possibly of having these agreements hooked into the public process so that they can be better enforced and better available, but I'm not sure it Page 149 July 3,2008 warrants this board's changing of a standard that they've -- we've utilized with -- that was well thought out from several years ago. But that's just my general opinion on it. I'm not asking to comment. You can if you want, but that's kind of where I'm at with this whole thing. MR. RATTERREE: The only thing I do want to comment on, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, in 2001, this property was owned by a different entity other than G.L. Homes. We did not contract for this piece of property until, I believe, '03. The '04 amendment that carne through relative to this project was to change the golf course to lake area, which was the conversion, okay. So that was the conversion that went through. At the time we did not change any of the property development regulations, and that clearly was something in '04, had we had foresight in -- but we also were just in the midst of getting started with Saturnia Lakes. We had the envelopes that we were requesting as part of that project. They were very successful for us in that project, and we just simply wanted to continue with that successful operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and you could continue with the product. You'd save your architectural drawings and all that. And you can't use the same site plans because your drainage piping and all the connections are going to have to change. So I don't see where you're losing by picking up two feet on a lot because that is irrelevant of anything you could save from using the same architectural drawings. So -- but that's my understanding of the system, and I've probably worked in it as long as you have, longer, based on the fact you're probably a lot younger than I am and lucky you for that. MR. RATTERREE: I do have some white hair up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait till your beard starts to grow. MR. RATTERREE: I got that, too. Ijust don't let it grow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, a question. The documentation I Page 150 July 3, 2008 have titles this project Terafina. We heard that this is no longer called Terafina. Does that present another problem with the way the PUD's worded? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. They're not changing the name of the PUD zoning district as Terafina. Many subdivisions corne in with different names. Within the same PUD you may have different subdivisions calling themselves different names. It's tracked through our computer database project. But the parent is all tracked back to the parent zoning of Terafina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This isn't a subdivision. The name of the PUD is going to be -- MR. BELLOWS: And they're not changing the name of the PUD, is my understanding. MR. RATTERREE: Yeah. To clarify this issue, to give you an example, the Saturnia Lakes project was permitted under the name Regas PUD. I don't know where Regas carne from. I'm sure Jersey Joe's that we bought to build the project, we could have called it that. But we were simply calling the project the actual project name. The PUD is approved as Terafina. It will be known as Terafina from the county's standpoint, but the name on the project sign will be Saturnia Falls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how will it be platted? MR. BELLOWS: They can use a different name for a plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, no. I don't have a question. I was going to make a comment. Since I had made a note here similar to Commissioner Strain's comments, I had made a note the other day when I was reviewing this that we've been trying to increase, not decrease, side yard setbacks, and I specifically noted Commissioner Abernathy whose great wisdom got us to think about the issue and increase rather than decrease, so -- Page 151 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I think -- don't confuse this with single-family. Ken was certainly adamant to get rid of five- foot side setbacks on single-family, but isn't it -- zero lot line, essentially that's all private area between the wall of the other unit and you, so that is not an access area. That really isn't your typical sing1e- family setback zone anyway. It's typically a patio. You're actually probably hanging things on your neighbor's wall. MR. RATTERREE: Yeah. By regulations, and certainly from the county's standpoint, that property owner is entitled to fence in that area, put landscaping in that area. So from an access management standpoint, clearly, whether it's 12 feet or 10 feet, the same obstructions that are going to be there relative to those improvements could be there anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Ko1flat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You indicated, Mark, that you had ex parte communication Diana Ebert. Could you share with me what that ex parte communication was? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She asked me what the application was for, and I said they were changing their lot widths. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That was all there was to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She asked me if it had anything to do with the berm or anything in between, and I said no. A berm, I believe -- I hadn't read it all at the time, but the berm is set in the PUD, from what my understanding was. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome. Anything else from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Page 152 July 3, 2008 MR. RATTERREE: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report? MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioners. John David Moss. I just wanted to say that the subject parcel is located in the urban residential mixed-use subdistrict, and it's consistent. The PUD is -- the uses approved in it are consistent with that subdistrict, and all other requirements of that PUD are still going to be respected. This is just the only change they're processing, the side yard setback. One thing I wanted to mention, Commissioner Strain brought this to my attention yesterday. In the ordinance there is a footnote, footnote number three actually, that still references the 12- foot side yard, which is obviously in error and needs to be changed. But I just wanted to mention that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't supposed to say that because that's what they've got to prove. They'd have to corne back again and we could make them go through this whole thing all over again, J.D. MR. MOSS: Sorry about that. And that's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. RATTERREE: I'll go on record and say thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Ko1flat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just a couple of minor ones. On your appendix one, item number seven on page 2 of 3, fourth paragraph from the top, it says, the proposed change will have any impact. I think you meant, and have no impact. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then under nine, item nine on it, you indicate that there will be no reduction of light or air. Maybe it might not be significant, but theoretically if the buildings are closer together, there should be a corresponding reduction of light and air; Page 153 July 3, 2008 should there not? MR. MOSS: I just wanted to get across that it wouldn't be anything significant. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more tiny one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John David, throughout the thing there's a lot of strikethroughs, which are essentially housekeeping issues on bringing the thing up to code referencing the current LDC. MR. MOSS: Oh, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We didn't mention it, but that's also happening, correct? MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when -- what is the current LDC that it's referencing, the one at -- the date in which this was approved or today? MR. MOSS: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't we talk about that? MR. MOSS: We did talk about that. We're going to delete where it says, current LDC and just say simply LDC so that this is self-amending, and no matter what LDC is in effect -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everywhere where the word current shows, it comes out basically. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anything else from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, sir. Is there any public speakers, Ray? Page 154 July 3, 2008 MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti, you're good at motions today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, everybody else is bunting, so I'd like to make a motion to approve, and I'd like to make a statement. Saturnia Lakes is a very nice proj ect, and if this is a sister project and a matching project, I think it will corne out fine. Also in today's climate with the construction industry, a few lots just might help and sure is not going to make a difference in the overall outlook of the development. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? I've got stipulations to talk about. Number one -- well, first of all, I'm not -- I wasn't inclined to agree with this because we had set a policy and I didn't see a need to change it because somebody wants to put more density in; however, with their concession to put in the agreements that are adjoining to their neighbors and making it easier for their neighbors to not only find the agreements, but possibly then to enforce them. That's a public good that wasn't there without that. So for that reason, I understand, and especially Mr. Schiffer's point that the 10 feet will all be on that one person's property. I certainly think this is okay to approve based on that for this one time. But I think it should be with two stipulations; one is that the language handed out incorporating those agreements into a whereas clause as accepted by the applicant is part and parcel to the motion, and the second is that we go into -- at the LDC, remove the word -- in the PUD they remove the word current from the references to the LDC, so it's just the LDC. Does the motion maker accept? Page 155 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I accept those. MR. RATTERREE: I have to agree to them, correct? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MR. RATTERREE: For the record, Kevin Ratterree, and I agree with those stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- does the second? Okay. Everybody's in agreement. Is there anything that was missed, anybody? Staff clear? J.D., are you clear in the stipulations? MR. MOSS: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney's Office is clear? MS. ASHTON: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's redundant, but from now on I'll ask that on every case. MS. ASHTON: Well, we appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor as stipulated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Let the record show Mr. Wolfley had left a little earlier. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. RATTERREE: Thank you for your time. Page 156 July 3, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings us to the conclusion of this exciting day. Old business. Do we have any? Ray, I know you're working on answers for Mr. Schiffer. I'll assume your silence means you don't have them this time. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Vigliotti, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you do absences? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In the beginning, okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You were here when we did them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. I missed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. You still going to be here? Is that you telling us you're not going to be here next week? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all. And we'll do week after next week, so -- all those -- is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 157 July 3, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Boy, you did that fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:56 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 158