Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/07/2008 R August 7, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 7, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolf1at Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. W olf1ey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Dir. Real Property, CCSD Page 1 AGENDA Revised II COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 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 MAYBE 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 VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 27, 2008, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: BD-2008-AR-12802, Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreational and Maintenance Association, Inc., represented by Miles Scofield of Turrell. Hall and Associates, lnc, 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: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Q. Grady Minor, representing KRG 951 and 41, LLC, is requesting a PUD Rezone from the Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts, to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. The :t25.45 acre property is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2006-AR-9061, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, represented by Turrell and Associates, Inc., requesting a 15-foot boat dock extension from the 20 feet allowed to authorize a 35-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips for property located at 10684 Gulf Shore Drive, Baker-Carroll Point Subdivision, Unit 2 Block B, Lots I and 2, Monte Carlo Club Condominium, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) B. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC Liquors Inc., represented by Heidi K Williams, AICP of Q Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use of the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay to increase the maximum allowable square-footage of personal services, video rental, or retail uses (excluding drug stores, 5912) from 5,000 square-feet of gross floor area to 12,000 square-feet of gross floor area in the principal structure. The subject property, consisting of approximately 1.79+ acres of land, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the CR951 and US41 intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John- David Moss) C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13060, Naples Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Laura DeJohn, AICP, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., requests a Conditional Use in the Mobile Home Overlay within the Agricultural zoning district (A-MHO) pursuant to 2.03.0I.A.I.c.7 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.96 acre A- MHO zoned site is proposed to permit a Church with a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. The subject property is located at 2140 Moulder Drive, Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) D. Petition: RZ-2007-AR-12044. Immokalee LLC, represented by Shaun Mularkey, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Multi-family-16 (RMF-16) Zoning District to permit a multi-family development on 9.33% acres with a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR-846) and School Road, in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, in the unincorporated Immokalee area of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) E. Petition: RZ-2007-AR-12394, Ernest N. Freeman, Jr. of Freeman and Freeman, Inc., requests a Rezone from the Mobile Home zoning district to the Village Residential zoning district for the residence at 428 and 432 13th Street East. The .38 acre lots (each lot is .19 acres) site is proposed to build a single family home to be used for affordable housing. The property is located at 428 and 432 13th Street East, Section 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) WITHDRAWN 10. OLD BUSINESS I I. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 8/7/08 CCPC Agenda/RBlsp 2 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I pause sometimes before the pledge starts, it's so Brad -- we're not pledging Brad's back. He has to walk over to the side first. So I just thought I'd let you know. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Page 2 August 7, 2008 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. For everybody in the audience who is here for Item 9(C), it's the Naples Baptist Church, Inc. on 2140 Moulder Drive. That petition is being requested to be continued to August 21 st. So if you're here for that one today, it will not be heard today, it will be heard on August 21 st. The other item on the agenda -- or that's not on the agenda but for discussion is our next meeting is August 13th. I need to know if we have a quorum. And it would be in the evening starting at 5:05 in these chambers. It was a continuation from the last LDC meeting. Our packet for that should have been either submitted -- we already have our packet and staff was going to let us know what items in the packet we're going to hear that evening. I haven't seen that information yet. But we do already -- the mess of the materials has already been distributed. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I can have Catherine send that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, please. And you might want to caution her not to send us or bring any more changes to the packet based on last meeting. If she has a change, that item gets pulled and it goes for a IS-day notice. So we just need to make -- keep aware of that as we set the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we're going to stick to the IS-day time limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #4 Page 3 August 7, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the planning commission, does anybody here know they will not make it that evening? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating). COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney and Mr. Adelstein. Okay, with that, we have a quorum. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the agenda with the exception that we will continue 9(C) to 8/21 ? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the motion, Mr. Murray seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to caution staff, on that particular item this board needs to have the missing paperwork well in advance of the item being heard so we can review it ourselves. So, you know, let's not wait till the day before, two days before, and we Page 4 August 7, 2008 need to have it in a timely manner. Thank you. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 27, 2008, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. June 27th, regular meeting. Has everybody reviewed those? Are there any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, Mr. Adelstein seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #6 Page 5 August 7, 2008 BCC REPORTS - RECAPS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report, not available at this time. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I have something but I'll wait till new business to introduce it. Item #8A PETITION: BD-2008-AR-12802, VANDERBILT SURF COLONY RECREATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda items. We have two of them. First one is Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreational and Maintenance Association. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. That petition, on A, I believe that I mentioned to Ashley at our last meeting when we did not hear this on consent that it was stated in the hearing that dock number one would not need an extension, it is 20 feet. If it got the 25 feet, it would be out into the channel. So 1 think that was what Mr. Scofield had stated on the record. And so the consent needs to be changed so that its items -- boat docks two through seven get the five-foot extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I thought that was the reason that we ended up continuing the decision on this one is to get that issue resolved. Has it been resolved from staffs perspective? MR. WRIGHT: Commissioners, good morning, Jeff Wright for Page 6 August 7,2008 the record, Assistant County Attorney. I did review the record after hearing this concern. And going back to the record, it's very clear that Commissioner Caron expressed a concern about the length of that particular dock, at the entrance. And I have a passage from the record I'd like to read that's going to lead me to the conclusion that I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. This is -- as part of the motion to approve, Commissioner Caron said, I'm most concerned about the length ofthe docks with the boats in the throat there. There's barely 100 feet and their neighborhoods to the south have only 20 feet. There's no reason that the boats in the throat couldn't be limited to 20 feet. And the motion maker, Commissioner Vigliotti, said, but they fall within that 25 percent, correct? And Chairman Strain said, right. And Commissioner Caron responded, they do fall within that 25 percent, yes. And that's in the transcript. And after that discussion the commission moved on to discussion of seawall and draft. So based on my review, even though there was a discussion, when I looked at the application, the statements, exhibits and discussion on the record and the motion to approve the application without a stipulation with respect to slip number one, my conclusion is that slip number one did get a five-foot extension like the rest of them. COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, I believe that if you had looked at the discussion portion, it was Mr. Scofield who said that that dock was only going to be 20 feet. MR. WRIGHT: I know exactly where you're talking about. It's on Page 18 of the transcript. And in that exchange Commissioner Page 7 August 7, 2008 Murray said, the last boat there, before you get out into the area there on the east, what size boat do you anticipate having there? And Mr. Scofield said, that would be a maximum of a 20-foot boat overall length. So 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. And Commissioner Murray responded, and if they extend out past that red line that you had on that other drawing, which was a 25-foot line, does that mean that they're in violation? And Mr. Scofield said, yes, that's correct. So that was the one exchange that I think may have led to the confusion that there may have been a limitation on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think there was any confusion, I think it was pretty clear that Mr. Scofield said that that dock could only get to 20 feet. MR. WRIGHT: And that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? COMMISSIONER CARON: And that I don't think it needed to be part of the motion. MR. KLA TZKOW: I just think what Mr. Wright's getting is clarification of the record. If you want to make a motion here and now that the intent of the planning commission was to exclude this dock from the variance, I think we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we could go that far, now we're changing an issue that -- we're not changing, we're clarifying an MR. KLATZKOW: Clarifying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue that may be in conflict with what the applicant believes. And the applicant's not here today. Is that a right thing to do? Oh, they are. Okay. I didn't see Rocky. Because I'd certainly Page 8 August 7, 2008 like to make sure that we're not going against something we previously didn't clarify to a manner that we don't need to have it reheard again, is all I'm trying to clarify. Ms. Caron, and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I'm glad to see Mr. Scofield here as well because I'm not trying to put words in his mouth. It was a discussion that we had. And you can clearly see by his drawing that it would not be possible to extend that dock out without bringing it out into the channel. It's sitting there at 20 feet right now. And that's what he stated on the record that it would have to be, because of where it's located. So, you know, I don't see any -- and I'd certainly like to hear from him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Scofield, could you address the issue, please? Yeah, you'll have to be sworn in, I'm sorry. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, I've been talking with Jeff a lot about this. And when you look at the numbers there -- I think the whole thing in this discussion is that boats do not extend out into the Vanderbilt Waterway. If you want to put that in the resolution, I think that's fine. I think it -- it was approved by this commission. All these first seven docks have a 20 -- have a five-foot extension. Does it work out there mathematically? Probably not. When you field adjust things, I don't want a boat sticking out 20 feet, three inches and be in violation and not extend into Vanderbilt Waterway. So I think you can take care of this if you say boats cannot extend into Vanderbilt Waterway, and leave the resolution passed as is, and just as an addition. COMMISSIONER CARON: Adding that as a stipulation is more -- works for me. My issue is not having the boats extend out into the channel. Page 9 August 7,2008 MR. SCOFIELD: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do we need a motion to do that or is the clarification on record today to the decision that was made at the last meeting or the meeting on which this was discussed enough? MR. KLATZKOW: Let's have a motion on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have a consent agenda item, Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreational Maintenance. There's been an additional agreed-to stipulation by the applicant that the docks will not extend out into the Vanderbilt Waterway. Is there a motion to recommend approval for that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you. Page 10 August 7,2008 MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Chairman, do you want this brought back again or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, please, spare us. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next consent agenda item is the Tamiami Crossings CPUD. In the discussion that we had there was a concern over one of the items that we had stipulated involving the request for the deviation involving the parking. Staff had originally included the deviation only for the master plan Exhibit A that was originally submitted. When the alternative master plan came in, staff wanted to limit the deviation to just the original master plan and not have it apply to both. If I recall correctly, the applicant said it really should apply to both and entered testimony to that effect. I believe that the staff then agreed to that. And I'd have to double check to be sure. And then there was some errors in the way the references to the paragraphs in that same deviation were listed. Some were E.1.2 or D.1.3, and they should have all been consistent with the document. We had made a motion to clean up the 50 percent language and then to fix those errors. Apparently at the time we made that motion staff thought they were clear on what we meant by that. But in trying to write it up, as you can see by a memo in the file, it isn't clear. And they're looking for clarification. I believe what I just reiterated is the clarification, but I certainly can stand to be corrected if someone remembers it differently. I'm just going by what minor notes I made that day. Does anybody else have any comment on it? Page 11 August 7, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I think what the clarification is from my understanding by cleaning up the 50 percent language means that it isn't subject to just the individual master plan, it would be subject to both ofthem, and that was the clarification that was needed. With that in mind, ifthere's no other comment, then I'd like to have a motion to accept the item on the consent. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Bellows, is staff clear now as to what the planning commission wants on this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval for this on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 12 August 7,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion carries 9-0. Cherie', I bet I'm talking too fast already, huh? This housekeeping stuff, I try to get through it, you know. Thank you. Okay, let's move into the regular items on the agenda. Item #9 A PETITION: BD-2006-AR-9061, MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one is advertised public hearing, is 9(A). And it's Petition BD-2006-AR-9061, the Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, which is up on Gulf Shore Drive at Baker-Carroll Point Subdivision. Dock extension. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. Anybody intends to speak on this, please rise so the court reporter can swear you in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- like all of us, I think we've received e-mails, they came in our packet. But I did talk to Mr. Scofield resolving (sic) a question about, I think, the surveyors. And I'm sure it will -- 1'11 have the question back up here again today. So other than that, we'll move forward with presentation by the applicant. MR. KURTH: Good morning. For the record, Quin Kurth, Turrell & Associates, representing the Monte Carlo Club. In may, I'd like to pass out some exhibits. This morning we're requesting a IS-foot extension from the Page 13 August 7, 2008 allowed 20 feet for a total protrusion of 35 feet from the mean water high line, which is located on the seawall. This extension is needed to facilitate the mooring of 20 additional vessels, for a total of 34 vessels. We do meet the Manatee Protection Plan, marina siting criteria, and we have a moderate ranking, which allows 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. That allows us 70 total vessels. However, as mentioned before, we are only proposing 34. We do not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway. We meet setbacks. The remaining navigable channel is 140 feet wide versus the 60-foot navigable channel under Bluebill Bridge, as you can see on the exhibit. Therefore, we're not proposing to impact navigation. We have received state and federal permits to dredge in order to reduce our total protrusion. Weare and do wish to include a three-foot draft restriction as requested in the Manatee Protection Plan. The wet slips are only to be utilized by Monte Carlo residents. And I believe that's it, unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we start with the questions. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The existing 14 docks, what's the length of those? MR. KURTH: Those are 30 feet. There is a sovereign submerged land lease via the state that is out 40 feet. And in may, I'd like to describe that a little bit. Right now the submerged land lease boundary is still at 40 feet; however, the state likes a five-foot clearance just for, you know, to prevent any future compliance issues. COMMISSIONER CARON: It looks like according to the permit that you have for those 14 docks that it's 10 feet out and then -- MR. KURTH: It does vary. Forty is the average. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the line that's sitting here-- MR. KURTH: Are you talking about the submerged land lease Page 14 August 7, 2008 boundary or the protrusion? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, the boundary is 10 feet from your seawall. MR. KURTH: That is the property line. COMMISSIONER CARON: And those docks extend beyond that property line 20 feet -- MR. KURTH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for a total of30 feet. MR. KURTH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the existing docks you're talking about? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the existing docks. MR. KURTH: Correct, the existing dock, and were originally permitted through the county, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, while we're on that same question, in the same line with Ms. Caron's question then, if you have -- 10 feet of these docks exist on your own property, then; is that what you're saying? MR. KURTH: Correct. That's what the survey shows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then you're got 20 feet for what should be on the waterway -- MR. KURTH: Though in reality -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then you want five more feet on top of that. So you're looking at a five-foot extension beyond the point of where a property line is measured from, but it's 15 feet beyond the seawall because you moved the seawall 10 feet in on the property that -- do you know why that would -- why would anybody give up 10 feet of their property -- MR. KURTH: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on that waterfront? MR. KURTH: I couldn't tell you. Page 15 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's pretty odd. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's an old development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on -- from the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might have a couple, so hang on a second. I think my questions will be of staff. Are you intending to install boat lifts here? MR. KURTH: They are optional, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, my questions will be of staff. Thank you. Hearing no -- oh, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Lifts and covers, it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, section three criteria, which is some of the secondary criteria three, indicates that the length of the vessel or vessels along the docks should not exceed 50 percent of the linear waterfront frontage. And this looks to me like it does exceed that. MR. KURTH: Correct. And I believe that is pertinent to single-family homes, not multi-family. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But if it's applicable to single-family, what differs it from being applicable to multiple family? I mean, isn't the object to keep a little openness there and not to close everything in? MR. KURTH: Well, single-family you're allowed two vessels. Multi-family it's depending on the state, federal or local criteria. I mean, you have so many more units. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Another question I had was can they release or rent these slips, the people that own them? MR. KURTH: The slips may be rented. However, they will be only utilized by residents of Monte Carlo. Page 16 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And they're the only ones that can rent it then? MR. KURTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. The other thing was, looking at your dredging drawing you're bringing the dredging all the way up to the seawall. And it goes down to minus four as far as the depth of it. MR. KURTH: Correct. Actually, the dredging -- it does start from the seawall, it goes down at a two-to-one slope to four feet, so it's not a straight four-foot dredge next to the seawall. But yes, we are dredging to the seawall as close as we can to prevent any further protrusion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if you dredge there, wouldn't you be able to draw the boats all the way up to the seawall? MR. KURTH: Not necessarily. I believe we can with what we're doing now. That has been proposed in order to prevent any structural damage to the existing seawall. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: See, I don't see the justification of extending the pier when you could dredge it and you're going to dredge it up and draw the boats up to the seawall. Then you still would be within the 20-foot extension that is permitted. MR. KURTH: In may, I'd like to present a cross-section drawing. As Mr. Kolflat had described, the dredging does start from the seawall. In order to prevent any structural damage to the seawall or have to replace that seawall -- and if I may start from there, in most cases if you replace a seawall most times people just put another seawall in front of that, which would actually increase the protrusion. So what we're doing is we're taking the dredging of a two-to-one slope and going to four feet. As you can see there's just a couple feet, maybe a few feet, I can measure it if you'd like, between the vessel and the seawall now. I don't think it would be that appropriate to put Page 17 August 7, 2008 it right on the seawall just to prevent any damage to the vessel or the seawall, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you can see from the bow of the boat that's the shallowest draft on the boat and therefore it could go pull up toward the seawall. MR. KURTH: Correct. Ifwe dredge four feet all the way to the seawall, yes, you may be able to pull in a couple more feet. But like I said, you don't want to put the bow of the boat on the seawall itself, just with waves and wind. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's the only questions I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Besides saying that I agree with Mr. Kolflat, I had another question here with regard to these are an older -- this is an older condominium and it's a real three-story building, as opposed to what we consider three-story buildings now. If you do lifts and boat covers on these, will you be blocking the view of those on the first floor, or is the slope -- I mean, I know that-- but it does slope upward slightly. MR. KURTH: That's a good question. It really depends on the boat, on how high they put the boat on the lift. Normally I would say no, you're looking at a three-foot increase in rise with the vessel. I don't think it's personally going to make that big of a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, in the ordinance for boat lift, it would be 12 and a half feet from the top of the seawall, which would be the first story. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's why my question. MR. KURTH: I'm sorry, say that again, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the ordinance for the canopy, it can't be higher than 12 and a half feet measured from the top of the Page 18 August 7, 2008 seawall, which would totally block out the first floor. MR. KURTH: Correct. And I was speaking specifically towards boatlifts, I'm sorry. For the canopy, yes, that may cause an issue. And if you'd like, we can get a motion to exclude boat houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I still have concerns about the density or the magnitude of boats in this area. Our primary criteria number one says whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length location upland use and zoning of the property. Well, looking at this petition, every part of that waterfront lineage is -- with a boat in it. In other words, it uses up 100 percent of the space. MR. KURTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there leaves no latitude for what is appropriate. I mean, if it's going to -- you can block out the whole waterfront with boats, what's the purpose of this first criteria? MR. KURTH: If! might respond to your question, per the Manatee Protection Plan, like I said, we're allowed 70 vessels. We're only proposing 34. With the multi-family residence, I believe there's 98 units. With that we're trying to get as much as we can. We have dredged to prevent the total protrusion. Also, if! might add, with the state agency, we have completed a proprietary deed of conservation easement, which states that we're not allowed to propose any additional docks. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, but this application will have 34 boat slips and there are 54 residential units there that subscribe to that. That's 60 percent of the residential units would have boats, supposedly. Now that compares to the rest of the Collier County which has 25,000 registered boats and say a population of 350,000 to six percent. Page 19 August 7, 2008 In other words, there's a substantial difference there between the density of boats in the living area, this area, than there is for the whole county. And that concerns me as far as this waterway becoming so congested that both from the observation impacts to other neighbors and other people in the area plus the usage of the water becomes a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a -- did you have a question there or just making a statement? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, I think I made a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure we weren't expecting a response. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd welcome a response, but it was a statement. MR. KURTH: And I agree. I think Vanderbilt Lagoon has got lots of boats. I don't -- as a consultant, it's tough for me, because I don't see too much more going on in Vanderbilt Lagoon. Fortunately for my applicant they do have 712 linear feet of shoreline, they do meet the Manatee Protection Plan. And as tough as the environmental permitting is with state and federal agencies, you go for as much as you can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear from staff now. MR. KURTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta with the Department of Zoning. I've received five letters from neighboring property owners. Have you received them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two came in yesterday in the e-mail. Page 20 August 7, 2008 MS. CASERTA: According to staff review, they meet all of the criteria that are applicable. And I'd like to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are the prior docks permitted? MS. CASERTA: The existing docks? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. CASERTA: Yes, they were approved by building permit. That was before the requirement for planning commission approval. And I've got a copy of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And did they get an extension permit or -- MS. CASERTA: It wasn't required at that time. It was done by building permits, so they were approved out to 30 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ashley, the requirement for the code is 20 feet, correct? MS. CASERTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everybody is expecting to have a 20- foot dock. MS. CASERTA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do you think we should give them the 10 feet, this additional dock, just because we can or -- and the concern I have is the criteria, is that, you know, back in 2006 when we added that to the LDC, prior to that it was just a staff method of coming up with what's an acceptable dock. And again, to my fellow commissioners, this was the problem expressed, that once we put it in in 2006, the appearance is that it's a score card, we just check it off, correct? MS. CASERTA: Well, staffs job is to evaluate the petition according to the criteria and recommend approval or not. Page 21 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way you do that is with a scoring method of, you know, five of these and four of those, correct, of the criteria? Unfortunately it's been dragged into the code. But the impression is that we don't have to give them the thing. I mean, the code requires 20 feet. If there's a circumstance where they need to go further, then I think we can use that criteria to do it. The scoring part of it I think's a disaster. And I expressed it in 2006 and we're having a problem today. But anyway, is there any reason why they shouldn't have the code required 20 feet? MS. CASERTA: Well, it's -- staff doesn't have an opinion on whether or not they should get an extension. I think -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The projects that come in before us, the property owners have the right to request further extension for the boats that they feel they need and for the water depth available. It meets the criteria. Ashley's correctly noted that this petition is consistent. If the planning commission has other opinions of the consistency, please express them and we'll have the vote reflect that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But with the addition of the criteria as part of our mandate that we have to now keep score too, is the intent that we solely just run through the criteria, and if we agree with it and then we add up the score at the end then they're allowed it if we -- criteria, is that what we should be doing today? Jeff? MR. KLA TZKOW: This isn't scoring. You review the criteria. If there's something about this criteria that you find particularly onerous to give it, then you say no. If they meet all of the criteria, then they're entitled to it. If they do not meet all the criteria, they are not entitled to it. We don't keep score. It's not like it's 5-2 here or 4-3 there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But here it says it must Page 22 August 7, 2008 be determined that at least four of the five. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but it's at least. But you can say because of criteria one we don't believe we should grant this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we can -- all right. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, one of the criteria-- let's just kind of run through to make sure. You stated that it needs this because there is that oyster bed area. It meets the criteria because the water's too shallow up against it. But then in that same paragraph you're noting that they're removing it. So do you agree that criteria two is still met? MS. CASERTA: Which one are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Criteria two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Primary or secondary, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me -- it's a primary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be on Page 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of these are like, they're just -- I mean, I really think we have to look at this section again. But do you agree with number two, that it's met? Because what you're stating is that it's too shallow because of the oyster bed, and then the end of that paragraph you're citing how they're removing the oyster bed. So don't you think it's not met? MS. CASERTA: Well, I think it has to do with the maximum length of 35 feet as described in the petitioner's application as well. A 35-foot boat would never fit in a 20-foot protrusion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the hardship here is to try to get 35-foot boats. Okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, actually I was just going to follow up with that, because they have a dredge permit so that negates first criteria number two. Page 23 August 7,2008 It also does the same for secondary criteria one and criteria number two on secondary. I mean, if the docks are only 20 feet in length, the same thing would apply, they would still have reasonable safe access. So, I mean, I think we're not looking at what's being proposed, I think we're checking off. And so I guess it's definitely up to us to look and say that these criteria are not being met and there is no need for this. They have docks right now, that there's no reason they can't extend the docks that they have right now. I mean, extend them around, not out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- did you want to ask -- are you asking that as a question of -- a statement? Do you want a response to it from anybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think Ashley has just said she's, you know -- MS. CASERTA: The one thing that I can say is in primary criteria number two, it reads whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as described in the petitioner's application. So I have to take into consideration what they are proposing and not have an opinion on what should be there. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would just say that that might be true if there were no docks here at all. They have 14 docks with boats currently there that seem to be doing just fine. So there isn't a water depth problem. If the goal is just to bring bigger boats into the backwaters and into the lagoon, then I guess we should cite that as criteria, but I don't know that that's the point of the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to follow up with Donna too is that he stated that the draft's going to be three feet. The section Page 24 August 7, 2008 he showed us, they're going to dredge it to four. So the 35 feet has nothing to do with the boat they want to bring in, unless they want to bring in a large length boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing on that, I know from experience, that you've got to dredge at least a foot deeper than what you're trying to moor. I'm not trying to defend it or say it's right, I'm just telling you why they may have gone to four. If they're going to go to three-foot draft then they have to go to four feet to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, a statement. I'm not taking issue necessarily, but just to say under criteria number two I read that as well, but I saw it as the dredging was not to reverse the issue or not to -- I don't see it as negating it, as was mentioned. I see it to help accommodate, and there's a safety issue, you're dealing with equipment. A vessel too close to the wall is not a good condition. So I didn't see it as absolutely negating it. So I don't take the same position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think, Mr. Murray, what's happened here is because the seawall has not been used for dockage right along, it's built up with oyster beds, and so that's the reason that they need to dredge. It's not that there's not enough depth there, they have to get them out of there in order to -- or they'd be extending out even further. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. Just briefly a dialogue. I -- in relation to that, I wondered if this were approved after all is said and done and the docks are in there and even the lifts, I wonder how they would dredge the next time when all those beds fill in again. So that was going through my mind. Page 25 August 7, 2008 But I think this is an interesting conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just a comment. I noticed that one of the letters of objections talked about the congestion of the waterway and especially Wiggins Pass. And somebody that uses the park, I notice quite a bit of erosion along the banks because of just the heavy, constant traffic of boats going in and out. It doesn't seem as though this is the best idea. But according to the criteria we have here, that's irrelevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hence the problem with what we did in 2006, I might add. But Ray, what is the reason we have a requirement for a 20-foot dock? I mean, the problem I have with these boat docks is I assume that the county says you can have a 20-foot dock. If in fact you have a water situation -- and we've done this before, there's been shallows and we've had to let these docks go out to get to the water where they could actually get a lift under it, we've gone along with that. But there is a requirement to 20 feet. The reason we give them the extension is because they can't even get the 20- footer, so we let them go out far enough to get 20 feet in deep enough water. But why do we have a 20- foot requirement? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I've been with the county 20 years and it's been a 20-foot standard since that time. It was before I came here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And we just live with 20 feet then. That's what the law says you can have is a 20-foot dock, unless you have a depth problem. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, I have one. Manatee Protection Plan. The area that this particular facility is in on the Manatee Page 26 August 7,2008 Protection Plan, Page 74, shows that it has adequate depth. And then we get into areas going through Turkey Bay that does not have adequate depth in Turkey Bay. Do you know what that means in regards to the maximum depth then that would be allowed typically for docks along here? MS. CASERTA: I can explain it as I understand it. But I had a conversation over e-mail with Quin and Susan Mason from Environmental Services yesterday. And as I understand it, that's why they're being restricted to the three-foot draft is because of water depth that's going out into the open waters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But does the determination of the Manatee Protection Plan on the number of boats you're allowed to have, is it based on the adequate depth of the immediate area you're in, or is it based on the depth that you need to get to in order to utilize your boat to the purpose intended, which is to the Gulf? Because those two different areas have absolutely different -- for use of -- lack of a better word, scoring within the Manatee Protection Plan. And I'm just wondering how one affects the other. MS. CASERTA: If it's okay with you, I'll refer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. CASERTA: -- Susan Mason, she's a little more knowledgeable. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The Manatee Protection Plan does require an evaluation of the water depth, adequate water depth from the property out to open water, whether it be some dredged navigable waterway or the Gulf. And that is part of the evaluation. This site does meet the standard of moderate, and -- because it doesn't have adequate water depth all the way out. But it does not -- it also does not have a problem with manatee use. And the way that's judged is the number of manatee deaths in that area. Page 27 August 7,2008 And then also there's no impact to either mangroves or sea grass beds, any kind of marine habitat. So that's how they earned a moderate ranking. So what they've requested is well under what they're allowed. Moderate rankings allow 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. So I think they're allowed up to 71 boats -- 712 feet of shoreline is what they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Mason. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Susan, didn't the county just get money from the federal government to look at water quality here in Vanderbilt Lagoon because of an overabundance of boats and poor water quality caused from both boating and runoff and probably multiple things? There obviously is no sea grass around here -- MS. MASON: Not in this immediate area. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because of the water quality. MS. MASON: I don't know about any federal grants that may have been done. That section is now a different division and I'm not -- it used to be in my department, I was able to sort of hear about things that were going on. And I really don't know. I don't know if anyone else here does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if we can get a response. Did you have a response to that question? MR. KURTH: Yeah, I think I might be able to answer your question. If! recall correctly, I believe that water quality was requested in order to permits -- to dredge the channel from Vanderbilt Lagoon out to Wiggins Pass to four feet. I know we have a survey from I think it's '04 -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's actually two different things. We actually got some additional funding to study water quality in the lagoon itself, having nothing to do with dredge permits for the pass Page 28 August 7, 2008 itself. MR. KURTH: Okay, I thought that -- okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's two different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, my point's quick. To correct the math is that we have 712 feet of shoreline, so the answer is not 71, it's seven. One per 100. MS. MASON: No, it's 10 per 100 feet at moderate. It's one per 100 with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay, then I sit corrected. MS. MASON: -- restrict -- I can't think of the opposite of the preferred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit was one per 100, I think it would have not gotten quite this far today. With everybody that's been looking at this, it would have been pulled back a long time ago. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have three registered speakers. The first is Carol Wright, to be followed by Lew Schmidt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you come up to speak, please identify yourself and five minutes to speak, please. MS. WRIGHT: Carol Wright. And I'm going to relinquish my speaking time to Mr. Lew Schmidt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Lew Schmidt. I live at 405 Pine A venue in the VanderbiJt Beach area. I live on a finger street. I am also a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association board. There are a few of us in the area at this time of year. Unfortunately we don't have all of our board members here to come to Page 29 August 7, 2008 you with a decision by the board. But I am here on behalf of myself and the board members that are here to express our concerns about a trend that we seem to be seeing in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And the trend is to bigger docks and bigger boats. And this is an example of the trend. We're not so much concerned about how far the dock goes out in the water, it's what size boat can you put on a 35-foot dock. And I think you all well know that a 35-foot dock can handle a 40-foot boat or more, depending upon where it's at and where it's configured. A 35 to 40-foot boat has a beam of 12 feet or more of width at the widest point. It has an operating draft of three- and- a-half to four feet. And I put emphasis on operating draft. The draft, the three-foot draft that you're seeing is a dry draft. A wet draft with fuel and water on board puts that boat further in the water. You also have a concern about the depth from the waterline to the bottom of the prop. The depth you're looking at is to the lowest point in the hull. Props often are lower than the hull depth. And that's particularly true of these new go fast boats that have 750 to 900-horsepower on the back of them. And you could put one of those on these docks. The problem is the channel. As you know, Water Turkey Bay is very restricted. It is narrow. It is posted as having three foot at mean low tide. But Florida Fish and Wildlife within the last year actually measured that and found that it was only 22 to 27 inches deep, not three feet. How do these big boats get up and down the channel? They have to hold themselves to the center of the channel and they must play the tide. And that's okay except what do little boats do that share this waterway with these big boats? They have to avoid them. They run a chance of being pushed out of the channel, they run a chance of being grounded. And it's all to accommodate boats that were never intended to be taken care of in our community. Page 30 August 7,2008 The reason for the 20-foot dock restriction is to control the size of the boats. You can get a 20 or 25-foot boat on a 20-foot dock, and you will hold your draft to two, two-and-a-half feet, which works in that waterway. But the deeper draft does not. And we would ask you to consider what -- the dangers to navigation through that narrow channel, narrow and shallow channel. Could it be dredged? It could. Is it realistically (sic) to think that that channel can be dredged to more than three foot? I don't think so. Water Turkey Bay is very shalIow in a very large body of water. Any channel you dig through there is going to silt in very rapidly and you're going to have the same or worse problem than what we have at Wiggins Pass trying to maintain that channel. We would urge you to hold the line on the current LDC permit of a maximum of a 20- foot boat dock length. That would give us comfort. And in the meantime, from this time on, we would urge you to support a study of that waterway to determine how many boats can share that waterway and what is the maximum size of the boats that can use that water safely, navigate it safely. And I thank you for your consideration and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, are you -- you mentioned 35-foot boats would be docked here, could be docked at these piers. Are you aware that the state land lease agreement that they have allows them to put a 40- foot boat in there if they want? MR. SCHMIDT: That's the point, yes, they probably could. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So really we're talking about the possibility of 40-foot long boats there rather than 35-foot long boats. MR. SCHMIDT: Exactly. And in fact, in the illustration, the illustration showed the boat going to the end of the dock. But as a Page 31 August 7,2008 matter of fact, the boat will extend out into the waterway an additional five feet, give or take, to allow for the engines and the hull itself. Thank you, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand your enthusiasm. But you've said quite strongly that the reason that the dock is 20 feet is in order to restrict the size of the boat. You heard that staff was unable to say that with the certainty that you did. How is it that you know that, sir? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm relying upon some research that some of our board members have done, and couldn't be here. I think you know Bruce Burkhard and Susan Snyder. Neither of them could be here. And they are both very good researchers. And I get the impression from them that this is the reason for that length. And it makes good sense to me and I think you should stick to -- I would urge you to sustain that length until you can look into it more and make a study -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate that. I just -- you said it with such certitude that I just wondered if you knew something that they didn't know. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one. The crux of your comments seem to be on the size of the boat, thus related to the depth. They have a right -- they're here today only for one reason: For an extension. Basically the extension is five feet more than what comparable locations are like in that area. They don't have to be here if they were only to go to 20 feet. If they were to go to 20 feet, they could put in 70 boats. They Page 32 August 7,2008 could do that by going down to the building department and getting a building permit. Is that more preferable to your organization than 34 boats -- or actually, how many, there's nine or so many in place, the additional boats they're asking here today, is it more important for you to stop those additional boats to the number that they're talking about because of their length versus allowing 70 to go in unrestricted? MR. SCHMIDT: I will first answer your question directly, and then I would like to expand upon it. Our residents and members of the board have no objection to the 20-foot dock. We are concerned about the allowance under the Manatee Protection Act. But you have to be reasonable about this. They can have 10 in 100 feet. But if you put 10 slips within 100 feet, the slips can only be 10 feet wide. Then you have to have pilings in there, and then there is no walkway to get from the shore to the boat. You can't practically put that many boats in that space. They might be able to get more than the 34 that they're asking for, but it certainly is not going to go to 70; they're prohibited by common sense and facts of measurement. They just won't fit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if they were not to receive the extension today and they came back with an application and just got as many boats as they could fit in there, whether it be 50, 40, 60, whatever, that is more preferable to your organization than the extension that they're asking for today? MR. SCHMIDT: I have to say that is correct. We're very concerned about the large boats and trying to share the waterway with very large boats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business in this meeting, I have a letter from The Conservancy in a response to an issue that I brought up to them a month ago or two months ago involving loading capacity on waterways.¹ Page 33 August 7,2008 They've agreed there is a problem. They would like to see something done and would help in any kind of study that's initiated. And I would hope that your organization, as well as Turrell & Associates and all the others, would want to participate in such a program so that we can have a count as to what the waterways can hold. And under new business I was going to discuss that possibility today. MR. SCHMIDT: I think we would absolutely support that endeavor and we would participate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? And it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's kind of what you were saying. Ashley, isn't the most they could have is 54? They can only have one per unit, correct? MS. CASERTA: Yes. Well, that's under the extension criterion. I would have to get back to you as far as how many they could actually have without an extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the 10 per 100, isn't that for a commercial establishment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was for a multi-family docking facility but -- or multi-slip docking facility. But I don't know if it differentiates, to be honest with you. MS. CASERTA: I'm sorry, I missed the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is the 10 per 100, that's for a commercial facility, or-- MS. CASERTA: That's Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. For commercial, right? MR. KURTH: That's for all the above. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's 54 residential here, correct? Page 34 August 7, 2008 MS. CASERTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they left it only -- okay, so there would be 54 at the most at 20 feet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ashley, the gentleman just got up and spoke and he's concerned about 40-foot boats. Can we put a 40- foot boat? What is the largest that can go in that? MS. CASERTA: That's what I wanted to put on the record. The extension is for 35 feet, and that's for the dock facility including boat. So nothing could protrude further than that 35-foot mark. That's the edge of the boat, the motor, whatever is back there cannot protrude. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Ashley, how do we monitor that those boats do not protrude? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, before you answer, since I have a lot of involvement with an issue like this, the DEP does the monitoring. They send inspectors out on a routine basis. They inspect very carefully. Not only do they inspect the length of the boats, they inspect every inch, lineal foot of every piece of wood that's placed out there and added at any time in the future. So -- and I know that for a fact because I'm dealing with some issues in that regard already. They've been very I think overly conscientious sometimes, but maybe that's to the good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Strain, they've been out there monitoring. And once they're done with this monitoring that you're going through now, when will they be back again to monitor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next month. They come out every month. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're going to come out monthly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have been doing that for 10 years. They've come out -- Page 35 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Geez, it wilI be interesting to find out how often they come in Vanderbilt Lagoon. I guarantee it's not monthly, it's not yearly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From what I see in that aerial, I would hope they don't come out in Vanderbilt Lagoon too often, because some of those houses on the right side seem to have issues already that show up on the aerial that, I don't know, I would think maybe it's a good thing they don't. But anyway, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this points out that when the county established the 20-foot regulation -- and Commissioner Murray, you know, the fact that Ray doesn't remember it doesn't mean that it's not a good number, it means that it happened before Ray got here. That means that they really intended to have 20-foot boats, because it does limit the size of the boat. The extensions that we've favored in the past is where obviously the person couldn't get the boat up close to his house and we had to take that 20-foot boat and move it further out. So the extension was not to allow bigger boats, it was to allow that person the right, if it didn't violate our criteria, to have his 20- foot boat further out than 20 feet. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I can put on the record that the LDC does not restrict boat size. So the boat dock extensions can and have been in the past used to allow for larger boats. There's nothing in the LDC that says the boat has to be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's get through this hearing. But after this hearing, Mark, let's have a conversation about boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have a -- under new business I have an issue involving this. And we need to get this one going forward. Page 36 August 7, 2008 Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron again. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I'd like to ask the attorney a question. As I understand it, they have a land lease agreement with the state here that allows them 40 feet as far as a boat they could dock there. Does the county ordinance negate that right that they have from the state? MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't say it negates it, but we have a 20-foot limitation. We can be more restrictive. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But we are limiting to 20 feet? MR. KLATZKOW: We limit to 20 feet unless they get an extension, which requires this board to approve it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that would limit the boat extension length to 35 feet. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what we're asking for here anyway. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Even though the state allows them to go to 40 feet if they wish. MR. KLATZKOW: We can be more restrictive. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate that most of the extensions that we have given have been for individual homeowners as well. It's very difficult to get these dredge permits. So for somebody with a water depth problem, individual residential home site would be very difficult. So the most cost effective way to go about it is to extend out as long as it doesn't interrupt the channel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions before we go to the next public speaker? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you call the next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Joe Connolly. Page 37 August 7, 2008 MR. CONNOLL Y: Mr. Schmidt covered everything that I would say. I yield. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Connolly re -- yeah, isn't going to-- MR. BELLOWS: He has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Withdrawn. MR. BELLOWS: Withdrawn his request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Ray, that's it? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant, you have an opportunity to say any closing comments, if you'd like. MR. KURTH: Thank you, and I'll be very brief. I just made a list in response to the public comments. Thirty-five protrusion includes the boat and the dock. This is what we're requesting today. This is going to be the total protrusions allowed, 35 feet. The submerged land lease is at 40 feet. It actually varies from 37 to 40 feet, and this is to prevent future compliance issues with the state. As Mark knows and I know, with three other projects in the immediate area compliance with DEP is not fun. It's nothing you want to get involved with. Today is 35 feet protrusion, that's what we're asking for. We do have a three-foot draft and that is to the bottom of the boat. If compliance were to go out there and check, it's three feet to the bottom of the boat, whether it's full of gas or it's empty. Ultimately we meet the criteria. I think we could request 40-foot boats today, but we're not. We have a lot of room in between the 25 percent width of waterway. We do meet the setbacks. If 54 is the upland units, then yes, 54 vessels would be the max we could have, if that's the number of upland units. And I believe that's it. As far as the submerged resources, the oysters along the seawall, Page 38 August 7,2008 it's just oyster debris, they're not live oysters. I have done -- completed a submerged resource survey and I have a drawing, if you would like to see it. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't have a question, I'd like to have a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have to close the public hearing first. Hearing no other questions, we'll do that. Public hearing -- we'll close the public hearing and now we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Based on my judgment, I do not believe this petition meets primary criteria one nor primary criteria two, nor secondary criteria three, nor secondary criteria four, nor in concert with some of the opinions rendered by the neighbors here at this public hearing. Therefore, I move that we recommend to the county commission denial of this petition. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion has been made by Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Ms. Caron. The motion needs discussion. Mr. Kolflat, you're citing primary criteria one and two. MR. KLATZKOW: This doesn't go to the Board of County Commissioners, this is your vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be another item I was going to ask. It ends here, Mr. Kolflat. So when we get done we'll amend your motion to recommend either approval or denial. And it's this board that makes the decision. It only goes to the BCC upon appeal. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm sorry, I misspoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But knowing that the appeal has Page 39 August 7, 2008 occurred in the past, one thing the Board of County Commissioners has asked, and you did this, is for us to state specifically why we are denying it. And you got into those issues, and I want to make sure they're real clear, so that if there is an appeal to the BCC, they understand why this board took that position. Primary criteria one is the number of boat dock or facilities or boats such proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland use and zoning of the subject property. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I do not believe it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Primary two is talking about the water depth. And I think this was the one where they're dredging so the water depth is not an issue; is that where you're -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's correct. The water is being dredged to begin with, so regardless of what boats they put in there they will have the depth necessary to use a 20- foot dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you got into your secondary criteria, and I believe the numbers you cited are? Can you say those again? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it says the length of vessels or vessels -- vessel or vessels does not exceed 50 percent of the linear waterfront frontage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's number three, right? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. And this does exceed 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Kolflat, it very clearly says-- and I'd rather we catch this concern now rather than have the BCC point it out to us -- it says for single-family dock facilities. It doesn't say for this application. So do you have another secondary criteria that you're concerned with? Because I don't know if that one really applies like you may believe it does. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think it applies, but 1'11-- Page 40 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But no, well, then I'd like to understand your reasoning, because it says for single-family dock facilities. And I'm not criticizing you, I want to make sure we send the message that's consistent and clear based on the language in front of us. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think the rationale for that is for open space, some open space when you have boats along the waterfront there. And therefore, the open space should still prevail and would be extended whether the upland use is single-family or whether it's marina or whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's your motion, so if you want to leave that one in there, that's fine. Is there another one in secondary criteria? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Secondary four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think that's been brought up by some -- the testimony today by the public speakers that neighbors would have to look at this, and plus the traffic of the waterways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Kolflat, on the primary criteria? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, this is to you. You know, our 2006 where we've added the wording about the criteria, that's really only to approve it. I mean, do we need -- how do we disapprove a thing? Can we focus on one of the criteria and -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think Chairman Strain's approach is the proper approach, that if you're going to be voting in the negative that you state your reasons for the record why you're voting in the negative and then take your vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the scoring system to Page 41 August 7, 2008 approve conversely is the scoring system to disapprove? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I don't really view this as a scoring system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's in there, I mean, it's-- MR. KLATZKOW: It's criteria that you're looking -- certain criteria. And from what I've heard from this planning commission's discussions is that you view the general rule in this county is 20 feet, then you want to see if there's a reason why you're not giving 20 feet here, such as lack of adequate depth of water. So now you're giving the reasons why you think they should not vary from the 20- foot mandatory requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, we'll save it for new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I will not be voting with the motion maker. I think we're here to decide whether this petition meets all the criteria required. We make the rules, we tell the petitioner what they must or must not do. They went through Army Corps, they went through DEP. In my opinion they've met all the criteria need be. Whether we like it or not or we think it's a great idea or not really doesn't factor in, in my opinion. I don't want to go off on tangents, as I said last time. I think we need to stick to what is presented to us, and I will not be voting with the motion maker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something else you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm fine right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's a motion made and it's been seconded. Needs a little bit of cleanup. The primary reasons that the motion maker has stipulated are numbers one and two and the secondary are three and four. And in the motion, he indicated recommend approval of the BCC. He needs to Page 42 August 7, 2008 change the motion to I'm assuming recommend denial? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second-- MR. KLATZKOW: Not recommend denial, to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deny, I'm sorry. Yeah, to deny. COMMISSIONER CARON: To deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second concur? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do agree with the motion with the exception of secondary criteria number three. I would include secondary criteria one and two as being more appropriate than three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion is for primary one and two, secondary three and four. So we either vote for the motion or we amend the motion or we have a new motion if there's any corrections needed. So I think if the second isn't going to vote for the motion and feels the criteria needs to change, we need to get that on the table. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll ask the motion maker ifhe were willing to change his motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Change his motion to what? COMMISSIONER CARON: Change the criteria stated in your motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I recommended primary criteria one and two, secondary three and four. COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed with one and two on primary. Three only applies to single-family residences, so it can't be used on this multi-slip facility. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'll withdraw that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we probably should be looking at one, two and four, if you want to use four. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would agree with that, as amending the motion. Page 43 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now the motion is for primary one and two, secondary one, two and four? And does the second agree to that? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded for primary one and two, secondary one, two and four. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some discussion. It's very short. I looked at these criteria, and when Mr. Klatzkow said something at the beginning of the meeting, it changed my position. I thought that if they met four out of six of the primary, then it was a given they had -- there was no way we could turn it down. But I think what you said in the beginning of the meeting, that we can turn down for not meeting anyone of the criteria. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. If you have a substantial reason to turn it down, you should turn it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. However, in reading the actual language of the code, I cannot concur with the motion maker's reasoning on primary one and secondary two and four. So based on that, I cannot support the motion as it's stated. Now, there is going to be a discussion under new business as to a loading of waterways. This is before that. Obviously this doesn't fall under any new criteria. So if that helps. But right now I can't support the motion maker, but only because they picked the wrong criteria that I feel isn't consistent with the reasoning of the code. So with that said, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm also agreeing with you, I don't agree with all of his criteria, but I'm definitely agreeing with primary criteria two. Is it possible that we might have a new motion to deny based on different criteria? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could if the first motion fails, Page 44 August 7,2008 yes. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is again something we did in -- MR. KLATZKOW: You guys, if you want, you could just make a motion to deny, then each of you give the various reasons why you're denying it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be much better, if the motion maker would accept that. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you accept just making a motion to deny? The second then would confirm that, and then as we vote we can state our reasons why we agree or disagree with you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're making a motion to deny? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, do you second it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The reason I stipulated that was that we were instructed at our last meeting that if we were to make a motion of this nature, it would be helpful to, whether it was the County Commissioner or anyone else, to state exactly what we are basing our motion on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand, sir-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In the past we haven't always done that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and we've still got to do that. But Mr. Klatzkow gave us a really good way to handle it, because we each have different reasons. Now during the motion, either affirming your position, we can Page 45 August 7,2008 state what primary and secondary criteria we're concerned with. So there's been a motion made and seconded to deny. I think we've had a lot of discussion, so now I'm going to ask starting with Mr. Kolflat, working our way across for a vote yea or nay. And if it's a support ofMr. Kolflat's motion to deny, then I need you to state your primary and secondary reasons, if any. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Jeff. Jeff, we have criteria to approve a boat dock, and it lists things like, you know, the number that -- things like that. But the reason is we have a requirement for 20-feet docks in Collier County. So isn't the first test is, is there a need to extend this dock past the requirement of 20 feet? Why do we --1 mean, it's going to be embarrassing to go through and come up with the criteria to approve, using it as a criteria to deny. Now I realize in the appeal they're going to go up before the commission and say look, we met all the criteria, why didn't they approve us. But that's not -- you know, we've messed the code up with this, but the code is to criteria to approve. And some of them are just, you know, adding up the numbers and stuff, it has nothing to do with really criteria. So can't we just deny this on the fact that there's no need for an extension? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that can be one of your reasons, yes. But I do think you should, if you believe they are not consistent with either the primary or the secondary, also state those as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, I think individually we can make our own minds up on how to say we want to deny it or not. I'm not going to go along with your reasoning at all, so I'm going to still say what I'm going to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay, Mark. But the Page 46 August 7, 2008 point is that making the commission go through the criteria I don't think is fair. I think, you know, we have a requirement of 20 feet. A lot of people in the county honor that and build 20-foot docks. This isn't fair to them to just not let that be the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to list criteria. No one has to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The BCC asked us to be clear why we vote for denial. I'm just trying to make sure we're as clear as possible. If you feel there's a better way to do it, then by all means in a minute or two when you get to vote, express yourself the way you want to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fire away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, your reasons for denial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do you want the criteria? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you'd like, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Criteria primary one and two, secondary four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to vote to deny. There's no reason to not build the county required 20- foot dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Deny because of primary criteria two and secondary criteria one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Deny based on primary criteria two and secondary criteria one and two. Additionally, I think there is just no reason why the extension -- why there is a need for an extension past the required 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm going to recommend -- I'm going to vote for support of the motion for denial for primary reasons two and three and secondary reason one. Mr. Adelstein? Page 47 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going to do it on primary one and two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein recommended denial as well -- or, yeah, support of the motion for denial. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to vote to approve, not the motion, but approve the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would be against the motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I am also against the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I am against the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 6-3. Thank you all. And I think we have -- Cherie', how are you holding out? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC LIQUORS INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that said, we will go on to the next case, Petition CU-2007-AR-I2419. It's a conditional use for ABC Liquors on the corner of95I and U.S. 41. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there testimony -- I'm sorry, disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Page 48 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a brief discussion by telephone with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich, and we discussed the -- trying to think of what it was we discussed. I know it's going to be brought up here again today, but it certainly was the type of uses and how this affected the overall uses in C-3, I think setback issues between the -- buffering issues between the neighbor to the north. And the rest we'll hear under testimony today. Mr. Y ovanovich, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Heidi Williams from Grady Minor & Associates, the professional planner on the project; Andres Correra -- Correa, I'm sorry, with -- the professional engineer on the project with Grady Minor; Reed Jarvi, Vanasse and Daylor, regarding traffic issues; Christina Stejskal from Boylan and Kim Schlachta from Boylan as well, ifthere are environmental issues. I'll do, as I usually do, a brief overview of the project, take you through the master plan. And if there's any specific questions, either I'll answer them or anybody else on the team can answer the questions. On the visualizer is an aerial showing you the location of the property. It's at the corner of Collier Boulevard and the East Tamiami Trail. As you can see on the very corner within the original project is CVS Pharmacy. Immediately to the north, you can see where the arrow is right now, that's the subject property where we're requesting the conditional Page 49 August 7,2008 use for the 12,000 square-foot building for ABC Liquors. Immediately to the north of that is a mini warehouse, self storage. And then as you look diagonally you can see kind of a curved road. That is the Falling Waters project. And further to the east on Tamiami Trail is additional commercial zoning. The property is currently zoned C- 3. The code was changed a few years back to provide square foot limitations on certain uses as a matter of right, and anything beyond that would require a conditional use process. I'm going to put the master plan up next. A few years back -- basically in 2002 there was a similar petition to deal with the ST overlay. There was the CVS and what -- the subject parcel was going to be a restaurant. We were unable to attract a restaurant user on that site. So a couple of years ago we came through with a revision to that and we were going to put an Office Depot on the site, so we revised the ST permit and obtained a conditional use for the Office Depot, as your staff report indicates. The conditional use is about to expire for that use and Office Depot was no longer interested in the site. ABC Liquors has acquired the site and is requesting the conditional use for a 12,000 square-foot ABC Fine Wine and Spirits store on this location. So we're in to request the conditional use for that use. The application itself, however, was submitted to allow all of the conditional uses under the C-3 that exceeded the limitations within the C-3 district. We have spoken to the client, and the client is agreeable and comfortable with limiting the conditional use to just the ABC -- or the liquor store conditional use above the 5,000 square feet. And if those plans change, would come back -- if they needed to get a conditional use or another use, they would come back. Page 50 August 7, 2008 We had a neighborhood information meeting. At the neighborhood information meeting the primary concern raised by the neighbors was the desire not to have interconnection between this site, pedestrian interconnection between this site and the Falling Waters project that I pointed out on the location. There were some concerns raised about traffic impacts, and staff pointed out that the transportation department would be reviewing the application and be making appropriate recommendations. Since that time, the -- there's been a developer contribution agreement in place to address traffic impacts at this corner and further east on U.S. 41. This ABC Liquors is a participant in that developer contribution agreement. So they know and we know that we cannot move forward until the developer contribution agreement conditions are met or there's an amendment to it that would allow ABC Liquors to go forward with the conditional use they're requesting. We have provided on the master plan -- I'm a little scared to see if I'm going to make too much noise -- interconnection between the parcels. This interconnection is already shown on the SDP for the CVS Pharmacy. This interconnection right here is not shown on their site development plan. So we would like to condition this interconnection upon CVS agreeing to that interconnection. They have raised some concerns about, you know, their drive-through and maybe that's not an appropriate interconnection point. But there is interconnection with the site, as you can see, as you're coming in either from U.S. 41 you can go through or pass CVS to the ABC Liquors and vice versa. If you're coming in on 951, you can go past ABC Liquors to CVS. So there's interconnection between the sites and it's already depicted on the SDP for CVS. This one we would like to have, but if it's a problem for CVS, we don't want to create any operational issues for them. So we would like that to be a conditional interconnection Page 51 August 7, 2008 instead of a required and mandatory interconnection. Regarding compatibility, you should have the back-up information. If you need additional testimony on each of the specific criteria, Heidi can provide that additional testimony. We have not been provided any copies of letters of objections or any objections from our neighbors. We thought the neighborhood information meeting went well. And again, the traffic issue and the interconnect issue are the issues that were raised, and we've agreed not to request any pedestrian interconnection. And we think the traffic issues have been resolved through the developer contribution agreement. That's a -- your staff is recommending approval. And we're requesting that the planning commission transmit this petition with a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners at their scheduled meeting for this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you, number one, for taking off the full range ofC-3. I wanted to ask you about the buffering which is against Falling Waters. Is that an enhanced buffer there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have agreed -- and when we were talking on the phone we actually agreed to the original 2002 buffering requirements, not the buffering requirements that were in the, I believe the 2005 petition, which were the same. So we are agreeing to the buffering conditions in the original ST overlay, including the plantings that were on that plan. I believe that is an enhanced planting plan, and I think Heidi can give you the details, if you need to, about how it's enhanced. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: She's got a better eye. She can read it. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. For the record, Heidi Page 52 August 7, 2008 Williams, with Grady Minor. In your staff report packet you've been given a copy of Resolution 02-422. Exhibit B contains the planting plan that we've committed to, and I'll place that on the visualizer for everyone to see. That may be a little difficult to read, but it is a commitment to additional planting. It is a combination of a buffering commitment and an environmental commitment for water management. We would obviously have a different floor plan there than is shown there, but the landscape planting along the property lines would be -- we are committing to the materials that are shown there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would you have a problem -- if you look at the site plan you showed as landscape around the building. But would you have a problem limiting public entrances to the northwest or the southwest side? I don't think it would be a good idea to -- on the southeast where you do have a lot of parking -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I point? Because you know how well I do directions. Are you talking about over there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the northwest. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is our front entrance to the building, so this is where people would be coming in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no -- the landscaping, where it's shown. But you'll limit it to that, the southeast side, which is where there's a lot of parking in the back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Back here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would not be a public entrance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no public entrance is planned there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Page 53 August 7, 2008 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. In your petition in 2005 for the previous one, which was submitted, the building shown for that Office Depot or whatever it was, something, a supply house, was farther to the back of the property away from Collier Boulevard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was. And it was a much larger building. And we located it there for a couple of reasons. The types of vehicles that would be delivering materials to Office Depot were basically semis, and we've agreed to no more than two-axle vehicles for deliveries here. So what we did is we moved the building further back so we could shield the deliveries with the building from the neighbors. And that was the reason we did it. Plus it was much bigger and you can actually see it better. This actually -- and Heidi can get into better detail. Moving the building a little closer to 951 is actually, one, increases visibility for the building, but I think it's also more consistent with the community character plan and the desires to allow for -- and Heidi will get into better detail on that one, but it's more in keeping with the community character plan. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My concern is, looking at both of these buildings are very large boxes, call them the big box type of building. And the way you have it now, the frontage of those two boxes is perfectly in line. And I was concerned that when you drive along Collier Boulevard, that that gives you kind of a canyon effect with those two faces in line; whereas, the way it was proposed the last time around was farther back there was a break in that continuity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you go back to the original 2002, you would see they were in line at that time, too. It really became a factor again in 2005 regarding the deliveries and the desire to make sure we kept the noise level down from those semis. And that's the reason the building got pushed back. It wasn't for any particular purpose of the Page 54 August 7,2008 break and individualization as you're coming down 951. It was really a desire to keep the noise level down because of those bigger vehicles. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will the height of these two buildings be the same? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if they'll be identical. I believe the C-3 is a 35-foot zoned height limitation. I can't tell you there's going to be exactly the same on the height because I don't know what the CVS building height is. Do you, Heidi? So it will be obviously within the 35-foot zoned height limitation. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the fact that you've decided to reduce the uses down to the one that you ask for, which is the liquor store, that took away most of my concerns. Because all my concerns stem from the uses that you were trying to get, not the one you are asking for. So I have some of staff, but I'll move to staffs presentation next. So thank you. And whoever staffs -- making the presentation for staff? MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. The subject site is a 1.79-acre parcel. And it is located on the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, which is U.S. 41. Comprehensive Planning Department reviewed this petition because it is within an activity center. It meets the criteria with the uses proposed, this being a conditional use because they're wanting to exceed the 5,000 square foot limitation. And with the agreements with the previous resolution, 02 -- let me get to that one. Resolution No. 02-422, to ensure that the compatibility within the surrounding neighborhood, staff is approving Page 55 August 7,2008 this conditional use. Forgive me for not being as thorough on this project, because I'm stepping in for the planner who was assigned to this. But I will try to answer any questions you do have for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's because of that reason I'm not going to ask you about the findings. MS. ZONE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Melissa, we're at 10:00. So now that you're finished with your presentation, before we start our questions, we'll take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10:15. And by the way, if anybody's waiting, it was my error, Item 9(E), which is an Ernest Freeman issue for the mobile home zoning district and village residential in Immokalee, that petition has been withdrawn. So if you're here for that one today, it will not be heard, it's been withdrawn. So thank you all, and see you at 10: 15. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break everyone, and we'll continue with the wrapping up with the county staffs presentation. With that, Melissa? MS. ZONE: Thank you. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. It was brought to my attention, on Page 7 of the staff report, the Environmental Advisory Council did not review this petition, and though it says why it didn't review it, it says because no protected species were on-site or wetland impacts were identified on the site. Actually, there were wetland impacts, but the EAC had reviewed it at a previous EIC for the site when it first had to come in. The reason why they didn't have to review it this time around was because there were no additional impacts. And so just to correct that. Page 56 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that clarification. MS. ZONE: And if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for me. I have one. But Nick's not here. It's no fun to pick on him when he's not here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: He's in the hall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In could ask one question while you're waiting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And mine is just to make sure the record is clear. On 9 of 10, and it's the -- for staff recommendations, the applicant must abide by -- that's number three, terms of the developer contribution agreement. Is that date the most recent date? MS. ZONE: Correct. And it's attached to this staff report. And it is -- I will tell you. They have it right after -- it's after Resolution No. 02-422. And it shows it after the site plans, you'll see a warranty deed. And then it has developers contribution agreement. And this -- the developer is part of this agreement, and they are abiding to all of the contribution agreements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate it. What I was trying to get on the record was that the developer hasn't amended beyond that. That's the one we're working with. MS. ZONE: No. If the board is comfortable, we could put-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, Nick's behind you. My question is on the same angle. And I'm going to probably get the answer out of him that you're going try to answer right now, but I'll get it more in detail for the issue that he's working on, so if you let him have the mic, it just might work out real good. The consortium agreement -- Nick, how do you do today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, NiCK Page 57 August 7, 2008 Casalanguida with transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Tamiami Crossings PUD we realized that that consortium agreement is going to be more likely changing in the future. The language that's here doesn't contemplate that. Mr. Murray focused on that. And we really need to get the language to make sure that it covers your conditions in the future. And I think in our discussion previously on the end we were going to add something to the effect that -- after the date to say, or as it may be amended. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that as an addition, what I want to also make sure is that no matter what comes out of that amendment they will not be able to move forward until they have concurrency on that intersection; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. The way the current DCA is written is that they get no certificates of occupancy, and to date no site plan has been submitted, so their deadline date, I believe, is October 31 st, the extension. And so there would be no approvals prior to that. So there's no way they would move forward until they have concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I needed at this time. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any-- MS. TROFINO: We wanted to speak-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you can't speak from there. But you're more than welcome to come up to the mic and speak for Page 58 August 7, 2008 five minutes, okay? MS. TROFINO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there -- both of you going to speak? Okay. That's fine. That's okay. These are confusing meetings at times. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. TROFINO: Thank you for allowing me to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're here for, ma'am. MS. TROFINO: My name is Diana Trofino and I'm the president of the Masters of Falling Waters Beach Resort. And we have just a few concerns. Our main concern is, first of all, I want to tell you, thank you for not having the interconnection with Falling Waters. That was one of our big concerns. We really do appreciate that. Number two, we're talking about the wall that you are going to be putting up. Presently they have a -- Muriel (phonetic) has an eight-foot wall. Will you be putting up an eight-foot wall that will concur with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, unfortunately the way these meetings have to work, you're going to have to direct your questions at us. And basically, if you have a question like that, we will then ask the applicant when you're done speaking to address your concerns. So that's how it needs to work, okay? MS. TROFINO: Yes. Our concern is about the wall, number one, about the wall being put up. Right now they have an eight-foot wall up there, Muriel. And we wonder if they were going to concur with that and have the same eight-foot wall. And our other concern was on the back of the building for ABC, the lighting, are they going to have any form of bright lights that are going to interfere with our community, that's going to shine right on Falling Waters? That was a concern of ours. Page 59 August 7, 2008 And the traffic impact, have they done a study, an impact study on the traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, they did. But they're under a deal with the intersection, it's called a consortium agreement. And it does address the traffic. There's going to be massive improvements to that intersection. They will not be able to go forward if they don't reach what's called a concurrency. And that would involve improvements in the traffic to a point it can handle the traffic they generate. And that analysis won't come out until past this time, but that's part of our rules. So they will have to address that now. MS. TROFINO: Thank you very, very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will ask the applicant now of your concerns, and ifthere's something dissatisfied in the reaction that you hear, just let us know. Richard, the first one is the eight-foot wall that is already on part of the existing property. You're going to be continuing that to the corner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, but they were going to do a berm and wall combination that I believe is eight feet. Could we just, in an abundance of caution, because I don't think it requires a deviation, but can we just make it a condition that we would do a berm/wall combination or whatever to get to the eight feet? We don't have an objection to doing it, I just want to make sure that I don't need to come back because we may have missed something through the process. And 1 think that was always our intent. I just want to make sure we're safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the way the stipulation would read, you'll continue the eight-foot wall as an eight-foot wall or either with a berm/wall combination. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll continue that to the corner Page 60 August 7,2008 of the residential lot there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am -- sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. My beard might confuse people. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Her question really does -- was to continue the wall that is existing. Is that a berm/eight-foot wall situation? And the concern with the berm is if you made a four-foot berm, people could hop the wall and -- so why don't you just continue the existing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's just a water management berm, Mr. Schiffer, so it's not going to be a four-foot berm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But could you not just continue exactly the existing wall so they have uniformity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, again, you can -- I'm being told we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to continue the eight-foot wall that's there; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, let's make sure we're -- I don't want anybody disappointed when we walk away from here. So are we talking about the exact same materials, the exact same color as what they have, or are we talking about an eight-foot wall that marries up to their eight-foot wall and is a continuous wall? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would be the problem with making it exactly the same so they don't see a change in wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know what the current wall -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what it is, that's why I would hate to agree to something that I don't know exactly what I'm agreeing to. We don't have a problem with an eight-foot wall, the Page 61 August 7, 2008 typical walls we do, and doing that, which would continue the height so you wouldn't see any kind -- but I don't know the materials. Can you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about ifit was an eight-foot wall but not made of wood? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the last thing we want is a wood wall that's going to rot and deteriorate and cause maintenance. I think that would work for everybody -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I was thinking when we were talking about -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at this photo, Rich, it's a CMU wall with a pilaster probably every 20 feet, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's just stuff we're typically doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not to exceed that construction would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the lighting I think's the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get that next, but I want to hear their comment on the lighting. The lady mentioned that she wanted to make sure that you weren't going to put any bright lighting on the back of the building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll meet code, and code will not allow it to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Spill over-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- spill over onto their property. I mean, we're not asking for anything different from code. Plus there's -- what's the exact distance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a solution to it. But let's -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where will the delivery trucks load and unload in that master plan? Page 62 August 7, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll tell you what I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is not evident on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we finish-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where they will not be is over here obviously. So do we know for sure if it's going to be on this side or this side for deliveries? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if it were on the last place you poached, that would be the concern I would think the folks have about these overhead lights. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it would be -- it would be the -- you know, the box trucks, and it would be during regular business hours. So I don't think they're -- I don't think lighting is really going to be an issue, because the code really doesn't allow lighting to become an issue because you're not allowed to spill off your site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like staff to verify that, that there's -- lighting, if it had -- any lighting on the building would be shielded to the site itself. Is that a fair statement? MS. ZONE: There is a regulation in the LDC that prohibits lights to shield on neighboring properties. But if the board would like, we could also make an additional condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if it's in the LDC we don't need to be redundant. MS. ZONE: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, those are the two issues this lady has brought up. Ma'am, have your questions been answered? MS. TROFINO: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on the lighting, Rick, I think one of the conditions would be, which is what 1 thought she was saying, is that the building itself does not have lighting on it so that the building, the wall itself is not bright. That wouldn't violate the code Page 63 August 7, 2008 but may violate the esthetics of that neighborhood. So I don't know what the intention is on the northeast side. There is no real advantage except maybe trying to get a sign up at the corner. But could you limit it that you're not going to illuminate the northeast and the southeast side of the building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't really hear that as the concern. I thought the concern was that we were somehow going to be brightening their neighborhood with the lighting on our site as well as on the building. I don't know the details of the design, but with the code safeguards that are already there, I'd like to just leave it. We'll do what the code requires as far as architecture and lighting. Because I think that was the concern was really light spilling over and creating issues, not lighting up the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you make the wall bright, then these units are going to look out and see a brightly lit building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But they're not even -- when you're looking -- I mean, Mr. Schiffer, they have their carports in front of the buildings. I don't -- and they're far enough back. I don't see how putting lights on the building is going to affect their quality of life since we're not allowed to spill that light over. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If they're happy with the -- I just want to keep the buildings themselves from being brightly lit, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant or staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any comments Page 64 August 7, 2008 you want to make before we finish? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. I think that we've obviously addressed the neighbors' concerns and we would request that you recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. And I have four stipulations I'd like to read to everyone to consider before a motion is made. If the motion is made to recommend approval, the notes that I've taken during this meeting suggest that we'd have four stipulations. The first one would, number one, limit the conditional use to only the liquor store use being asked for, which is SIC Code 5921. Number two, the rear interconnect between the CVS property and this one is conditioned upon CVS agreeing to it. Number three, staff item number -- staff recommendation number three on Page 9 will have the additional language added to it on the end after the date, or as it may be amended. Number four, the eight-foot wall that is to the east will be continued in a material that is not wood to the corner of the property where the self-storage facility exists. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we need to add the enhanced landscape buffering that was agreed to according to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's number four. That's number four on the staff list. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, sorry, in the staff one, sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make sure -- any other stipulations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I made that motion. Page 65 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You made that motion to recommend approval subject to the four stipulations read into the record? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And staff, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staffs recommendations as well. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. COMMISSIONER CARON: And don't forget the conditional use. Thank you, Mr. Murray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's a conditional use item in your packet. We need to pass that out and pass it on to Ms. Caron. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do these come back to you all on your consent, conditional uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything comes back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially ifit involves you. COMMISSIONER CARON: In fact, we may do it twice. Page 66 August 7, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tough audience. Item #9D PETITION: RZ-2007-AR-12044, IMMOKALEE, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item of business for today is 9(D). It's Petition RZ-2007-AR-I2044. It's the Immokalee LLC multi-family development on 9.3 acres in the southwest corner of the intersection ofImmokalee Road (846) and School Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I've spoken with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I had a conversation with Mr. Pritt. We went over a lot of issues involving compatibility and setbacks and things like that, and we'll probably be discussing all those today. Mr. Pritt, it's all yours, sir. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, my name is Robert Pritt. I'm with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. And I'm here on behalf of Immokalee LLC, the owner ofa 9.3-acre parcel ofland located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road, which is CR86, and School Road, in Immokalee. The property is almost catty-corner from the Seminole Gaming Casino. I guess it's called gaming casino. The request is for rezoning from E, estates district, as you can see from your staff report, to RMF-I6, which is a multi-family district. It Page 67 August 7, 2008 does not qualify for a PUD because it consists of less than 10 acres. As a matter of fact, as Mr. Goldmeier, my client, might indicate, they looked to see whether or not they could purchase properties on both sides, on the east side -- on the south side and on the west side, a portion of those properties, in order to meet the 10-acre requirement and go in for a PUD, but were not able to do that. So this is not a situation where they were trying to avoid having a PUD. Anyhow, it simply does not meet the PUD standards. Immokalee LLC is owned by Lee and Barry Goldmeier. Barry Goldmeier is here with me today. They have been here before. They developed the Main Street Village in Immokalee, which is considered to be a very nice development in the area. I think most people would agree with that. It's in Immokalee and it's a three or four-year old -- five-year old development, I think, and is very successful. In this case they did not apply for affordable housing for the density bonus with the county; however, this is in the range of affordable housing and the proposed property will be at the price points of affordable housing. Most likely it will be an apartment building. It's very difficult to build condominium units at this time, but that's likely what the development will be. And Barry can explain in greater detail. He'll be speaking to you here in a little while. He can telI you a little bit more about the nature of the project, and if you'd like, any other projects he has done, including the Main Street Village project. The petitioners' representative is Shaun Mularkey of Coastal Planning and Engineering, and the environmental consultant is Amanda Koonjedeberry -- I didn't say that right, Koonjedeharry of Earth Balance. I apologize, Amanda. But this project -- and I forgot, Brian DeLony is also here. He's with Coastal Planning and Engineering, and he'll be able to answer-- hopefully answer any questions you may have concerning engineering Issues. Page 68 August 7,2008 You have a supplemental staff report because this has been here before. Most of you I think were on the planning commission at that time. And I'm sure you remember every detail of that hearing since you probably haven't had any cases since then. But anyhow, the matter came up in January of2008, and the outcome of it -- I was not here, but I understand that the outcome of that was that you asked the EAC -- or you asked the matter to be sent over to the EAC for some issues concerning the location, environmental issues, flowway issues and the like. The matter did go to the EAC on May 7th, 2008, and it was determined that it is not located within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keis flowway. And in order to go to that hearing, they did prepare -- Mr. Mularkey's office did prepare a conceptual plan, which I think is in your packet, to show generally how the preserve would be set forth. Eight to zero was the determination by the EAC that it was not within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keis flowway. The matter was eventually scheduled for this hearing. Along the way there was a question that was raised by the transportation department -- this just came up in the last couple of weeks, we had a meeting on it last Thursday -- concerning transportation issues. And there had been a request -- a recommendation that there be something put into the report that would require an eight-foot wall -- I think it was an eight-foot wall to be -- a noise wall to be established and a 20-foot reservation along 886 (sic) to be put in. And we were able to work that out -- I think it's worked out with transportation department. But I think we were able to work that out. And we did do a -- even though a conceptual plan is not required for a straight zoning, we did do a little plan that would indicate how we would move the buildings without disturbing the environmental area and accommodate for the reservation. And I think that's in your packet this morning. Page 69 August 7,2008 Shaun can explain that a whole lot better than I can, and we'll be glad to talk about it, if you'd like to. Again, this is not a PUD; however, there were concerns, and we tried to address the concerns of the planning commission and the EAC and the transportation department. So that's what you'll see today. The -- I think I indicated that this does not quite meet the minimum standards for PUD's. I know that the -- I believe the county has a preference for trying to get -- have PUD's approved. That's pretty common throughout Florida. But one of the reasons that you have standards, minimum standards for PUD's, is to avoid spot zoning. And it appears to me, anyhow, that your ordinance on that is designed to do that and does that. However, just not every case is -- qualifies for a PUD, and this is one of them. With that, I would like to have Shaun give you the overview of the application as it stands now. MR. MULARKEY: Thank you. Again, I'm Shaun Mularkey with Coastal Engineering. I'm a senior planner with Coastal. Mr. Pritt did a really nice job of summarizing the process thus far, so I'm going to skip all over that and try to keep this brief so we can get to the questions as soon as possible. This is an aerial view of the property. It's located again at the southwest corner of School Road and County Road 846, or First Street in Immokalee. It's 9.33 acres. It's currently undeveloped, vacant. The properties to the west and south are zoned estates. Our property is zoned estates. To the north directly across School Road, that property is zoned village residential. And then to the east across County Road 846, that's zoned ago with a mobile home overlay. And again, for reference, the Seminole Casino is less than a quarter mile away from our site on the opposite side of County Road 846. Page 70 August 7, 2008 Weare requesting rezone from estate zoning to residential multi-family, RMF-16, with a maximum density of 15 units per acre. This is the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. Our property is located in an area designated as neighborhood center, which is here. I'm going to blow that up for you. Our subject property is shown there with the white box around it. Our request, we believe, is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We're in the neighborhood center district, which envisions a mix of residential and commercial uses, basically neighborhood-oriented uses. The Growth Management Plan for that district allows density up to 12 units per acre with the option for up to three additional units per acre for residential infill bonus, for which our site qualifies. Again, this 12 plus three is a total of 15 units per acre, and that's what we're asking for with this application. We believe the density is appropriate in this case. We're located on an arterial roadway, County Road 846. There are no issues at this time or the foreseeable future with transportation impacts. The five-year plan -- I'm sorry, projecting traffic five years out, there are no potential impacts to the surrounding roadways due to our project. Again, we're less than a quarter mile away from the Seminole Casino, within walking distance of a major employer in the area. Again, we're within a neighborhood center and future mixed use environment. We think this site is an ideal location for a multi-family development with the density that we're proposing at this time. This is the original plan that you have in your packets. I know you guys -- you received a supplemental plan this morning. This was the plan that we went to the EAC with. Along the south boundary, the shaded area, that's the preserve. Those are the highest quality wetlands on the site, where there's some cypress and so on in there. We -- along the north side -- there's also wetland on the west side of the site, as well as the north side. The north side wetland is shown Page 71 August 7, 2008 as hatched. We would be mitigating that northern wetland. It's a very low quality wetland, and that would be the location of our future stormwater management area, stormwater pond. The buildings shown here are -- there's 140 units shown here. These are shown as three-story buildings. We're proposing to limit our height to 50 feet. The RMF-I6 zoning district normally has a height limit of75 feet. We know there was some concern at the last planning commission meeting about potential heights, so we have agreed to limit the height to 50 feet. Any access we have on the property will be from School Road, as opposed to County Road 846. So again, this was our original plan. Since then, as Mr. Pritt mentioned, we met with transportation and other county staff last week, Thursday, after they indicated that they would like us to reserve a 20-foot future road right-of-way for expansion of County Road 846. And that's the plan that you received this morning. Substantively this plan has not changed from the previous version. Everything remains the same in terms of the preserve layout, the mitigated wetland, the density requesting, the parking. The buildings and parking have been reorganized a bit, but the setbacks remain the same. What we did show here is the 20- foot future roadway reservation along County Road 846. To the west of that is a IS-foot landscape buffer, followed by parking and then finally buildings. So really we feel in this case if the county -- if you need this future roadway in the future, you'd be able to acquire that without much impact to the building setbacks. Our previous plan, if that would have been acquired, our setbacks would have likely been nonconforming, less than the 30 feet required from the right-of-way. In this case there are -- there would be fewer conflicts. Which also kind of alleviated one of the other concerns that transportation Page 72 August 7, 2008 had, was that if the buildings were closer to the right-of-way and they had to take property after the fact, our buildings would have been closer and a waIl might have been required or some other damages to the property. So this is kind of the best of both scenarios. It works for the county, it still works for us. And again, all the major site constraints are intact. So with that, I'd like to end our presentation and open it up for comments to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. Are you -- I can't see here, are you planning to put sidewalks along School Drive and 846? MR. MULARKEY: Whatever is required based on the LDC would be provided. I think sidewalks or payment in lieu of is required. We just -- I know the site plan is detailed, we just didn't get to that level of detail at this time. But we'll do whatever is required at the LDC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Will you have room for sidewalks? MR. MULARKEY: Along -- well, certainly along County Road 846 there's room for a sidewalk. And I think there's also a shoulder along School Road that would allow for a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted on the previous plan there were an entrance and an entrance, and an exit and an exit, so there were two. MR. MULARKEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We no longer have two. MR. MULARKEY: There's no longer two shown because the access -- the potential access point we have on the new plan, which is Page 73 August 7,2008 shown up on the monitor now, would be closer than 125 feet from the intersection, which was a stipulation from transportation. That second intersection, that second access point was a right out only. So what would probably happen in this case is we wouldn't have a right out for vehicles but would probably be an access point for emergency vehicles only. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's good. Because I have concern with the potential of people being trapped -- MR. MULARKEY: That long dead-end, yeah, we'd definitely make certain that it was maybe geopavers or something there that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. We'll make that, I hope, a stipulation. MR. MULARKEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. The concept plan that you passed out today. MR. MULARKEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In trying to figure out the scale, it looks to me like the -- you have that proposed stormwater pond. MR. MULARKEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that wet detention or dry? MR. MULARKEY: That's likely going to be wet detention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have -- is the 20-foot maintenance easement outside or inside that black line? MR. MULARKEY: Outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The road to the left of the page based on the scale looks like it's 30 feet from that line. Is that a fair statement? MR. MULARKEY: That looks about right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Buildings to the north, they look to be the same distance, 30 feet from that line; is that a fair statement? Page 74 August 7,2008 MR. MULARKEY: You're looking at the new plan, the one that's in the monitor, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULARKEY : Yeah, that's probably right as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And back over to that road, on the left side of the road to where your preserve -- it's not called preserve, you have it called wetlands, you have a mitigated area. That looks to be about 40 feet wide there. MR. MULARKEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your stormwater pond is about 180 feet deep, something, from the property line, I should say. So if you go out by School Road there to the edge and go back to the storm water pond where the amenities building is, it scales out to about 180 feet, maybe a little less, a little more, but somewhere in that nature. The area that is up against on the left-hand side that you've titled wetland, that area is 45 feet. What is that wetland? Is that -- since you didn't designate it preserve, are you intending not to violate that wetland? Is it going to stay? MR. MULARKEY: That's correct, we're not intending at this point to fill that wetland. The concept plan stays out of it. We preserved the 15 percent as -- of the best wetland vegetation on the site but we don't plan at this time to fill the wetland to the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wetland, nonetheless, if it's got vegetation in it, based on the aerial that you had on here earlier, the wetland to the south averages out to be a little bit over 100 feet, from what I can tell. And that too has vegetation on it. So it looks like on the three sides you're fairly well vegetated around your property or you've got setbacks substantial from School Road to offset the vegetation. MR. MULARKEY: Right. Page 75 August 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only place I seem to have a concern is County Road 846. And let's assume the 20-foot potential right-of-way gets used, because they always use what they get. They love to build roads around here. It keeps Nick employed. If you've got a IS-foot Type D buffer there, that would certainly seem to be a very concerning compatibility issue to that roadway in regards to the traffic and the people living inside. By the discussion we just had, it's obvious that the road that you have, or your access road, you have ample room to remove that road or the stormwater pond in any number of ways to pick up an extra 10 feet there or even pick up an extra 10 feet by your building in relationship to the stormwater pond. So what I'm suggesting is, would you have any objection making that Type D buffer -- that buffer along the front along the roadway 25 feet instead of IS? I think it would lend a lot to the credibility of the -- compatibility of the project and a lot softer entry to the community if that were to happen. MR. MULARKEY: When we developed the concept plan we were very careful to try to get our measurements right and to make -- that's why it's so detailed, is we wanted to make sure it fit, the density we were asking for, the parking requirements, the buffers. I can say yes to 10 feet, but until I really look at it in detail, it's tough to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I just pointed out numerous areas you could reduce your spacing to make it up in numbers of ways, and I think that would go a long way to working better from an esthetic viewpoint at an entry to Immokalee. MR. MULARKEY: I think we could probably make it work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the conditions ofapproval-- and by the way, I had to -- there was a lot of concerns I have with staffs write-up of the findings to this, basically. But that's all done, that's over with, so we'll go on with just the new stuff, from my Page 76 August 7,2008 perspective. On your conditions of approval, you've got a reference to a plan dated March 27th, 2008. Do you have any objections changing that to the plan that you passed out today of 8/4/08? MR. MULARKEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .Okay. And I believe that is the only questions I had. Other than Mr. Midney, the last time this came before us you were concerned about the wetlands. Are you comfortable with that issue now? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think I'd like to hear the staff report, because I think they have something to explain to us that you -- will you be prepared to show us the new wetland maps that you've developed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's finish with the applicant first. And I just want to make sure if that's where you're going to ask your question, on that -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we get that resolved when staff comes up. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I have another question. Relative to looking at the north section, the proposed stormwater pond I see is the line, then you also have what are deemed to be wetlands. It appears to be in one case touching a structure. MR. MULARKEY: Oh, the area that's shaded? That's the wetlands that will be mitigated and filled where necessary for the structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that fill will be what, five feet, 10 feet, 15 feet? How much -- MR. MULARKEY: How much fill do we need? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, what distance will a Page 77 August 7, 2008 person have walking around before they get their feet wet? Five feet from the structure, 10 feet from the structure? MR. MULARKEY: No, there's going to be ample room from the -- we just have not gotten to that detail, that's coming -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so you're saying -- so this really needs to be modified even further. But conceptually you're telling me for the record at least that there won't be any health or safety issues. MR. MULARKEY: Absolutely not. We'll meet all proper setbacks from the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I think that's important to have on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. As the school district's representative, we would concur with Commissioner Midney's request for the sidewalks along School Road. MR. MULARKEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. Okay, is there a presentation -- go ahead, Mr. Pritt, did you have something else you wanted to add? MR. PRITT: First I want to apologize. I think I referred to that road as 886. And I apologize, it's 846. I spent enough time on it, I should know the number by now. And Mr. Goldmeier would be glad to answer any questions if you have any particular questions about the matter. If not, I would just indicate that we concur with the staff report, the conditions that the Chair has recommended for today also, and ask that the staff report be admitted into evidence. I suppose you do that automatically anyhow, but just to indicate Page 78 August 7, 2008 that we do agree with the staff report on that. And we'll be glad to have anybody else answer any questions, if you have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Pritt. Okay, with that, we'll have a staff report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Mark, should we be taking this into evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get all done I was going to do that, yeah. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with zoning. Yes, you do have the supplemental staff report that I provided to you. And it is for this hearing dated at the bottom 7/23. This addresses or is intended to hopefully address the issues that were raised at the January meeting. And we did provide a supplemental analysis that explained a response -- provided a response to each of the questions that were raised at that time. The main question from my understanding being whether or not the project was located within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keis flowway. And it appears as though that's been definitively answered as no, it is not. And in that staff report supplement you see an exhibit on Page 3 that shows the subject site as a circled area within a red circle, and you see the existing flowway line shown in green. And I think what Commissioner Midney is referring to, I can show you, as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan update that's going on now, the environmental staff has been looking at changes to that particular flowway area. And I have an exhibit that can show you. The subject site is outlined in purple. The proposed new wetland lines are shown in light green. Page 79 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that's really light. Oh, that light green you're pointing up in the -- MS. DESELEM: Yes, that light green. And there's another deeper green. That line represents the existing line that you see on Page 3 of the staff report. So you can see what is currently in effect now, which is the line that Ray's pointing to now, and what's proposed. I don't know if or when that might get adopted, but that is what's proposed. You can see that the subject site, although it comes very, very close to the new boundary, isn't quite within it. Hopefully that is the best way I can answer the question that you had about the flowway. We did respond to the question about whether or not this was a PUD rezone in the staff report, stating that no, it did not qualify. And we did respond to the question about the rural fringe density reduction and whether or not it applies, saying that no, it does not. And we provided the initial analysis that supports the conditions proposed by transportation staff. Subsequent to that staff report being issued, you were sent new conditions that are dated on the bottom 8/1 rather than 7/2. And that just cleared up condition number one to identify the different site plan, which we've now changed again to recognize the site plan that we got this morning. And then you have the conditions that were originally proposed that talked about the maximum of 15 units an acre; the environmental conditions three, A, B, C and D, and then four and five. The height limitation, as volunteered by the petitioner, is condition six. Seven and nine are access conditions, as agreed upon by the developer. Nine is a right-of-way condition. And 10 is a noise attenuation wall condition. Conditions nine and Page 80 August 7, 2008 10 were modified in this 8/1 rendition of the conditions. Other than that, I don't have anything else. I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, we'll start off with a comment. You probably remember that I was very dissatisfied with the wetlands map as it was. And so this board asked staff, environmental staff, to look at new wetland boundaries that might be more factual. And I'm very pleased that they did get to work on it. And Kay gave me -- I guess there's seven different maps. There's this one that's up there now, then there's one that has to do with merit panther zones, a soil map. And then the fourth map, Kay, I wonder if you could put that up, which says Lake Trafford Urban Wetlands 2007 aerial. MS. DESELEM: Can I borrow yours, or do you want me to get another one? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You can borrow mine. MS. DESELEM: That way I make sure I get the right one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's a good idea. That's not as easy to see. MS. DESELEM: We can blow it up a bit. They're great to look at, but they're kind of hard to see. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's better. Now you see the colors. On this map, the green lines are kind of more wavy, as opposed to those very angular lines that you've written on the proposed map. This map seems to be much more in line with what's actually on the ground than the one -- why do they have those angular lines on the one that you've proposed to the Immokalee Master Plan Committee? Seems like you're cutting off a lot of corners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yes. Page 81 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is something you could have a sidebar with Kay and staff. Is there something that pertains to this application that you're getting to? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, just by way of comment, it's been made clear to me that the operative plan is the one that's in effect now, which is not the one that's up there now. And so we have to go by the Immokalee area master plan wetlands that were delineated I guess about 10 years ago. We can't use the ones that we've requested in the last meeting, because it has to be ratified by the Immokalee Area Master Plan Committee. My comment is that I've been by the site. There are four culverts passing under County Road State 46 going from east to west, which prove that the area is part of the Camp Keis Strand wetlands, because obviously the people who built the road felt that there was lateral flow east to west. And the water is actually flowing under there now, since we're in a lot of -- we're in a high rain area. But that's not operative. We have to go with what was there, which has been adopted, which is the 10 year ago plan. So I think that even though it is in the Camp Keis Strand area, we can't go by that, we have to go by what's on the books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that both wetland lines that you've shown, and the other plan was a bigger scale, still show the property outside of the flowway. MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that gives you any better feeling for it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It does. I still disagree with it. I think that the reason that it was -- because if you go on the road now, you can see that the land is drained into those culverts. The culverts are very close to this subject property. My feeling is that it was left out because it's considered to be a Brazilian pepper-invaded wetlands. But I still think it's connected. Page 82 August 7, 2008 But that's irrelevant, because we have to go by what's adopted now, not by what may be adopted in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the applicant wish for any final comments? MR. PRITT: No, sir, I think that we've made enough comment for the morning. We'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Other than to say that we think we meet the qualifications, that we've worked very hard with staff and with the committees, and hopefully we can get approval today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we close the public hearing, are there any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Pritt, did you say at the beginning of the hearing that these buildings are three stories? MR. PRITT: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So they're three stories and apartment buildings, and you've got 50 feet in height, in zoned height. I'm not sure if there are issues of protecting more wetlands or whatnot. Why wouldn't you consider this an awful lot of on-the-ground hardscape here that perhaps could go under buildings, since you're looking at 50 feet? I don't know very many apartment developers who put in 15 or -- foot ceilings, so -- MR. MULARKEY: You hit the nail right on the head. MR. PRITT: Everybody's leaping up to answer the question. W e'lllet Shaun take a crack at it. We did think of it, though. Page 83 August 7, 2008 MR. MULARKEY: That's exactly right. It's a matter of if there's a possibility financially to be able to put some parking under the buildings. We're still committed to a three-story building, just in terms of the actual units. But roof structures and the possibility of parking, we just don't know at this point if it's financially feasible, but there may be a possibility to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this the time to put the plan into evidence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was going to do that by the changing of the conditions. We're going to enter it as a change to a condition as a stipulation, so I think that accomplishes it. But are there any other questions before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing. And I've got some stipulations I'd like to read, if anyone's considering a motion to recommend for approval. The first one would be a landscape buffer along 846 is to be 25 feet wide. The second would be that the emergency -- there would be an emergency exit through the treatment of the surface area and a second access to School Road at the end of the parking area in the northeast corner of the project. Three, that there be sidewalks along the south side of School Road in the property fronting this project. And four, we would change the date of the site plan on condition number one to 8/4/08. Those are the four stipulations that I've made notes of as we've proceeded. And if there are any others? Ms. Caron? Page 84 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Does it need to be stated in there that they have agreed to three stories? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they agreed to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: And three stories. I mean, that's what they've said. Yeah, and three stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And three habitable stories. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, 50 feet and three stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 50 feet or three habitable stories. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And Mr. Midney had asked for sidewalks on 846. Is that not part of your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought he said School Road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Both. COMMISSIONER CARON: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've got a problem with that, because 846 is going to have some construction. But usually they do in lieu of. Nick, can you comment on 846 if that's something that's practical, or it's just going to be ripped up and wasted money. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain, I had one other clarification on the height. It's three stories or whichever is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 50 feet or three habitable stories max. MR. BELLOWS: Whichever is the more restrictive? I mean, what happens if somebody says we want three stories. If it says or, I think it's less confusing -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if they want four stories? MR. KLA TZKOW: Whichever is less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum 50 feet in height. MR. BELLOWS: How about three stories not to exceed a maximum of 50 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Page 85 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's no connectivity on 846 right now, so it probably would be a payment in lieu of per the LDC right now. It would be a dead-end sidewalk that wouldn't connect to anything. School Road would make sense. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I mean, as the area develops and you're having all these people here, they're probably going to want to walk along School -- on 846. I think that there should be a sidewalk there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue with that is if you place it there and there isn't one to the north and the south, you would be better as the payment in lieu program allows is take that money and start where the logical termination point is closer to 29 and work your way down. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You don't think that there will be to the north any time soon? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There isn't now, and it's already developed to the north. So what the program has been very effective at doing is taking those fragmented sidewalks, taking the money and then building from where the fragment starts and then working their way out. So that program is working very welI, and that's why it was put into place that way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if they do build sidewalks to the north later on and now there's not going to be any room to build sidewalks here and we have all these apartments here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's developed to the north, so it would either be a state or probably more likely a county project, it's a county road, so we would start in that direction and work our way down. But if you did that now, if you don't follow that payment in lieu program, you have these fragmented sidewalks everywhere. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I'm just thinking, you Page 86 August 7, 2008 know, if people are walking to the casino who work here, will there be any place for them to walk up 846? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now there isn't presently to the north. So, I mean, you know, you're -- if they came out School Road, they wouldn't go south and then dead-end at their property line, there would be no place for them to go, you know. That's the issue with allowing fragmented sidewalks. You really need to start where the program -- existing sidewalks are. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So how will they walk to work? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now there's nothing to the north. You know, again, my program is to start where existing sidewalks are and work my way out. I can't fix the problem where, you know, these people aren't there. By putting a fragmented piece in, they would stop at the property line and then have to go back out into the street. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, wouldn't that be better, I mean, if you're on a very, very busy roadway, to at least have sidewalks there than to have nothing at all? MR. CASALANGUIDA: My goal would be to build it to the north where that development goes up into 29. So part of that program would be take that money, go up to 29 and work your way down to where they are. I mean, that's the issue. It's a Catch-22. And we brought this to the board and there were plenty of examples where sidewalks were just dead-ended in the middle of nowhere. Industrial parks where code said build a sidewalk, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think Paul's kind of on a good point here. If you zoom out on that, Ray, second, wouldn't it be smart to build the sidewalk from School Road -- well, it doesn't show it on that. But the casino's very close. Why don't you just build it from School Road to the south side of the casino and the people Page 87 August 7, 2008 could walk from there to work? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a very limited, fragmented sidewalk. If we're going to widen the road in the next five or six years, I would be ripping it out anyway. I would -- the payment in lieu program -- let me give you a little background on payment in lieu so you get a feel for it and comfort level. What you do is you take in payment in lieu for sidewalks throughout the five districts. That money's collected and it's set in those districts. You go back to the Pathway Advisory Committee, which we've done projects in Immokalee, and you say where are there gaps that makes sense to fix, rather than do these little fragmented pIeces. And then what we do is we bid out those projects in groups and try to make those improvements where there's connectivity. By doing fragmented pieces like that that aren't connected to a full network, we come back and we tear them up and they dead-end literally at the property line. They don't serve a big purpose that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think this fragment would take the people from this development to the casino. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't see -- I mean, I'm looking at the aerial. If you built it along the total property line, it would go down to that southern property line and there would be nothing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't they walk inside their project, Brad, up to School Road, then go out to School Road? Then they wouldn't have any use of the sidewalk on 846. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'm thinking is they'd go -- within the project they'd hit School Road, take a sidewalk on the west side of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't have this applicant put sidewalks into the north. They can only put them on their property. They're not going to go south of their property to get to the casino. Page 88 August 7, 2008 And the program that he's implementing would be able to take the money they would contribute and actually apply it to the north where they couldn't do it if they were forced to do it on their own property . MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly how the program works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you could theoretically take their money and build that sidewalk I'm describing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would go farther north -- I mean, the way the program is set up you would go to where the next adjacent sidewalk terminates and continue that network down. So you're not building fragments, you're just continuing the network and filling in the gaps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though this is a fragment, it does plug it into this project. That was one of the features they gave us, is look how close we are to the casino, you could live here and work there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We tried -- the issue that we have is we try and to take it to committee so that the committee can look at all the projects in there area. There's members from Immokalee in that area. If that was prior to the committee, it would be put on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we've read the stipulations. Is there any -- Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I'd just like the applicant to state for the record whether they agree or disagree with any of the stipulations. MR. PRITT: All the stipulations we've heard so far we agree with. Page 89 August 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow. And I'll try to remember to do that from now on. Okay, with that I'll entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll motion for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before we go too far, is the motion maker and the second making the motion subject to the stipulations that were read into the record and as well as the conditions of approval as amended dated 8/1/08 and presented by staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And also the EAC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the EAC recommendations. So that's made by Mr. Midney, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Both approved of those conditions. Is staff explicitly clear on what we've stipulated and done here today? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes, I believe I am clear. Otherwise, I wi11look it up on the video and see or question you. But I think I'm very clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think you're very clear. You worry me, Kay. MS. DESELEM: It sounds realIy great when you write it down, and then you go back and think about it, and then you're like, well, is that really what -- so yeah. But I think at this point I understand exactly what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor with the motion, signify by saying aye. Page 90 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Gentlemen, thank you very much. That finishes our advertised public hearings for today, and we have some new business. I don't know if we have any old business. Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS - CONTINUANCE OF ITEM #9C AR-13060 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any old business issues they need to bring up? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We continued today AR-13060. Are we to keep this packet of information or will staff send us out replacement information? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Always keep it if it's continued, especially it's only two weeks away. And then it will be supplemented by staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Kolflat, can I clarify, did you say Page 91 August 7, 2008 AR-12394? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, 13060. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C,9(C). MR. SCHMITT: Oh, that has been continued, yes. Just hang on to that packet. If there's anything additional, we'll send it to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Item # 11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no other old business, then we'll get into an item of new business. I mean old isn't -- we'll get into an item of new business. I said that reversed. In June I believe it was, or maybe July, when we talked about the Vanderbilt Surf Colony, we talked -- this commission discussed at some point a concern about the loading of the estuary, at least I did, and I think all of us talked about it. I have since talked to Nicole Ryan over at The Conservancy and asked them if they've had any experience in other municipalities in determining what load factors or level of service ratios there might be on tributaries. Because we have all that kind of stuff on roads, but we seem to have an unlimited supply of boats going wherever they want to go and nobody really regulating the quantity. We have various criteria that says how many boats you can have on a property, but we have nothing that says how many boats a waterway can safely handle or comfortably handle without disrupting the ecology. Nicole believes there are places that do have language like that. They have someone who has been involved in this before that they're willing to work with us if we wanted to initiate a discussion on that from some kind of a forum. Page 92 August 7, 2008 So what I'm offering to the planning commission is that I want us -- I'd like to see the idea move forward. I'd like to know that there's interest from this planning commission in seeing it move forward. I don't want to initiate a staff study at this time. I want to know independently that if I look into it and report back to this commission on the possibilities, that I'm going in a direction that meets with some at least consideration. And that's all I'm looking for is acknowledgment from you today. Does anybody have any concerns with exploring that issue a little bit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Mr. Klatzkow, did you? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got a lot of concerns on that. If you'd work with our office, I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will. My intention is I know a few weeks ago during an LDC or compo plan hearing we made a motion to ask compo planning staff to come back with a very cursory review of whether or not it was a good thing to add an element to our AUIR for mass transit. Well, after the meeting there were concerns over that request amongst the county. And I got those concerns and I was shocked, because I thought gee, this is a good thing we're asking, not a bad, why would anybody care. But apparently there are people that care. So before I move forward and ask this board to make a recommendation, I'd like to explore the waters a bit so we don't go doing things that may not be -- that may be too concerning to other people without any knowing intention of being such. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exploration is always a good thing. But the purpose I think I understand, but I just want to be clear on what you intend or hope to resolve by your investigation and Page 93 August 7, 2008 sharing that information with us. Would it be to ultimately reduce the number of vessels that can be at a dock, be provided a dock or just simply in the waterway? Because I don't see how logically you can at any given time, due to the phenomenon of people just using their boats, if they wouldn't crowd a waterway even if you had fewer boats. What I'm driving at, if you can understand my concept there, is that people do what they do. Boat clubs typically meet and they anchor. Would you be doing like Marco Island where they wanted to limit the number of boats that could be anchored for whatever period? Where do you want to go with this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I made it clear, I simply want to be able to explore the idea, see if there's any rules or regulations or other communities that looked at this, and then report back to this board. I have no preconceived notion one way or the other of an outcome of it. I simply want to see if it's a logical thing to take a look at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a concern or -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I agree with what you're saying, Mark. I'd like to just, after you're done with that, say something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm done with it. I don't need a motion. I just wanted to make sure that no one here objected so I wasn't doing anything inconsistent with the thoughts of this board. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine's on the boat dock thing. Could we look at or direct staff to look at pulling out that sentence that we put in, in 2006? Page 94 August 7, 2008 The reason I think that's not a good idea is that I know staff had prior, which is why they brought it in, to have a way to count up different criteria to allow a boat dock extension. That in turn has developed into if you can meet these criteria you're allowed a boat dock extension. And that's two different things. So I don't think the intent of the code prior to adding that thing was that you would all ow anybody a boat dock extension if they met this criteria. I think it was criteria that people could look at so that they could theoretically deny somebody's application even that, you know, for example, if you were going further than 25 feet into the waterway you're not going to get a boat dock extension. But it's been turned around. You could see when our last decision was appealed before the commission, the staff stood there and said look, they meet the criteria, what's the problem here; the commissioners all went along with that. But that's not the intent of the criteria. So -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, I mean, I think today's clarification by the county attorney on how that criteria can now be applied completely changes the way in which we can now view that. It isn't a measure now of if you meet the criteria you get it automatically and you have to meet four out of six or one out of five or four out of five. We actually get to review all the criteria in relationship to it and we don't even need to have that as the only sole limiting purpose for our discussion. So that seems to be a little stronger ability for us to have discretion than it did before. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: What I said was -- and I believe the language is before you can approve it, you have to find at least four out of the six meet. It doesn't mean once you hit four we're done. I mean, you can say, for example, one of the categories, if Page 95 August 7, 2008 memory serves me right, is that it can't extend into the channel. Well, if you've got something extending into the channel, you're not going to approve it, even if it might meet the other five, and we're done with it. So that it's not a simple case of adding up if we get to four, we're done. No, I think you've got the discretion to just say one of these is so important that we're going to deny it and be done with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps out a lot. Because before it looked like they could have two items that were in violation and still pass because they had four right. But now even if they have one in violation and we feel it's significant enough, we can turn it down for that one. That changes a little bit of the dynamics for me. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: But understand, when staff reviews it, we review it based on the criteria and we make a recommendation based on that criteria. You're the decision body. All we do is recommend. If they meet the criteria as defined in the Land Development Code, we will recommend approval, because we have no justification to not recommend approval. Because it's not subjective to us. It's the criteria. If they meet the criteria as defined in the code, we recommend approval. Now, if you as the governing body want to recommend denial, that's certainly your prerogative. And I think that's what Mr. Klatzkow said. You can recommend denial, but if the petitioner wishes to appeal to the board, we will again present to the Board of County Commissioners it meets the criteria, four out of the six -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, Joe, staff could say it doesn't meet any of them, but it's still going to go to you, just with a staff recommendation of denial. MR. SCHMITT: That's right. It's still -- regardless, we recommend approval or denial based on the criteria. You will make your decision based on your evaluation of that criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. Page 96 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, here's what happens. And I watched, you know, the hearing, is that you're standing before the commission saying, look, it met the criteria, I have no idea why the planning commission would have -- you know, even though we did express, you know, even in writing a reason that it should have been denied, everybody just looked at it, kind of shrugged it off like what's going on, what's the problem here, there's no problem here. But the point is that that scoring system, and I still call it that, was something that you had in-house prior to 2006. Once it got into the code, I think it gave it much too much credibility. I don't think the planning commission should really get involved in that. If you want to in your own minds come up with a way in which you'll approve or not approve things, that's fine, but I would really like to get that sentence pulled out of here so we could go back to the way we were doing it before, which was looking at these criteria. If we had a concern with one of the criteria, that would be the reason we'd deny it. MR. BELLOWS: And I understand what you're saying, and you can still do that. And that's I believe what was done today, basically. Each individuals don't have to supply three points of recommending denial, you could just supply one if you felt that's the overwhelming reason why it's not compatible with this area. It's not a scoring system. If staff recommended denial, this planning commission could recommend approval if you found differently from staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, it's the only reason to approve it. The reason to deny it does not have to be one of that. But the problem is that when you go before the board on the appeals, you guys sit there, treat it like, you know, that silly planning commission, I can't figure out what they were up to, and look, it met four out of the five, what's the problem here. MR. SCHMITT: All we do is present the staff evaluation and we Page 97 August 7,2008 will present to the board your reason for denial. They can make the determination whether they believe your reasons are justified. That's what we did last time. I thought that's when the appeal went. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The impression given was is that you have this criteria, which is what the LDC is giving the impression, that if you meet the criteria, you do it. MR. BELLOWS: I think where there's some misunderstanding occurred was not fully able to state the planning commission's recommendations of denial. That's why it was remanded back to get that clarification. And I think today the county attorney did the right thing and reminded everyone to state the reasons and the motions clearly -- MR. SCHMITT: And the Chair did as well -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and the Chair. And that makes staffs job a lot easier. If these things are appealed we can clearly state the reasons for denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Joe, does the LDC say it must meet the criteria or consider the criteria? MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to look up the language. But the staff report pretty much summarizes it. The CCPC, to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's at least determine, which means that we can add more criteria to it and we can review it differently. I think we ought to leave -- we have a new reading on this from the county attorney today, or at least a little more clarification than the past. For me it's going to work a lot different as we move forward. I would rather we proceed like we have and see if this new clarification helps us get through these better, and if it still doesn't, then maybe we ought to resort to Mr. Schiffer's consideration. But right now, I'd hate to see us go there with all the other things on our plate that we've got Page 98 August 7, 2008 changing. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What troubles me with that is -- and I'm not taking a position here, but just a thought. What troubles me is that the citation of criteria were intended, I believe, to create objective standards on which to judge. If we initiate other criteria that are not there, such as whether there are enough boats in the basin, aren't we venturing a little far from where our intended legislation puts us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've got clarification today. And Mr. Murray, I certainly understand your concerns and we each have them. Brad's got his and I've got mine. And let's just see as we go down the path how this gels out. And if it still becomes a problem we can amend it later. But right now I think that we can leave it as it is, and with this new clarification try to move forward. It worked today. I think it will work differently in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other new business? MR. SCHMITT: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: -- a question on the calendar, if you're ready to discuss that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. SCHMITT: You have a meeting scheduled, it's the floodplain management meeting. And Mr. Strain, you'll see a note from Robert Wiley . We're still I'll call it working our way through that ordinance. We certainly don't want to bring an ordinance to you that has not been fully vetted. We simply ran out of time yesterday at the DSAC. Spent all -- most -- about four hours at the DSAC with LDC amendments. So I guess the short answer is that that September 8th meeting, Page 99 August 7, 2008 we're proposing to move that to October 13th. It's a September 8th meeting that was going to be the evening meeting for the review of the floodplain management ordinance. I certainly don't want to send you an ordinance that hasn't gone through the other committees. And certainly -- and we're continuing to work with the community and the industry. So we're going to be looking at moving that right now into October -- to an October 13th meeting, 5:05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:05? MR. SCHMITT: I believe at 5:00 or -- it was 5:00 to 8:00. It was an evening meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, you said DSAC met and you had a four-hour meeting on the LDC but you didn't finish discussing this. Why did you stop at four hours? MR. SCHMITT: I think it was almost five. I think by 6:00 they were done. We started at 1 :00 and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you started late, okay. Maybe they should start earlier. MR. SCHMITT: I think it was because offour-and-a-halfhours of environmental LDC amendments. So -- and a word of caution, the LDC amendments that we -- that you have in your book that primarily relate to the ones we said we'd discuss involving environmental, we had extensive review yesterday. Certainly you can review those, but there will be changes, and we'll meet the requirement as stated to give you enough time to review those LDC amendments. So I wouldn't spend a lot of time on the ones that are in your book now, because we had a very productive session yesterday working with, I'll call them the practitioners who put some of these things in place, and there's several changes to the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Brad, did you have something? Page 100 August 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just want to express the frustration of canceling a vacation because that meeting was put into there. Now, I know you say I can miss a meeting but I do like to come, feel it's my responsibility to be here. So why can't we get these dates to work? I mean, this is really difficult for us. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. My schedule is based on meeting meetings for -- the public meetings with the EAC or the DSAC. Now, example this week, EAC didn't have a quorum. I'm stuck for another month. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't need the EAC. I mean, why don't we -- I'm sorry, we don't need DSAC, we need the EA C after all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like your first answer. MR. SCHMITT: And the DSAC, just -- again, it's -- I'm stuck with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is, Joe, this is a month away. We really put together our schedules. We all -- you know, nine of us up here trying to schedule. This one's annoying because the week I couldn't take vacation this was in and then you took it out and put it in the week I did take vacation. And now after everything's been adjusted you put it out -- I'll probably go home and find out that it was October 13th that I picked for the vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know, if you try to schedule every vacation around the planning commission meetings, at the rate we're having meetings right now, you might as well not schedule a vacation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's the conclusion I'm coming to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think we all have to live with that fact and we have to expect that we're going to be -- we're going to miss some occasionally. It's just going to happen. I don't know how Page 101 August 7, 2008 we can avoid it. I think all of us have that same scenario. MR. SCHMITT: I understand your concern, Brad, and that's why I wanted to announce that today, because it's -- I mean, I'm stuck with the schedule. And the DSAC only meets once a month. You meet twice a month, which certainly we appreciate, because it can help us do our business. But the EAC meets once a month, the DSAC meets once a month. Some of the things we even finished yesterday I've got to get through a subcommittee of the DSAC before they come to you, and those were the LDC amendments. So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe we -- the commissioners that govern the county take a month off, maybe we could take two weeks off somewhere and just keep it clean, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe DSAC should meet twice a month. I mean, we somehow don't have a problem getting a quorum for our meetings, and we're probably here more than anybody else, other than the BCC themselves, so -- I mean, I think some of these other boards need to work a little harder themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, one statement you made -- I was wondering what board you're attending when you say we only meet twice a month. We're meeting a lot more than twice a month. MR. SCHMITT: Schedule meetings twice a months. You meet more than that. In look at my calendar, I've got a lot of yellows on August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we have six meetings or seven. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, six or seven this month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they will be lengthy. Okay, with that we're wrapping it up. I think there can't be any public discussion, everybody's vanished. I think it's ironic that the two people who were interested in hearing what we might do with this boat thing didn't stay long enough to hear it. I wish they had. But I'll Page 102 August 7, 2008 be seeking their assistance separately. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so you know, they asked whether or not any final decisions were going to be made today or if they could listen to that portion of it on the television. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I said there will be no final. Anything that we would decide today will have to come back for a public hearing, so you're more than welcome to listen to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I would like their input. But anyway, that's fine. Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion. A second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. Page 103 August 7, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:33 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 104 .~",_._-~------_..-".._--,,"_.- ' COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 September 30,2008 Mr. Miles Rocky Scofield Turrell, Hall, & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 RE: Petition No. BD-2006-AR-9061, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, August 7, 2008, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and denied Petition No. BD-2006AR-9061. A copy of the Denial Resolution No. 08-03 is enclosed denying this petition. Should you have any questions about your petition, please contact me at 252-2942. Sincerely, stco C-r----- Ashley Caserta Senior Planner AC/mm Enclosure CC: Monte Carlo Club Condominium Assoc., Po Box 7622, Naples, FL 34104 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File c o l~7 e r c o u .. t y Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913 www.collicrgov.net CCPC RESOLUTION 08- D~ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PETITION NUMBER BD-2006-AR- 9061 FOR A FIFTEEN FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM TWENTY FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06.E.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 2004-041, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 15- foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.l of the Collier County Land Development Code to authorize a boat dock facility that will protrude 35 feet into a waterway and accommodate 20 additional boat slips in a RMF-16 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found that this petitioner has not met the criteria required by LDC Section 5.03.06 ofthe Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNnq-G COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Page 1 of2 Petition Number BD-2006-AR-9061, filed on behalf of Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc. by Turrell & Associates, for the property hereinafter described as: Lots I and 2, Block B, of the Baker-Carrol Point Unit 2 Subdivision, as described in Plat Book 8, Page 62, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida (part ofthe Monte Carlo Club Condominium) is denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ..~ dayof ~t' ,2008. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA vVl~P~ MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman K. Schmitt munity Development and Environmental ices Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: A).(A cL A- C{O Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney CP\06-CPS-00433\Reso\8-11-08 Page 2 of2 "__~___> ...o<.._..__.__<._,_"~........_._.".~._.,,._.,_.,. .,~_,.."_~...",,,__,_., ",,_~,,"_____'""_H.._____'''__'' - ...... ...~~"..",_."._-'~'-""'-