Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/04/2008 R September 4, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 4, 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 Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Robert Vigliotti Bob Murray David Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney Thomas Eastman, Dir. Real Property, CCSD Page 1 -. .,-~_. v_.."_.___ --------~ AGENDA Revised Meeting mnst end by 4:30 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4,2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 17, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; JULY 30, LDC MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc., represented by Dominick J. Amico. P.E., of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, Inc. and Robert J. Mulbere, AICP, of RWA, requesting a reZone from Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 90-50 to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Germain Toyota CPUD. The purpose of the request is to increase the maximum building area from the current maximum of 60,000 square feet to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. The 13.05+ acre subject property is located at 13329 Tamiami Trail North; lying in the southwest quadraut of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road (CR-888), Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 ._ __",_".4'~__~' ~---~-_._. ..~~._-,.-- ..-- 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2006-AR-II046, VI Ltd. Limited Partnership, represented by Rjchard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use for the Moraya Bay Beach Clnh to allow a private club in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), as specified in Sections 2.03.02.E for the RT Zoning District and 2.03.07.L. for the VBRTO. The proposed private club will be located within the residential building. The subject property, consisting of 4.96" acres, is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 4S South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to CU-200S-AR-1320I) (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) RE-ADVERTISED FROM 7/3/0S B. Petition: CU-200S-AR-13201, VI Ltd, Limited Partnership and Collier County Parks and Recreation, represented hy Rjchard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) and the RMF-16 Zoning District, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.01.03.G.1.e, to allow for public facilities (limited to public restroom facilities) that will be constructed within the public right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach Club property. The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 4 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to CU-2006-AR-1I046) (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) C. Petition: CU-200S-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 2.03.01.A.l.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 4S South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) CONTINUED FROM 8/21/0S D. Petition: PUDA-200S-AR-13063, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc., represented by Dwight Nadeau of RW A Consulting, Inc. request a PUD Amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD (Ordinance No. 05-14) to provide additional living space for specific accessory structures. The :!:146- acre subject property is located approximately one and a half miles south of the Tamiami Trail (US 41) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection in Sections 10 and 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) CONTINUED FROM S/21/0S E. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294, Naples Church of Christ, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc., and Rjchard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., is requesting rezoning from the Rural Agricultural zoning district (A) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum of a 1,000 member religious facility, 150 student cumulative enrollment preschool and kindergarten through Sth grade elementary schools, 74 multi-family, 2 single-family dwelling units, and/or 200 assisted living units, in a project known as the Naples Church of Christ Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). The subject property, consisting of 19.1 acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately 0.6 miles south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section IS, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 2 14. ADJOURN Note: RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR LDC AMENDMENT 2008 CYCLE 1 ADJOURN 9/4/08 CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 3 ..--.--." ,-",-,-..-.,-. September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the court reporter, in talk too fast today, please let me know. And Cherie says when I've not had a lot of sleep, I tend to talk faster. Well, after the speech last night, I was all fired up last night. So I may not be talking -- I may be talking too fast today. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Caron is here. Mr. Schiffer -- Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You stayed up all night, too, didn't you? COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? Page 2 ___..___._ _...__u. - '------,-, September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that because of my beard you got us mixed up or our hair? Maybe the sunglasses. I don't know. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. I guess I want to explain the agenda this morning. We have a dual meeting today. The first part of the agenda is going to be on a regular kind of hearing. We have a series of issues, consent agenda items and five regular hearings, including Moraya Bay, Silver Lakes and two churches. After that portion of the meeting is adjourned, we're going to reconvene right after that -- and I don't expect that to happen much before noon -- in another meeting for the continuation of the LDC Cycle One 2008, I think it is. MR. SCHMITT: 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2007? MR. SCHMITT: Well, LDC 2008 cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what year it is, but sometimes we run -- the cycles run over. Now, just for the sake of those who would be attending the LDC meeting, the last time we met we left off and we finished with 3.05.07(H)(1 )(G), preserve management plans. And that was on page 193. So this time we will be picking up and continuing that afternoon meeting with page 197 of the LDC cycle. So if you're here for that, that's where we'll be going. I did receive an e-mail last night from the CRA in Immokalee. Page 3 .--.-... _u._ ....__".__..._..._ -.-.......- September 4, 2008 And they were asking that we not hear the Immokalee one today to give them more time until our next meeting in order to review it. Because contrary to what they thought was going to happen, they had not been notified about that particular LDC change. And I think, by all means, we ought to delay that and seek their input, assuming there's no objection from this Board. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means we would not then hear the Immokalee items for today. Now, there are two of them. I think they're only concerned about one, but I just assume we discuss both of them together in the future. So even if we were to get through the afternoon and get to pages 23 and 49 in our LDC cycle, those will not be discussed today. They'll be deferred to the next meeting. And I know, Mr. Mulhere, you're here for that one, too, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: That's one of the reasons I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you can save them money by not sitting here all day waiting for that. Not that I want to see consultants lose money at all, but -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think they're paying me anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as addenda to the agenda, is there any changes to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we will then continue with that once we get into the meeting. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences? Page 4 ---,,_.--'-""'. -,,------ September 4, 2008 Our next meeting is the 18th of this month. It will probably be another full-day meeting like today will be. And, by the way, full day -- I was informed by Mr. Murray that at five today there's a budget hearing in this room, so we'll probably have to end our meeting around 4:30 or so. But as far as the 18th, knowing that we're going to have add-on LDC amendments on that date, we'll probably continue. That will probably be a long meeting, as well. Is everybody here able to make that meeting? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 17, 2008 REGULAR MEETING; JULY 30, 2008, LDC MEETING We have two sets of minutes for approval. The first one is July 17th, 2008, regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Wolfley. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 5 .....~._~-~.-- _....-_..._"..._~~-...,,,..._......._. ._~-'" September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Second set of minutes are July 30th, LDC meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. No BCC report available at this time. Page 6 ~"~--~~.~,- --- September 4, 2008 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - NONE Chairman's Report. Well, that's an opportunity for me to make a few comments. But after the terrific speech last night, I can't make any comments. So I'm going to let it go at that. Item #8A PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914 Now we'll get into the consent agenda items. And, by the way, for those of you waiting for specific items on the agenda, you might want to wait until we get past the consent and we get into the first issue to make sure everything is running smooth before you decide on the timing of to day's hearing. So I know there's some people in here for one of the ending items. You might just want to wait a little bit and see -- make sure we're on the right track. Under consent agenda we have a Germain Properties of Columbus, Inc. Is there any comments? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I do have comments to make on this. I'm going to ask that this project come back to us. After the meeting -- well, let's start with during the meeting the representative from Fishkind -- I had asked him a question about some of the figures in his needs analysis. And he stated to me that included in his figures were figures for the Lexus dealership, which is adjacent, abuts the PUD that we were talking about. Nowhere in his report -- and I also asked comp planning for some additional backup that they had that I didn't have, which turned out to Page 7 ..----........ .".- September 4,2008 be nothing but street addresses of residential properties around the area. So when I asked and he said it was included, I took him at face value. But in going back, I can't find that. I can find every other dealership in the area, but Lexus is not listed there anywhere. And there's a chart in here that shows everybody else that was listed. As a result, there was no plausible rationale given for the doubling of the intensity at this area or placing 60 percent of the 2020 future needs at this activity center. Now, they may be able to do that. Fishkind may be able to show where those figures are. I'd like to see it. Right now there is no way that anybody can read through this needs analysis and find the Lexus dealership alone, never mind the expansion that they were just granted. So I'd like to have this come back so we can get it analyzed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You know, I was going to make a note about it being Germain. But I recall you talking about that and I think some of your issues were that they took population figures from Bonita and north of that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That wasn't the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's looking for -- she's talking about a response to a question, which a specific answer was different than what the documentation showed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see. Okay. I got you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mulhere, do you want to address that or Mr. Thornton? Are you guys familiar with the issue; do you have any -- did you know about it before today? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. No, I didn't know about it before this was brought up. And, I guess, my first response would be: I think that regardless of whether that was Page 8 ,.,-~_.,,_..._. H _,___"___._.,w. September 4, 2008 included -- I don't know the answer. We'd have to get Russell here. I think that there was still sufficient justification for the approval -- the recommendation of approval. I guess I'd have to know whether or not the rest of the Planning Commission feels that this warrants a further continuation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only basis I think we ought to be looking at -- and it's a good point that was brought up. First of all, everything that is on record ought to be factual. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that something was told to us that is not true is very disconcerting. MR. MULHERE: But we don't know whether it's true or not. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know if it's not true. Ijust am telling you you cannot read this report and find that information. So you can't make that judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it boils down to then: If that report came out and the judgment in the report was that Lexus was not included and it should have been, and it is included and it has an impact on how much current dealership space there is out there -- it would obviously be more than maybe the report showed, if it didn't include it, does that make a difference in the outcome of the vote of this Commission? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Because the question is: Does it materially affect your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where I'm going, right. And from my perspective, I didn't see that as -- to be honest with you, I wanted to make sure the report was done. But that particular issue didn't concern my decision too much only because they're zoned for the type of use they have. And they got the zoning, so I wasn't too upset over it. But I certainly want to defer to what this Board feels is the right thing to do. What would everybody here like to see? Because there are some Page 9 ~ '-,.~-- ..-.....* --.--.-. September 4,2008 other corrections needed on the consent agenda item that needs to be corrected, but we can do those at the meeting today. Comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, there's only the one item on the consent agenda, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what other items -- that might impact on how a person might judge whether to go forward or not. Are they significant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's nothing else. Just house- keeping matters. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'd like to go forward on it. I don't think that it has a material effect, does it? I'd like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any desire to see this continued? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's go into the discussion. I would like to make the record clear with Mr. Mulhere, who appears before us many times, and Mr. Thornton that regardless of how this resolves itself today -- Melissa, let me finish with Bob. Bob, we need an answer n MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to Ms. Caron's concern. And I would like it before the Board of County Commissioners meets. That way if any of us see that and it has impact on us, we can at least discuss that with our Commissioners or go before the Board and tell them we have concerns. Can we get that commitment out of you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes, you can. We'll be in touch with Fishkind today and we'll -- I guess we can come back before you at Page 10 .',. ._.._-,._---,"---,-_..~-_., "-.,-..- ---...---". .--_. September 4, 2008 your next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go forward with the consent agenda item today. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking that you still address this and you address this to us before it goes to the BCC. I don't care if it's by e-mail, but I want -- it needs to be clear. We need to understand why it occurred and how it is or it is not contained. And if it is not contained and it becomes contained in the report, what impact does it have, if any. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to suggest that Russ first directly contact Commissioner Caron and have a conversation with her first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But we all need the benefit of that outcome. MR. MULHERE: No. I think that's the appropriate course of action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go on to the changes in the consent agenda item. I found a couple of errors. And there may be more than the ones I came up with. I'll mention mine right off the bat. Exhibit E under landscaping two. The way the buffer is described there conflicts with what we discussed in the meeting. I've met with staff and suggested ways to clean it up. And maybe that is what we're going to see in front of us. The only item I mentioned to you is that the buffer is also -- the buffer is only along the west and there isn't a buffer along the southern side, is there? MS. ZONE: There is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone. MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. Melissa Zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the next one. That's the environmental issue. Page 11 --'--_.~"'-'-"-'~'- ~n>.'~_ _ September 4,2008 MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. Okay. Well, anyway, if you'll recall, it said opaque fence and now we're going to an architectural concrete masonry wall. And it went to eight feet high, instead of six. MR. MULHERE: Except 1 have one issue, minor, as it relates to number two. It still conflicts with -- a little bit with number five under planning. And I think it could be addressed if in the second sentence if it read as follows: This buffer may include water management areas and shall include an architecturally concrete or masonry wall a minimum of eight feet in height, comma, as described above under planning item number five. Because there's a distance limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's fine. Does that work for everybody? Melissa, do you understand the language? MS. ZONE: I do and I'm writing it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I can bring -- I got the survey and everything with me. It's in another package. And I've got so many books it will take awhile to dig it out. But do you recall the as-built survey I had asked for? And in that survey it shows a fence in the preserve area on the western edge in the corner. I just want to make sure through staffthat this language doesn't preclude that fence from remaining there because it's been one that's in existence for quite some time. MR. MULHERE: Are we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the left -- to the south. If Richard was doing this he wouldn't know which direction, but let's go south. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would know. I just would get it wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that say "fence" there; is that the-- MR. MULHERE: It says concrete wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever it is, I want to make sure that this language doesn't preclude that from being there. Because if Page 12 ---,-".,_._- ._.._--,.._~-~~_._._'._., ._..^"..._...A____'~ --~.. September 4,2008 you read the language, it says: It shall not be required in the preserve area. And it says a fence. Does that mean a wall will be allowed as it stands? COMMISSIONER CARON: Concrete retaining wall. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That wall is part of the storm water management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. So no effect then. On the next page under environmental we had discussed some of these issues at the meeting. I would suggest that the word -- the way it's written is a little difficult. Exactly 1.95 is problematic, I would think, in the future. I think we would want no less than 1.95. And that the acres located along the southern and western boundary. And, yep, looks like you got that. And let's see. That's fine. That looks like the changes on that one that we had talked about. Are there any other changes to the consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's Exhibit B, footnote number two. Bob, when I read that, that last sentence using the concept of the remainder, would you have a problem if you changed that to: All paved areas adjacent to the preserve shall be curbed? MR. MULHERE: Let me take a look at it. Okay. I'm sorry. Let me just get to the right -- number two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's my concern. We're describing that the 200 feet has to have a wall. And then it says: Except that existing vehicular use areas may remain where currently located. And then it says the remainder. So, essentially does that take the 200 wall, plus the existing, and then what's the remainder of that? MR. MULHERE: I think the intent was to curb any interface between asphalt and a preserve. Page 13 ..._-,-_.~_._--- September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then why don't we change the last sentence to: All paved areas adjacent to the preserve shall be curbed? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. MR. MULHERE: So all preserved areas adjacent to the preserve -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or all paved areas. MR. MULHERE: All paved -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All paved areas adjacent to the preserve will be curbed. MR. MULHERE: Makes sense, unless there's a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a big curb. MR. MULHERE: That's a big curb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where a wall does not exist. MR. MULHERE: Right. Where a wall does not exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, are you solid on this? MS. ZONE: If you could repeat it one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I've got it. All paved areas adjacent to the preserve where a wall does not exist shall be curbed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds good. Everybody happy with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've made three changes to the consent agenda item. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Page 14 -_._~-,_._...- W__"~"'_,,_._~_,"__"__"_"_ "'^,...,.~-"" September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll get into our regular agenda. And I guess before we start I want to make sure how we're supposed to hear these. Originally there were three items advertised together as what, I believe, were companion items. We have two of them today. One of them didn't make it because of an error in advertising. And it wasn't a staff error. It turned out, I understand it, to be a Naples Daily News error. In that regard, we have two items then that are potentially companion items. And from a perspective of hearing them, can we hear those individually? Do we have to hear them jointly and then vote individually; is there a preference that's needed? Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: It's your decision how you want to do them. You can hear them individually and vote individually. You can hear them as a group, if that's what you want to do. Whatever you think is most appropriate. Page 15 ~,._._..__._- ~~..'._. .-_....."._-~._-<"'.. -- September 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason either one of them couldn't stand alone on its own; do you know? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, there's no reason. They're two separate conditional uses. They're not -- they impact the same property, more or less, but they are stand-alone petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we could pass one, fail one, fail one, pass another, fail them both, pass them both? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And preferences or desires from the Board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Individually. Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. Well, then we'll take them one at a time individually. Item #9A PETITION: CU-2006-AR-l1046 The first petition is petition CU-2006-AR-ll 046, VI Limited Partnership, Moraya Bay Beach Club down on Gulf Shore Drive North. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I had a conversation some while ago with Dr. Bing and also recently with Mr. Y ovanovich Page 16 ~-,------_. --_.~,.- -.".,._-,-~._--_._,,-"-, .....---- September 4, 2008 regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I had a conversation with neighbors, Bruce Burkhard and Susie Steeple. And then I was in a meeting yesterday with Frank Halas, Joe Schmitt and Leo Ochs discussing the mass of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything to do with this particular application? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding some questions I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I did not have any discussion with the petitioner. I have had discussions with neighborhood people. And at this point I would like to turn to the County Attorney. Apparently this petition intends to affect another PUD, the Wiggins Bay PUD. Mr. Klatzkow, I live in Wiggins Bay and I just want to make sure that we are fine, as far as any conflicts. I don't live near the tract that they're considering. I have no interest in it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. We spoke of this rather extensively. And I asked you whether you had any financial interest in it and you said no. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. KLA TZKOW: And you informed me that there was something like 850 residents, which make whatever possible interest you might have remote and speculative anyway. So it's my opinion you have no issue with respect to this matter. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I wanted to get that taken care of upfront. But I also have -- I have an issue with the whole Wiggins Bay. Page 17 "--,,-,,-,-,,,-,,~----,-~""'~--'-"'-~'- _.,,_._..___c"__..._.. September 4, 2008 They apparently have -- and it's buried here in our report. It's not in the staff report, but it's buried in other information that we have. The intent is for them to have off-site parking that they want to use on this other PUD. That other PUD has neither been noticed. There's not been a neighborhood information meeting. There has been no advertising. It hasn't been included in the advertising for this thing. And I believe -- and I'll ask the County Attorney. But I think that all of this should come about together and we should not hear this until some questions are answered with respect to Wiggins Bay. MR. KLA TZKOW: My understanding is there's a pending administrator parking reduction request that was very recently submitted to staff. So I'm not sure how much time staff has had to really look at this. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Those are freestanding procedures. As part of the conditional use, I think all the applicant has to do is to describe how the parking is to be done or handled. The actual process doesn't have to be -- coincided with the actual conditional use. It's a separate process, kind of like the vanance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it may be a separate process, but if you're going to allow one PUD to affect another PUD without any notification and -- I mean, that just seems to fly in the face of how we do business here in the County. And I'm not saying that anything is right, wrong or indifferent with what they're attempting to do, but there has been absolutely no notification to anybody at Wiggins Bay. The Foundation hasn't been notified. There's been no neighborhood information meeting. There has been for Moraya Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, this isn't an issue for the applicant at this point. I wanted to resolve the issue with staff before you get into it. So I'm going to not -- I'm not going to ask you to speak at this moment. I want to flush out the issues first with staff. Page 18 ._n.",_._._u__<___'_~"__~_'~_'__'_'__'_'" - ,..____..,~__M. September 4, 2008 Ray, the Wiggins Bay PUD is an existing PUD. The property they intend to put this shuttle on, which I certainly found in the documentation that Ms. Caron is talking about -- and I thought it was surpnsmg. Is that piece in the PUD zoned for the activity they're proposing and would they need a neighborhood informational meeting or is there any required meeting that they would have to have, regardless of the issue? I mean, I want to make sure we're on the right track and if we're going in the right direction. Is an NIM something that would have been required for the Wiggins Bay PUD in regards to this use on the location that they're requesting? MS. DESELEM: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. DESELEM: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with zoning. As noted in the supplemental staff report that you received, this is an application that came in on August 7th. And it's administrative. The applicant has provided information to say that the piece that they're seeking to have this parking on is zoned C-2. And parking is a permitted use in C-2. As part of that PUD, it's like they can have the uses in C-2 although it's zoned PUD. So it appears as though -- although, I haven't reviewed it and I don't know. It hasn't been acted upon. It appears as though the use would be permitted. It's administrative. There's no public hearings. There's no neighborhood information meeting. It's just like if you had a C-2 zoned piece of property next door to you and somebody came in to put something on that tract that was an allowable use in that zoning district. They wouldn't have to notify the neighbors. They would just proceed to the appropriate development approvals that they would need. COMMISSIONER CARON: Will you show me where a parking Page 19 _.^~..._----_.~,.",.-- ..,.._".~-~..-_.- September 4, 2008 lot is an allowed use in C-2? MS. DESELEM: Yes. If you'll give me a moment to get the LDC, I'll do that. If you want to go on to something else, I'll-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is an important issue. It certainly impacts the people living in that area and I want to take it carefully and understand it first before we go into anything else on this issue, so -- while you're looking for that, Kay. This is an off-street parking issue, but they're putting it in a commercial spot; is that -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And any other private club, they could do the same thing without having a conditional use. Any existing private club could do the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAfN: rfthey needed a neighborhood informational meeting, if they find out that they do -- in remember, you had conditioned the approval of the operation of this facility on the bona fide acceptance of an off-site location; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There's no way the use could commence. The site plan for the project would not be approved until all the parking is approved and any other processes, such as an off-site parking, is approved. They have to have 100 percent of the required parking accounted for one way or the other, whether it's through a variance or through an off-site parking agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the future it would be better if all this was buttoned up and in a nice package for us, instead of having to do -- MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately, some of the off-site parking criteria requires it to be done at the time of SOP approval, which is usually after zoning approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Klatzkow. Page 20 u' _ ._._.,_~.______."_o_. ,.'." -,"",,,----- " September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKO W: Now, again, this was just recently submitted to staff, so it has not been thoroughly vetted. I'm not entirely sure that the parking that's allowed is an accessory to a use that's within the PUD as opposed to be putting it in a parking lot within one PUD and shuttling people two miles away to another. I'm not sure of that issue at this point in time because, quite frankly, it hasn't thoroughly vetted by staff at this point in time. So I think you might have an open issue here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, Kay, would you back that down so we can see what it is this is coming under? MR. SCHMITT: All the way down. All the way down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. C-2 commercial permitted uses. And the use that you're citing as the one that they're qualifying under IS seven. Do you have the SIC code with you? MS. DESELEM: I don't have a SIC code book with me. No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, while you're -- hopefully someone has a question. I can pull it up on the internet while we're talking. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Kay, one thing on the parking lot they're putting together, is there a restroom facility, shelter, stuff like that, or is it just a parking lot? MS. DESELEM: I'm -- I haven't looked -- 1 looked at the site plan ever so briefly, but I think it's just a parking lot. I'm not aware that there's any structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern is that's going to be the function of the site. It's just parking. It's not adjacent to a building. It does not have the facilities that a building would have. So wouldn't you not have to provide all that? Page 21 --~_.~"._---------_._---_..__._- .__..~- - '-.--- September 4, 2008 MS. DESELEM: For a parking lot? Not to my knowledge. A parking lot can be just that. It can be a parking lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- but parking lots are normally associated with a building which has facilities, so -- well, I mean, I'm not comfortable that there's no facilities out at just a plain parking lot. MS. DESELEM: As you see, it's a primary permitted use. It doesn't have to be accessory to something like what you're -- you know, if you have a commercial building, you'd have to have the parking for that use. But this is a use that's allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I do think it would have to have those facilities, but that would be something you would be judging by the building code probably anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can read 75.21 to you. It says: Automobile parking. Establishments primarily engaged in the temporary parking of automobiles usually on an hourly, daily or monthly contract or fee basis. Establishments primarily engaged in extending or dead storage of automobiles are classified in transportation industry 4.226. The areas that are included under automobile 75.21 are garages, automobi Ie parking, parking lots, parking structures, and towing parking lots. COMMISSIONER CARON: So parking lot. CHAlRMAN STRAIN: So parking lots. Parking lots are specifically included in -- in item 75.21 and 75.21 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Shall not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that --let me make sure that's the number that was in there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It is. 75.21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 75.21 shall not construe the activity of towing. That answers the question of the fourth one that I read off the SIC code site that says towing parking lots. Page 22 - .' .._-_...._,-"~_.,._-"~_.,-~_.~_.._--"--~ ."-"._._,,._,~ , -_.,-'~.'~..-...'--- . ..-...',- September 4, 2008 So it looks like 75.21 in Collier County can include the first three, garages, automobile parking, parking lots and parking structures. MR. KLA TZKOW: Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: But you're talking about the LDC. This is a PUD. MS. ASHTON: Right. For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. We've done a separate evaluation on this issue. And it's governed by Ordinance 82-2, which is the PUD for Wiggins Bay. Parking on its own is not permitted as a principal structure as the PUD is currently written. The parking could be included as an accessory use to various principal uses. If you'd like, I can put them on the visualizer for you to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I think that would be helpful. MS. ASHTON: It either needs to be an accessory use or there needs to be a PUD amendment to address the principal. Let me just clarify for the record. The PUD ordinance, which I can also put on the visualizer if you'd like, refers to the land development code regulations that were in effect at the time the PUD was adopted. So what this is -- excuse me -- I misspoke is the ordinance, the 82-2, which is the land development regulations that were in effect at the time of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is not a PUD that we have today that has automatic updating to the current LDC. This one specifically said it was the LDC at the time the PUD was written. MS. ASHTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, is there anything further down that's off of this page or is there a second page? Okay. No, I meant permitted uses. MR. BELLOWS: That's all that I see right now. Page 23 __..,_ .."w____~_._._ .__._--~. .,"...._-~_--...--._...._--, -...",",-_. -.--"." -~,-,- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the proposal to put parking on the C-2 in the Wiggins Bay PUD would have to apply to this -- these permitted uses here. Kay, have you reviewed that under that-- MS. DESELEM: No, it is not -- the review has not been completed. That's what I told you. This is still under review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But today we're being asked to make a decision on a shuttle service that is critical to the traffic problems up in Vanderbilt Beach. It seems to me, just as we found in the last project that came through here that was partially completed -- and, in fact, we've got some information just recently on that. I don't remember which one it was. Oh, it was the easements on the church that we're going to hear today. If you'll recall, they were going to take care of the easement problem before they got to the BCC and not address it with the Planning Commission. Well, that project got sidetracked and had to be continued until they addressed it before they came to us. These loose ends need to be addressed before they come to us, too. MS.DESELEM: The condition that staff has placed at the -- I think it's the last condition. I don't remember the number, maybe seven, for the conditional use for Moraya Club does state that they have to make some provision. And it doesn't specifically state that this has to be the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But-- MS. DESELEM: But it states that they can't open that club until such time as they have evidence of parking. They have to provide the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MS. DESELEM: I'm paraphrasing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I read it carefully. I've read every page. I understand what you're saying. But it's back to the issue that Page 24 --. ....- ----~~ _...._._.._--~._.. .-- . _..'----~._".~ September 4, 2008 this particular -- this Board in particular likes to look in detail at everything. We like to believe we're saving the Board of County Commissioners time in their review and especially exploring new issues that may not have been disclosed completely or understood completely at the time they were in front of us. I much prefer, and I've asked as a standard, as this Board has, that we receive full and complete packages. And nothing gets addressed later, if it can be addressed now. I don't know what the reason was for not addressing this earlier. I don't know why it couldn't have been done in conjunction with today's meeting. But I think if you really wanted to put the package together right and hope for a better avenue of success, that would have been done prior to today. Now, if that's where staffs at -- I understand your position. You've got an application. It came in late. You haven't reviewed it yet in time for today's meeting. The County Attorney has provided us with information that questions the validity of even putting it in the location suggested in the packet that we do have. Mr. Y ovanovich, now if you want to address any issues that you were impatiently waiting at the microphone for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'd like to do, if the Planning Commission will indulge us in this is -- first of all, the parking is addressed two ways in the application. The first way is that if we're -- we are going to pick people up at shuttle areas within established residential communities, okay? So we would limit our membership to those people. Let me give you an example. The Dunes. If the residents of The Dunes are members of this beach club, we will go pick them up at The Dunes. They already live there, their cars are already there, their guests are already there. We would pick them up there, bring them to the club. So we wouldn't need Page 25 '__"_"___'M_'__~~_'__.."_""" ~""'."'*"- _.~-""~ September 4, 2008 to provide parking if the membership was limited, as I just described it. It was only if we went to a membership outside of that, as I described it, where you have a community that can have a shuttle stop. For instance, the Pine Ridge community, you're probably not going to have a shuttle stop. So if you allowed members from the Pine Ridge community, then we would have to find a parking lot location. So that would have kicked in the second issue of that. And we thought we had identified that. Ifwe have not identified that, then we will have to deal with that in order to expand our membership beyond residential communities that have shuttle stops. We can -- if that's going to be an issue for the Planning Commission, we would like -- I don't want to ask for a continuance until -- I would like to have the opportunity to get all the issues out on the table because there may be just more than one. Then, perhaps, it would be appropriate to continue the hearing, come back and address the membership issue beyond residential communities and that parking issue and any other issues that may come up through this publically noticed hearing. So if that would work with the Planning Commission, I think it would probably be a more efficient use of the public's time, your time, our time, and staffs time to maybe get all the issues out. And if we still need to deal with the parking issue to satisfY the Planning Commission on the membership issue, maybe a continuance would be in order at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are the feelings of the Planning Commission? Let me take the representatives from North Naples first. Mr. Schiffer and Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When I read the report, I got the impression that that parking was an additional thing that you would like to be able to add on. And that's essentially members outside the Page 26 -,,-_._....<.,.~,,-"'- .._-_._._"._..~..~-,.._.. September 4, 2008 residential properties. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, obviously we -- if that wasn't accepted, then it's not accepted. But the impression of staff is that they're treating that like that's the required parking for the facility, so I think there's two different things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we are not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If they treat it as an add-on to what they're asking for, in other words, the ability to have people that would drive to the area, park there and be shuttled in, then I see no reason why we don't go ahead and then decide whether that is appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, do you have any comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, we've been told what's going to happen for -- as far as Wiggins Bay is concerned. And if we can have consensus here that parking is not allowed at Wiggins Bay, as we just had the County Attorney's office tell us, then we can go forward with the rest of it. And if we have other issues, then we can continue it and they can come back and address all the rest of the Issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I'd like to move ahead. If the public has any comment, I'd like to hear it today. This way we can flush out all the issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'd like to move ahead, too. And I thought that, from my reading of it, that if Moraya Bay wanted to expand its membership, then this issue kicks in. It seems to me if they were to go forward and parking were not available because of the hitch that they would simply not be able to expand their club. Page 27 ..-_.._".._-- +,,~,._._._~------_.._.._.,_., . ",--_.,-,-"--,,, ".,,~.~-'" September 4,2008 So I think we should listen to it and find out where we're going. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It looks like we'll move forward then. And we were in the process of doing disclosures. We had Ms. Caron's disclosure. Were there any others? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I gave one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I did meet with Mr. Yovanovich. Basically I told him I had concerns over various issues on both items. A lot of them. So rather than repeat all those now, I'll be asking the same questions here today. And, I believe, that Mr. Burkhard and I may have talked about it during discussions on other items. But at the time it was a long time ago and we didn't have any package, so I really didn't have any specifics. So that's the best my memory can recall at this time. And with that, we will move into the presentation. Mr. Yovanovich, we're going to discuss them separately. We're talking about the first petition now, which is for the beach club. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behal f of the petitioner. With me today are Jerry and Glen Griffin, who are principals, and the applicant, Karen Bishop. Dan Miller is the architect and Reed Jarvey is here to answer any traffic related questions you may have regarding the beach club. On the visualizer is the -- an aerial that shows the location of the property. As you can see or as you probably will recall, this is the old Vanderbilt Inn site. It's approximately 4.96 acres. To our north is the state park. To our south is the residential condominium building. To our east is also a residential condominium building. And then catty-corner to us is another residential building. The existing zoning is the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Page 28 .. ._.._._~"._-_._--_.,_._.~.- ......._.~ - ,..-..-.---.---.---..----.---..-.-....----.'.- -.._- September 4, 2008 Overlay. Weare asking for a conditional use for a private beach club. We had two neighborhood information meetings on this particular item, as well as the other separate item that we'll discuss next. At the first neighborhood information meeting the private beach club and the County's restroom facilities were included in one structure. There were a lot of unanswered questions at that first neighborhood information meeting. We went back, got feedback from the community, and decided to move the private beach club into the condominium tower itself and no longer have the stand-alone combined private beach club restroom facilities. We then had a second neighborhood information meeting. I think it's fair to say that the second neighborhood information meeting went a lot better than the first neighborhood information meeting. We were able to answer a lot of questions that we couldn't at the first meeting. The benefit of the first meeting was we got all the issues out on the table from the community's perspective. At the second neighborhood information meeting we were able to answer a lot of those questions. The primary questions that came about -- I think it was well received that we moved the beach club inside of the building. The primary questions related to the operation of the club were the hours of operation, which we agreed to a 7:00 a.m. to one hour past sunset for the outdoor portion of the club, and 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. for the indoor portions of the club. The next question was: Who are the members going to be? We obviously would like flexibility on who the members would be. So the question really became a -- kind of a capacity type question. How many people are going to be there at any given time? And that's where the limitation on the 250 non-resident members and guests came about during that discussion. So as far as who could be there, you would have the residents of the condominium and their Page 29 _.,_.--- ,,,.-.-...........-.-.-----..-.-.- ....~_.- k__~_..._'_.__...... . - "---"._-" '-'_._~--.,."---~~>~-- September 4,2008 guests, plus a maximum of250 non-residents and guests of the non-resident members at the club at anyone time. So we went through that process. As far as the -- I believe we discussed that we would be providing food, beverages, including alcoholic beverage service to our club members. We -- parking never came up. Interestingly, it didn't come up until I had an individual meeting with one of the Planning Commissioners. Sometimes it's kind of a forest or the trees type of issue because we always knew how we were going to operate this. And that was going to be that obviously the residents who are in the condominium and their guests do not need any additional parking because that's taken care of in just the condominium building parking requirements themselves. And we always intended that we would have members of other communities and we would have shuttle stops at those communities picking up the residents. But we had not really formally introduced that into the application. We've done that. We've introduced that into the application. We always told everybody that people would be coming by shuttle because that was the primary concern. You know, 250 people can be there, are you going to have 250 people driving their cars there? And the issue really never came up for parking because we explained that we were going to use a shuttle service. There were going to be two trips per hour, as far as shuttle service goes. So from a traffic standpoint, it's a minimal impact on the transportation network. And I think that that was satisfactory as we went through the neighborhood information meeting process. I will tell you that in my opinion -- I know I don't want to get into too many details right now on the next application, but the primary questions at the neighborhood information really came about regarding the turnaround and the public restrooms. And as I had Page 30 _~ .,_.0 __'_'_~~_ -..,-..-.- 0'_0'. _..~-_...,"..- --.--- September 4,2008 explained at the second neighborhood information meeting that really the turnaround and the restroom facilities were part of the Bert Harris settlement negotiations that occurred when the old owner of the Vanderbilt Inn property filed a Bert Harris claim due to the changes in the regulations to the R T zoning that they previously had by the adoption of the overlay. There was a settlement that came about and that's where the turnaround and the restroom facilities came about. I just really want to make it clear -- and I think it's clear on the application materials that the public restrooms and the turnaround are not necessary for the operation of the private beach club. We will have all of our own restroom facilities and the necessary dropoff. If the County's turnaround is not approved, we can drop them off within our own building as we described. So they're not related petitions to that extent. We support those petitions because, you know, we bought the property knowing that that was important to the Bert Harris settlement, but they're separate from that standpoint. I'd like to go over briefly the County's stipulations. And I think that we need to clarifY a couple of the stipulations in that -- I don't know what page number that is. It's the last page attached to my supplemental staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page three of four has staff recommendations. Is that what you're referring to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm looking at Exhibit D, which is the conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Exhibit 0 to the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's no PUD because we're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. It's a separate handout by staff. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there should be six conditions there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are. Same six in the staff recommendation, so it turns out to be the same. Page 31 -,~-^'--".~ _'Un',..__.___. _,'H"__ September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. On number two it references 6,515 square feet of area. Well, that's the indoor area. So I would like it to say 6,515 square feet of indoor area. Because the pool -- and I'll walk over to this exhibit. This is the indoor area of the club and it is basically on the second parking level of the building. This is the indoor area. And this is the pool area that will also be utilized by the members and as well as the private portion of the beach will be utilized by our members. And obviously the public portion of the beach is open to anybody, including the members of the club. So I just wanted to make sure that we weren't somehow limiting ourselves to a total of 6,515 square feet inclusive of the pool and the beach area. So that's why I wanted to insert the word "indoor". There's a typo in number three. It should say the conditional use is limited to residents of Moraya Bay Beach Tower and their guests. And then I would like to add -- and it says: And a maximum of200 non-resident members. I'd like that to say: A maximum of250 non-resident members and their guests on site at anyone time. So if you live in The Dunes and you're bringing a guest to the beach club, you can bring a guest, but they count against the 250 number. Number five it talks about we're going to provide shuttle service. An issue came up is -- you know, if we're going to be shuttling people there prior to or after the 7:00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m. close, perhaps we should make it clear that shuttle service can start an hour before opening and go an hour after opening so we can get everybody out of there when we shut down at 11. And shuttling employees, as well. So it makes sense to make it clear that shuttle service can't operate beyond the club operation hours. And then number six is -- that's the -- that's the parking issue. We will reserve that one until later to see if there are any other issues that come up. But, as I said, we anticipate shuttling people from Page 32 .....~".~.'- ~...".~-- September 4, 2008 existing residential communities that have shuttle areas. And if we go beyond that, then we would need to provide parking. And perhaps a condition would be that we either come back to the Planning Commission with -- identifying that parking area, if it's not an already clearly permitted use. Like if we went to a typical straight zone C-2 parcel, forget within a PUD, but a straight zone C-2 parcel where there's no question that parking facilities are an allowed use, we wouldn't have to come back to the Planning Commission. Ifwe have to come up with something else, then maybe we need to come back to the Planning Commission. I just throw that out there right now for an idea. Certainly not the final say on that. But that was the intent. We believed that we were allowed to use that Wiggins -- is it Wiggins Bay PUD parcel after some discussions with staff. If an error occurred, then clearly we can't use that site. Then we either have to have a straight zone site or we need to come to you and tell you -- we'd have to figure that out, I guess, if we don't have a straight zone site that would deal with that. With that, that's an overview of what we're requesting and the process that we went through. If you have any specific questions regarding the private beach club and the hours of operation or anything that would be occurring on site related to the private beach club, we're happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to make a statement. Months ago when this first came before us -- it didn't come before us, but we were given the package, Dr. Bing called me and I told him my only significant criteria at the time was that he had to show -- that the presentation had to show that there was a guarantee of parking for them. So parking -- apparently a miscommunication in the operation there. Parking, by this Commissioner anyway, was raised as a Page 33 -._,'.~--_.-_.- -'>_.- --_._.,-"--_....,~....',~---."......_-_.,_...__.._~~._,--. September 4, 2008 significant issue. So I'm a little disappointed that we're not clear on that this morning. There's been more than enough time I thought to get into that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Mr. Murray, we thought we had. We think the limitations that our membership can't go beyond residential communities, such as The Dunes -- because there would be no need for parking. We thought we had addressed that issue clearly. We also thought we had addressed, until this morning, the issue of membership beyond that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am specifically referring to membership in excess of that which was n MR. YOV ANOVICH: Like The Dunes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that issue was raised by me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You weren't the only one. You weren't the only one, Mr. Murray. And we thought we had a -- like I said, we submitted it. We believed after discussing with staff that we had identified a place that it could happen as a matter of right. We may be wrong on that, but we did attempt to address that. And that is why you saw the revision to the application to specifically address how parking would be handled. Because the first application didn't and we did attempt to do that. And I'm sorry if we haven't answered the second half of that today. We thought we had. But, again, that's why I would like to go through this process of maybe getting whatever other issues are out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, do you have anything that shows parking analysis for everything combined? Page 34 .--,_.-,- ,-~"-_.- ...._,,-,---~._...- ._~--,---~_..--- , _..--.-..._- September 4, 2008 Essentially, in other words, there are 74 residents, they require one parking, plus one guest for each residence, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. The SOP that was approved for the condominium addressed the parking requirements for the units themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that's been done. And then what we did is we did an analysis of the club itself to determine what would be appropriate. And there seemed to be two applicable provisions and we took the more restrictive. There's one provision that says you're required to provide one parking space per 100 square feet of the area, which would be the indoor area. That would result in 65 spaces. And then there's another provision that really -- it's kind of more of a restaurant provision that requires one parking space for every three seats. And that would result in the need for 83 parking spaces. So we took the 83 parking spaces because we believed that was the more restrictive. And as you'll notice, your staff also said we have to max out our seats for the club at 250 seats. So there's a rational nexus there between the 83 and using that number in the seats because we're capped at 250 seats throughout the entire conditional use, not within the dining portion. That would include the pool, as well as other areas that have seats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the sense of you saying it's a fraternal lodge or something like that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: it's a private club. There's no real straight parking standard in the code for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, be careful. On that-- the last sentence of that says that you do have to provide normal parking for outdoor recreation areas, which you didn't include. So what I'm actually looking for is: Is there somewhere a study showing what you need for the tower, what you need for the staff of the Page 35 .__.._..._-,--_._,~-,_."-"."..__...-.,."-~..__. --"._.._~..,._--~--'- September 4, 2008 residential tower, what you need for this and the outdoor parking and the staff for this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The building itself, the residential tower, has a parking standard. And I believe that's two spaces per unit, which is all inclusive. Now, the reference you're making to including parking for other recreational areas doesn't apply here because you have a residential tower. You're already there. You're going to walk to the pool and other recreational areas. Unlike, if you're in a residential community where you have many residences. You have a stand-alone rec area and some people will, in fact, drive to those recreational facilities. In this case nobody is driving to the -- to the -- you know, the condominium pool. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, when I mentioned the outdoor, that's part of the section, the private organizational club. That's a requirement that you didn't add in. Obviously the residents are going to take the elevator to the pool. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you were referring to the other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm really looking for is: Is there anywhere a study combining these two uses together? Because this is a conditional use. You're allowed to build an apartment building. You could also build on the site a private club. What you're trying to do is blend the two together. So is there an analysis of the two of them together or just state the study you told me and add what -- you know, add the units parking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. Karen, did we provide them this -- staff this? COMMISSIONER CARON: MS. BISHOP: Staff has all the information. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do they have this analysis? Page 36 ",--,-,,".._--,._~-_.._,._~._---,--- .~~,.... ..-....-------,---.....-'-..---. -.",--- September 4, 2008 MS. BISHOP: Yes. We gave them to you in September. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the answer to that question is yes. And if you want me to put in on the visualizer -- and that is exactly how I described it to you, Mr. Schiffer, as far as the parking requirements go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put it on the visualizer so we all can see it, Richard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe it's in the packet. May I please see it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You didn't get the parking exemption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the microphone, as you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if you got the parking petition, but this is the analysis we did. We looked at the square footage involved. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, we didn't. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the 6,500 square feet, the recreational areas. So the maximum would be -- I think it was 8,951, then you've got to take out areas that also serve the existing residents. It becomes a little complicated when you do that. We thought we were using the most conservative approach. And we went through this whole analysis where we did the subtraction out of. You know, the need to provide parking for people who were actually already there. And it seemed to make sense, if you're going to have a maximum of 250 people that can come from the off site or 250 seats, you would provide one per three seats. Because that just seemed to almost be a commonsense approach from our perspective. If you've got 250 seats out there, whether they're at the pool, within the restaurant or wherever, that's what you need to park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't want to interrupt you. I just wanted to say we, Mr. Chairman, did not get these calculations. So we have no idea. We haven't been able to analyze them at all. Page 37 ~--_..'-~--_.._._._-_._._--" .--. ---.,..-...----. ..-..--.. September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, if that needs to be an issue that results in a continuance, well, we'll do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Rich, one thing, why do you call it a restaurant if you page down because -- you know, that was a concern I had. I looked at it. It looks like a restaurant. And it walks like a restaurant. I don't know what kind of noise it makes, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's part of the club. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, if you page down, even you're analyzing it as a restaurant. But let's move on. It's a club. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, we tried to use the most conservative approach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A restaurant would require much more parking than the lounge would. The private club. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly. And that's why we picked the 83 versus the smaller number that would result if we used the private club analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So you're coming in with less parking than the restaurant would. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're coming in with the restaurant parking requirement of one seat per three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then maybe ifthere's a way we could get a copy of this that would help me a lot. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. You know, we came up with this on Keewaydin with the -- the wording you say is on site. And one of the complaints in the Keewaydin, which is in the middle of nowhere, so if we couldn't control it there -- was that people could be on the beach. In other words, essentially they were taking the argument that on site meant on the actual grounds themselves. How would you control the 250 to make sure there's not 250 people in the restaurant and 100 people on the beach? How would Page 38 ---.-,..----,--- -,---- September 4, 2008 you control that? In other words, in the Keewaydin thing we had the ability -- since there was only one way in, one way out, that the person running that shuttle knew how many people were where. But do we have that ability here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that's an issue, we certainly can have the shuttle operator tabulate how many people he's brought at any time and how many he's taken away. And we'll make sure that that number never exceeds 250 that are brought there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And obviously you're mixing it in with residents which are allowed to wonder freely and their guests, which would be allowed to not be mixed into that number. Rich, the concern of the second floor of this thing. When you got the agreement -- the settlement agreement, the intent was to build a 90-foot building. Obviously that's nine stories and that's the residential part of this building. To get that second level, I guess there's the option in the code that you could get that for bringing parking in the building. But do you have a concern that you're using area that should be for parking for this club? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. And we looked at that issue before we decided to move the club inside. There's -- the code says that you can -- you can -- it's not counted against height. The parking structure up to two stories is not counted against height for parking that you bring within the building. And I believe it also says you can't exceed the required number of parking spaces on the building. So we've done that. On the second floor there was leftover space at that -- so we put in non-habitable areas, which is the club, or any other amenity that a condominium might have can be on that second floor. So I don't think that was ever an issue from a staff review or our review of bringing the cI ub into -- to that level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that Page 39 -.'-.,"--.--.-".-----"-'--'- ,---~---'---'~-'- -,,', ~"<-"~;,._---,,-,,..,,,. ...."....'.._-"-,..- ,------ September 4, 2008 this second floor -- the reason it's there, the reason it's allowed is that there is the ability in the code for the County Manager -- he doesn't need to waive the height requirements which would give you that extra floor to provide parking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, there's conditions with that. Essentially the way that's worded, at least when I read it, is that if you had a building you were building and you had all this parking outside, you could say or get the County Manager to accept the waiver that I'm going to put the parking under the building, so let me lift the building. And the way it's worded, it also says necessary to provide that parking, not 12-foot ceilings. But let me put them under the building and you should find outside an additional 300 square feet per space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the case here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. That analysis was required as part of the SOP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Could we see a copy of that? And I'd like to see the SOP. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we -- is the purpose of this to reevaluate the SOP approval or n because we're asking for a private beach club within an already permitted building based upon comments we got from the neighbors. And we've got, frankly, a building that's -- if you -- and I know you have copies of them. I believe you have copies of the settlement discussion meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And one of the questions put to me when we were negotiating that settlement was: How tall is this building going to be? And I said 135 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actual height. Page 40 ._~-_._~~~."..,,-,_...,_._._-~- -_._..~-".~ ,.---,-.,,----. -- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, the whole issue of the height of the building is not the issue we're here to discuss today. We're here to discuss the beach club. We need to stay on that. If a question that Mr. Schiffer has in a request of the SDP has relevance to the beach club, then he needs to be given those documents, as we do. And, Mr. Schiffer, if you have a request and you can tailor it to that cause, then I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. That's fine. I'd like to see -- just see how they calculated to get the exemption for the height. And the reason it pertains to the beach club is the beach club is in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does the exemption of the height have to do with the application for the beach club use? I'm not -- I'm not trying to say they're right in the way they did it. Believe me, that's not where I'm going. We have to stay and we have to stick to the points of the issue, which is an application for a conditional use for a beach club. If you want to see the layout of the beach club to understand how they calculated the parking, the square footages and all that, I think that's relevant. I think that's a reason to ask for the SDP. But if it's to analyze the height of the building, that is not an issue before us today. I don't think we should be going there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not analyzing the height. I'm analyzing that if they got the waiver to provide parking, maybe they're putting the beach club in an area that should be parking. But if you give me that study, we can move on. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're just going to request it, so-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. It's public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure, from this Board's perspective, we tailor our questions to the matter at hand Page 41 . m<_'__"'_~__~<~__'___' .' --_"'~".-'.._. ~-_._~~. ",~""'-' --- - . ---~.. September 4, 2008 today. And I know there's a controversial issue about the height. Unfortunately, that is not something that's in front of us today. I don't mind dealing with it at some point, but that's not ours today to deal with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be happy -- I consent there's probably going to be a continuance requested at the end of this. And we'll be happy to provide that information to Mr. Schiffer. Does everybody want a copy of that calculation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you give it to one, you give it to all. I have a laundry list being tallied right now and I'll read it to you at the end of the meeting. Mr. Murray wanted to speak after Mr. Schiffer is finished, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you actually brought it out when you wanted to change recommendation five. Since the bus is going to run one hour before for the staff and one half after for the staff, where are they picking the staff up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'll be in the parking spaces -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the parking lot you want to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Or at the residential communities that will be picking up. And, I believe, we have six or eight leftover spaces. We have six additional spaces actually on site that staff can park in, as well. So if we have to, as part of the analysis, show you where staff will be parked, we'll be happy to do that calculation for you, as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Parking is tight in that area for citizens who want access to the beach. How do we prevent staff from parking in that area? For example, the staff could be a resident of Collier County. It could have a beach sticker on their car and could be parking in the new Conner's Park parking lot first thing in the morning because they're probably going to get there before most people. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my guess is that it's a small Page 42 --..-.-..--"----....-...- ~--~~ ,,".,--_. September 4, 2008 community. If I'm working at the beach club and I park at Conner's Park, at some point somebody is going to realize that Rich is violating the conditional use criteria and either -- hopefully will call the club owner and say, hey, tell so and so to quit parking there, or notify the County and we'll be in violation of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, why would he have to quit? He's a resident. He has a beach sticker. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because you're gonna -- I'm assuming you're going to condition the conditional use approval that our employees not utilize the County's beach parking. I would agree with you that they are allowed. If they're County residents, they're allowed to do that. But that wasn't the -- that's not the intent that our employees are going to be utilizing the public parking spaces to serve the beach club. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Another thing is that the people when they arrive at the club they're going to go up the ramp and they will be arriving at that second level or are they going to be dropped off at the street down by, you know, on Bluebill there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if the beach turnaround comes about, we anticipated that the shuttle would use the beach turnaround, drop people off. And as you can see on the site plan, there is a private gate within the property for people to -- the members to go through that gate to access the beach club. If that doesn't happen, then they'll go in through the condominium. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- and this will be my last question. Since essentially what we're doing is we're replacing a LDC, land development code, requirement with a private bus system, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do we guarantee that that private bus system exists, works? I mean, obviously you could say if it stops we can't do the beach Page 43 _~".'m__""""_'_.h'_____.,_,~___. .-.<-..-- September 4,2008 club, but what kind of guarantee in the operation of that would we have? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you answered your own question. If we ever stopped providing the service, we can't bring members there. And the question I have is -- let's not forget that even the off-site members are residents of Collier County, okay? If! live in The Dunes, I'm a resident of Collier County. I have just as much right to access the County's beach facilities as anybody else. We have operated beach club -- Signature has through a shuttle service working very well. They have experience with that. They know it will work. People would rather use the shuttle service to access the beach club, then come down and park here and have to walk from the County's parking area there. They would have the right to do that as citizens and residents of Collier County, but we think they won't because we have experience with that. They're not doing it now, but that -- they'll use the shuttle service. In effect, provide a better public access to the regular residents of Collier County because people at The Dunes and other places won't be competing for the parking spaces nearby. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Relative to number three, the 250 non-resident members and their guests. I thought initially that that was associated with the fire laws, but now I understand it's predicated on the calculation. And I'm looking at your calculation briefly and saw the kitchen dimension at 2,768 square feet. And I asked myself: Gee, that's interesting. I don't know if it's common practice to include the area of a kitchen for purposes of parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's in the code. I found it-- Page 44 ..__...._o._".._..~<_._.~._-._. nh_ ____.___.~o,.,,".._.. ... .--.-.-- September 4,2008 okay. Then that's -- my question is moot then, but it seemed odd to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did that for purposes -- remember under the fraternal organization you look at square footage. So one of the calculations is you throw all the square footage in, divide by 100, and it would yield how many spaces you would need per square foot calculation. And then we looked at the restaurant calculation where you don't include the kitchen. You look at seats. And that yields another number. And that's where the 83 came from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it's an analysis of trying to analyze it both ways, figuring out which is the worst case scenario. And that's the parking we would have to provide for the private beach club. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then you must have realized where I was going with my question. I would hope that we would go to the minimum and not the maximum. But I recognize from a financial point of view, a business plan, you like to go to the maximum. But, I guess, you were -- what is it 65 spaces based on the entire piece? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you looked at the internal beach club itself, it's roughly 6,500 square feet. Divide that by 100, that would be 65 spaces. We're saying that the more conservative number yielding the requirement to provide the most parking would be a one parking space per three seats, which would be the 83. So we're going to provide -- if we do an off-site parking lot, we'd have to provide a parking lot for 83. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I heard you and I understand that. I guess I was putting -- just a little bit of a surprise when I saw the size of the kitchen relative to the calculation. That's okay. Thank you. If it's in the code, it's in the code. Page 45 "._...,-~---_..-~--_._-- ---.--,.. -...'.- September 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the presentation? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: The beach club itself actually has no limit on the number of members that can be accommodated, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: You can have 1,500,2,000, whatever number of members -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's limited on how many people can be there at anyone time. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you can only have 250 there at a time. And you're saying that that policing is going to happen by the shuttle driver; is that what you just told -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be one mechanism. We can have -- you're going to have to go through the gate. We can tabulate that some way. But if you need us to provide assurance that we're calculating that only 250 non-resident members and their guests are there at anyone time, we'll be happy to provide that information. COMMISSIONER CARON: You keep repeating non-resident members and their guests in every single phrase. I have a feeling that there is something about that particular phrasing that is going to come back legally and haunt us later. So let's talk about that right now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd be happy to. I didn't want somebody to interpret this to say that members can't bring guests. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the limit, no matter, is 250. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 250. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. I just want that on the record. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I don't -- I just didn't want someone who reads this from the County's perspective or from the neighbor's perspective and say -- you know, Ms. Caron you're a member and you, Page 46 ^-"_."-'_."-~'-"-"' _.m.M..._....____._____..._. '" ,.....-. _..',- ~--- September 4, 2008 for some strange reason, decided to invite me to go with you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm seeing that as a plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, they always taught us in law school to go with the absurd and then -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You work right back down, yeah. That's pretty much everywhere I go when you bring something before us. To the absurd first and then I work backwards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There you go. I appreciate that. But I just wanted to make sure that you wouldn't be prohibited from bringing a guest to the beach club if you were a member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions at this point? Richard, can you put the site plan on the overhead projector. The one that you have up on the wall is fine, that type, if you have that on the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if! have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the second page of our staff report. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it. Is that the right direction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: r can read it. It's upside down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want it this way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you bring it up close to the side of the pool that's up against where the proposed restroom is going to be? Okay. That's close enough. If you could move it a little bit towards the beach. Up and towards -- right there. See where it says 10-foot wide landscape easement? It says 20-foot wide beach access easement, then 1 O-foot wide landscape? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can read it. I don't know -- I just went to the eye doctor. I got new glasses yesterday. So that's the way it happened so. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Rich, you want mine? Page 47 _._-.-_.,-_.._..._----~-_.,"".. ,""-,-, .'--~'- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know where mine are. They're on my desk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In that lO-foot landscape easement, it's got a solid line -- well, now it's really doing good. It's got a line a couple feet inside the dotted line. And it goes all the way up towards the Gulf Shore Boulevard area. I'm just wondering what that line represents because it looks like it represents a sidewalk alongside the pool deck. And if it is, where are you putting the landscaping? That only leaves about two or three feet for landscaping. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whenever-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry. Bad one. It's a wall within a landscaped buffer easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got a TO-foot wide landscape buffer. You've got a wall in the middle of it or actually to the side of it. Has staff reviewed this; is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was part of the original SDP, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering how we're getting the landscaping in there. So you got landscaping on both sides of the wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The protrusions on the pool, it's shaped like a double T. The ones that go past the setback, are those -- how is that going past the setback? Are those above the ground, below the ground; what are they? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are ground level, right? They're at ground level, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And staff, for extensions into setbacks, how far are they allowed to go in regards to such extensions like that; do we know? Page 48 ".-.-".,-_.,_.~,.__.,-,_..__._- _.__m__o ,-"'.-'" ,---. September 4,2008 MR. BELLOWS: If the pool is at ground level, there is no setback, other than to the lip of the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking these questions is I understand -- I've got your floor plan for your -- for lack of a better word, let's say restaurant. You have 18 bar seats and 91 station seats in that restaurant. So that's about 110. You've got 140 people more coming. So I'm assuming they're all going to go around that pool or in the beach; is that a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure I ask you questions that haven't been already addressed. Most of them already have been. Oh, alcoholic beverages. I discussed this. And I think, Kay, you may be ready to address that. And you may have to address it before you get up. There's a provision in our code that doesn't allow alcoholic beverages to be served or sold within 500 feet of a park. I want to make sure we understand why that doesn't apply to this project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, there's a specific exception under number seven. It's Section 5.0501 (A)(6) -- I'm sorry. (A)(7). And it -- Item C is any private club, which is what we are, may serve alcoholic beverages for consumption on site when such service is incidental to the main use and for the exclusive use of members, tenants and/or guests of the facility. This is a private beach club and serving alcohol as part of the private beach club is permitted under that exception. I think staff agrees with that conclusion, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Kay, I want you to clarify for the record -- and I don't mean to take away from your presentation. But the issue that he's reading is that the private club and country club and the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption on site when such service is incidental to the main use. And the point that I brought up to staff is that the main use in this particular case was originally the Page 49 .--. ._,'- .~_'",..'~ ,....."._,~._,- , --_.-'~ -~",,_.~-=---_...,,"...- .'"~., ,.~_...._.,,-_.._-- '-"-.-- September 4, 2008 multifamily use. But staffs comment to me was that because of the conditional use being added to the property, it then becomes a second main use; is that an accurate statement? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes. This becomes the use and it's incidental to that private club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's how they qualify then to have a -- liquor sales allowed there? MS.DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure staff was understanding it that way so there's no -- Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Is there a definition of incidental to the use? I mean, is it like in -- in other instances where it's the difference between a restaurant and a bar where you have to have 5 I percent food versus -- you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that how we get to incidental or is that just -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's that bright line definition like you find in the definition between a restaurant and a bar. The use is to get people to the beach to enjoy the beach. One of the services also provided is food and service of beverages, including, you know, nonalcoholic, as well as alcoholic beverages. This is not -- the primary use is not the restaurant, if you will, because I couldn't think of another word. It's the beach club getting people there. That's the primary use. So they can enjoy the beach. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, in our original packet -- and this goes back to -- I don't know -- April, May, whenever we got the original hearing. We had a series of e-mails and comments supplied to us by staff that they had received from the public. In those e-mails there are a lot of questions raised. Page 50 --"_."_.._-"-_._-~--,._'---"" ,...-..._--~.._,,-". _.m___ September 4,2008 I know some of those may have been answered. I know some of the circumstances may have changed. But just for the benefit of the public, I'd like them to know that we addressed their concerns. And so some of those issues that I don't feel may have been completely addressed or explained, I'd like you to explain to us, if you don't mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll try to separate them out because at the time the bath facilities were included with the application at the time. They're mixed up. So I've got to find out which ones are separate for yours and which are not. I have one from Patrick Koza, K-o-z-a. And his concern is about the size of the structure. I just want to make sure ifMr. Koza is either watching or understanding that that is not an issue that we are involving here today. And the size of the structure he's referring to was the Moraya Beach Club Tower. I don't know what we can do about that here today. It's not the issue at hand. A lot of these are access requests. Pedestrian congestion at the beach. All this has to do with the restroom. There's one comment: The presence of a clubhouse at this location will severely restrict the public use of the beach. I think that was at the time your clubhouse was outside and now it's inside. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your traffic analysis, it's slightly off because of the change in hours of operation of the shuttle. I don't know if anybody has looked at that, but I don't think it has that much of an impact. I think you go from 14 trips due to the limited hours you have for that down to 16 hours. So you'd have 32 trips, instead of 14. But I don't think that breaks any thresholds either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the day. Page 5 1 "~""-'~._--~--' --.--......-- ~..__.~-_._.-_.- . --....".,,-.- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the day, yes. I have a list of things that we've been talking about I'm going to be asking you. So I'm just about done. Those are the questions I have at this time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any follow-up questions of the presentation? If not, we'll go to staff report. (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I take this back? Do you need it anymore? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. Excuse me. You have several versions of several staff reports that you've received due to continuances with this particular petition. The most recent one is for the hearing date of September 4th. It's a four-page staff report that basically goes over the changes in the evolution as to how we got to this point. And it deals more with the parking issue and references the parking reduction request that was submitted. It's been discussed already at some length. This staff report does on page three start out with the new conditions that are effective as of staffs recommendation as of now. The other staff reports that you've received previously analyzed the petition for the findings of fact that are required for a petition of this type. That is, a conditional use. And it does provide the analysis for the growth management plan consistency. Right now I'm looking at the staff report for the hearing of April 17. And on page three of that you do see the analysis for the growth management plan consistency. And staff is recommending that this petition be found consistent with the land use designation of the site. We have provided the analysis responding to the various questions of Page 52 '-""~""'-""-'----"-''''''-'-'-''-----~"._.~--'-'-'' . -,,-_.,-,--~,""....'-"-' . -- September 4, 2008 the land development code that are required for a conditional use approval. The information about the neighborhood information meetings is also included in that. The notation about the environmental advisory council and that this petition did not need to be heard by that entity. And that staff report had four conditions. And as you note now, there are six conditions. But I won't go into any more detail because we've already had a fairly lengthy presentation. You're well familiar with the site. And I'll respond to any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, let me start with bookkeeping. The reference on our conditional use form, you're referring to Subsection 202.03.02.E.l.C.5, I couldn't find anything that resembles that. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. I don't know what you're referencing. Give me a little bit more information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, go to the conditional use petition. MS. DESELEM: Oh, the petition itself? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I think this is the code that I couldn't find that is in the new change. And, Brad, what you're going to find out is something that is interesting. Nobody can find out what these mean because they're not on municode in any organized manner. They're not available, unless you know when the code was changed. And this happened to be a code change from awhile back that Kay does have, but n COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it hasn't been posted yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's been posted if you can figure out how to find it. But municode has done such a terrible job of listing our code and not incorporating our ordinances, the public has no way of really knowing what our code is and neither does the Planning Page 53 -~^._----'--'- __u___. _O_"n ..---- September 4,2008 Commissioners, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that is a legitimate code section that -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. I can show you on the document that we do have. But, yes, it is a legitimate code section. And, I believe, our County Attorney can also state that she's referenced and checked it and it is a good citation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: During the break we can -- okay. Better yet. MS.DESELEM: This is the one that identifies the private club use and it's allowable -- addressed as far as its allowance within this particular RT zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And it is confusing. The on-line version of the land development code is several ordinances behind, as far as actual codification. But the ordinances are referenced for you to look at, but it's difficult. If you don't know what you're looking for, you don't know where to go, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, just as Brad brought this up and others have brought it up, and the public certainly -- everybody relies on a source for our code. And I know it's not your fault, Kay. I know it's municode's. I'm just wondering: Can't we do something? If you recall, a year ago we asked municode to correct the wrong references they currently have as an intro to our code. In fact, they're referencing individual PUDs. They're referencing TIF images, none of which have anything to do with our code. And I'm just wondering: How do we get -- is there any chance of getting to the bottom of it? Because it's really unfair to everybody involved in trying to analyze these projects when you don't even have a code that's close to being current. MS. DESELEM: If I may respond. It's my understanding that Page 54 .,._._,.,._.._~._....__._.~""->----_...~.'._' ,_..".._.-.,-,-- '--'-' ...._.0..'..'",,--"..... '--~"- September 4, 2008 we now have a new contact person at the municipal corporation that is working very diligently with our staff trying to resolve these issues. And things are happening much faster than they were. I guess it was a problem with the staff that they had at municode. And, hopefully, we've resolved that and things are happening much faster. I can't tell you when it might be fixed, but we're very encouraged as a staff that it is going to be fixed more promptly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I, for one, am not encouraged. We were told that information almost two months ago by Katherine. The site has not changed, except gotten more cluttered with irrelevant and unnecessary garbage, including more of the -- the Balmoral PUD is listed as a -- in the prelude to our code, things like that. They're listing -- every single ordinance that we pass is being stuck on that site, but none are incorporated into the body of the municode text. So nobody has any way of knowing what the codes are. Anyway, it's just something that needs to be rectified. I want it-- this is a good example of an absolutely big problem. And I don't know if the County Attorney can do anything about it, but somehow we need to do something about it. It isn't fair. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I'd love to fire them and use somebody else, but there's not a lot of people involved in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mark White had a suggestion of another firm that he uses. And I would suggest we maybe get back in touch with him and ask him. COMMISSIONER CARON: He had two different people he mentioned, I think, in our meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the analysis today it would have been handy to have current code. And I know staff would like to have that, as well. Are there any more questions, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Page 55 _.'_._.___.,__.'.w .._"'~-_.~~. September 4, 2008 Jeff, let me just ask you a question. Do you have a -- ifthere's a Word version of it you could reference on our own site. I mean, what do you use for a code; do you go to muni or do you use a hard copy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do I do? I've got a stack on desk this high of every amendment we've had since municode has updated. And what I have to do is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same thing we -- MR. KLA TZKOW: -- technically the same thing everybody else has to go through one at a time. It's very frustrating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's now wasting time in public hearings, so, I guess, that's not enough. Kay, the parking of the staff is a really important thing. Since we're going to determine that this is a private club, it doesn't have a requirement for staff parking. MS. DESELEM: No. As I understand it, that would be addressed in the overall requirement for parking for that use. Those particular designations are designed to be all encompassing. And that designation is, planning wide, supposed to be a standard that incorporates all the needs of parking for that use, whether it be, you know, the kitchen staff, the custodial staff, the wait staff, whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But do you feel-- I mean, what is the staff? And the reason I'm focusing on staff is that they're going to get there early. And if anybody is going to abuse the public parking-- and, like I said, if they have a beach sticker abuse is difficult to define -- it would be the staff. So how many staff -- I know -- and, I guess, maybe is this the parking analysis coming? MS. DESELEM: Yes. That is the parking information that was provided as part of the parking reduction administrative action. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll save that question for after the break then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I was just going to suggest Page 56 _'_m' ,_ '_....~_.~._,._..__..-.~~.,___. ,,'"----- September 4, 2008 -- if we're at a good breaking point, why don't we take a break, come back at 10: 15 to give the court reporter a chance to rest her fingers. 10:15. (Brief recess) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody would please take their seats. We need to resume with the meeting. And we left off with questioning the staffs presentation or any questions from the staffs presentation. Mr. Schiffer, you had finished? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, looking at the parking calculations, I'm still having trouble really coming up with what the requirement for staff is. It looks like you've calculated that this club needs 104 spaces and that would be including the 250 people. MS.DESELEM: Let me get a copy of what you're looking at. Are you looking at the Moraya Bay Beach Club parking calculation dated July 25? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. DESELEM: Okay. So we're looking at the same thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's still a little confusing, so I'm not sure I exactly understand it. In other words -- and it doesn't include the calculation for the tower, which everybody is assuming two times the number of units. MS.DESELEM: Yeah. That was addressed as part of the SDP for the tower itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the calculation of parking for the tower, is there any parking required for the amenities? You know, for example, an exercise room, sometimes a trainer, there's an office and staff like that. Isn't that normally -- don't you go through and add in the parking required for office for those areas? Page 57 -~,_..>~- ----.-.-.,---..-."".." .-----_...._~~ --". --."-.--- September 4, 2008 MS.DESELEM: I think, as Rich explained, if you had a project that had numerous buildings on site and you had those amenities within a separate building. If it was more than 300 feet from the residence, then you would have to provide some parking for the residents. Assuming like when mom goes and gets the kids ready and takes the baby and the toddler, all those people to the beach, she's going to have to have a car full of stuff to support them. In this case that's not the case because they're not driving anywhere. Their car is already on site and there's no place to drive to. They're already there. It's all in one building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Actually, what I'm referring to though is the residential tower, the thing that is allowed right now. Is there any requirement in the parking for staff for that tower? MS.DESELEM: No. It's residential. There's no staff per se. It would be like having an apartment complex. It's based on the residence and the number of bedrooms. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, you're just taking the two per unit, which one is for the resident, one is for the guest of the resident and that's -- oh, so it's 104. Then, I guess, it comes to n there's 21 parking spaces there. Well, this is confusing. I'm going to move on because I can't totally see it. But I really would like to know a breakdown of what the residents require. In the residential tower there is staff. There's obviously some grounds keepers and, you know, janitorial, environmental engineers. And then there's some office workers that come to the building. But, Kay, the other question -- let's move to something else. When this thing got that second floor, which is allowed by the code. Again, the County Manager can waive the height requirements and Page 58 " .~. _.._--_.~...._._-~~----- ___,'''_n_,...___''_'.'.__ September 4,2008 allow an additional floor or two, if they put the parking in the building. Do you think in any way that this beach club is taking advantage of that situation? In other words, is this area that -- since we gave them that waiver, that they should be providing parking in? MS. DESELEM: Do I believe they're taking advantage ofthe waiver; is that what you're asking me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, right. In other words, essentially to get that additional floor they had to provide parking. I mean, it's for parking only and it's -- the way it's written, it's all -- you know, only should be high enough for the needs of the parking. So do you think this beach club in any of this stuff you've seen ever had parking shown in that area? MS. DESELEM: I didn't go back and look to see ifit specifically had parking shown in that essence. But I did go back and look -- and I do have the site plans with me for the SOP and the insubstantial change, if you want to look at it. And I believe part of that area at least was identified as an amenity area. So I don't know that there were parking spaces shown there. Therefore, there's not a reduction of those spaces. If you'd like, I can get -- if you give me a minute, I'll get it and we can put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay. I mean, another question now is: Is this a commercial use or is this -- what is the -- this use classified, the beach club? MS. DESELEM: A private club. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, it's not a residential use. And the reason I'm asking that is: Does this building now become a mixed use building thus through the architectural standards and things like that to start -- MS.DESELEM: No. I don't believe that would be applicable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. Page 59 - --~~-,_._,----,_.." -~,,-., -_... ~ ...--.-..... ---- '"-~.. .'. -.-- -~_..~^_..._--. ^. '- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the beach club has always been a part of this; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: You mean the private club? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I mean, ma'am. Sorry. MS.DESELEM: A part of what? I mean, no, the original SDP that was approved -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Part of this tower. MS.DESELEM: No, it is not. That's why they're here for the conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Okay. And perhaps you don't know, perhaps I should ask the other gentleman. But I'm trying to figure out if a restaurant was already to be present in that property what the implications are relative to parking, but I'll just munch on that for awhile. I don't really expect you to answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Oh, Ms. Caron, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure. I don't see anybody from comp planning. But according to the staff report, under GMP consistency it says: Conditional uses such as private clubs intended solely for the use of the owners and their guests as is proposed in this petition's companion request are allowed. But that's not what's being proposed here. It's not just for the owners of this tower. It is for any number of members that -- however many members they can dig up on the street who would like to go to the beach and pay the money to go to this beach club. Page 60 ..' --'----. ,--._-_.,..- ---~.., -. --~---_...__.-" - - --..- September 4, 2008 MS. DESELEM: Yes. I see that now. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm not sure how we can say it is consistent with the growth management plan. MS. DESELEM: I feel comfortable myself, as a planner, stating that this is consistent. At that time I believe they characterized it that way because that's the way it was submitted. But I think if -- if that part about solely for the use of the owners and guests were removed as a limitation, it would still be consistent. I don't think it's only consistent because of that limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go any further on possibly trying to predict what the outcome is, this is going to come back. Why don't you have comp planning readdress the issue based on the current application? MS. DESELEM: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then reconfirm or not the outcome. That will get us there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to add there's nothing in the comprehensive planning that prohibits outside guests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. DESELEM: That was the point I was trying to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if Ms. Caron's concern is comp planning's addressing it, let's get it addressed right. COMMISSIONER CARON: I am just looking at the staff report and this is the statement they made in qualifying it for -- in consistency with our growth management plan. If that isn't the case or they shouldn't have been doing it, then get them up here and have them say that and take it out. MS. DESELEM: I'll have them review it again and we'll address that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Page 61 ..-.. September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: This club at 6,500 square feet with not nearly enough parking to make it happen, how is it that you're finding that consistent from a planning standpoint? You're only doing it because you're requiring them to find off-site parking; is that right? MS. DESELEM: Yes. They can be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So how does this work in the County now? I want to understand this because this is kind of a new concept. That now anything that I want to build, if I -- if I can't meet the parking requirements, I just go buy another piece of property and have off-site parking. MS. DESELEM: You have that opportunity or you can seek a variance. But, again, you're asking for it. It's not necessarily approved just because you asked. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not necessarily approved, okay. And is there some sort of -- do we have any kind of rules involved in this as to how far away that parking lot could be? MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge. It just specifies you're supposed to address it and look at it, but it doesn't state a minimum or a maximum. You're just supposed to evaluate the distance. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is a distance requirement if it's valet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have public speakers? MS.DESELEM: I'm sorry. If! can clarify. There is a distance requirement if it's valet parking. But in this case, they're not seeking valet parking. It's going to be a shuttle. COMMISSIONER CARON: So the shuttle doesn't qualify as Page 62 -..--.---'."- ---_.- September 4,2008 valet parking or valet? MS. DESELEM: No. Right. It's a different animal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to -- we're going to ask for the public speakers. Now, remember, there's two issues. If your issue is about the restroom facility, just say so and we'll defer your ticket until that time or your request to come forward until that time. If it's about this particular application, the club use, that's fine. It's now the public's Board time to speak. We ask that you stick to the issues of the document. I know from talking to people in Vanderbilt Beach there's concerns about the size of this facility and other things. You need to provide us information relevant to what's in front of us today though. So with that -- for anybody who hasn't submitted a ticket, I'll still ask at the end after all the tickets are reviewed if anybody else has any comments. So, Ray, would you call the first public speaker, please. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we have eight public speakers, all of whom identified this as the item they want to speak on. That's Item A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And I'm gonna -- for the speakers, I'm going to read the first name and then the following name so you're prepared to speak. First speaker is Alex O'Brien followed by Jason -- I believe it's Mikes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to come to the microphone, either one, identify yourself first and make sure -- if you have a complicated spelling for your name, it may not be to you, but the court reporter may have to get it right. And we ask that you try to limit your discussion to about five minutes, but we don't hold fast and true to that. MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Good morning. Alex O'Brien. It can be Page 63 "' .._...__,~_..~_~_"'o~ .._----,.,-- ~_.-.,.----_. ,-......-.- ....~..~_.- September 4, 2008 with or without an apostrophe. That's about the only complicated part. Before I begin, can I have the visualizer picture of the colored one with the beach and the site plan and all of that put up there? Because there was a picture -- yeah. I don't know. There was one with lines -- property lines on it, I think, or whatever. No, there was -- yeah, maybe that was it. Maybe it was just magnified a little bit. I don't know. Yeah, good. Beautiful. Before I begin, can anybody tell me what those lines are? Those blue lines and the red lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that the red lines are your property lines. They're not as accurate as they should be because they're from the Tax Appraiser site. And they're usually within five or ten feet. The blue line appears to either be the right-of-way line of Bluebill A venue or an easement line that may be there as a result of the easements that have been put in place. MR. O'BRIEN: And that's not like the high water mark line or that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. We have a map with that. And if you're willing to -- I have a copy of that, but the DEP's high water mark is the high water mark -- MR. O'BRIEN: No, no. I'll get to that in a minute. I just thought a picture's worth a thousand words. And I, hopefully, will not say a thousand words, so a picture would work out a lot better. I am here to speak against the conditional use permit for the Moraya Bay Beach Club. There is a reason why this area was designated Residential Tourist zone. It states right in the title, Residential Tourist, not private beach club. My thing is: Where will the public go? On the Residential Tourist side, we have Baker-Carroll Point, where I happen to live. We have about 650 doors. That's the way they told me to explain it. Number of doors, instead of people and Page 64 _'__'__M__"""'. ---,' -....---,.,- --....,-,- September 4, 2008 things like that. 650 doors. You have Naples Park and associated areas where Commissioner Halas lives with another approximately 600 homes. I could be off a couple in one way or the other. There are three more condo buildings across from the project with probably about another 120 doors; two housing developments across from The Dunes with another 60 doors. This doesn't even take into account the number of doors from The Dunes, which would walk over to go into the beach. There's approximately 85 parking spaces in Conner Park for the public to park for the beachgoers. I am estimating at any given time, especially in season, there could be about 3,100 residents/tourists that could use that beach area. I just look at a scenario if this is approved. When this was first proposed at a town meeting at St. Johns, there were many people in attendance and many concerns were raised from traffic to public safety. This goes back to the original one way in the beginning, not the second one. I personally asked the following questions: Who is this beach club going to be for? The answer I got: We don't know. How many members will it have? Answer I got: We don't know. So I said: What do you know? The answer was: We could set up 350 lounge chairs at our -- end of our property, which I understand is like a high water mean line, some technical term like that. I mentioned: Well, it's a public beach. We can sit anywhere. I was very curtly told that in front of the building is private property. And if anybody sits in that private property area, they could be asked to leave and sit, obviously, closer to the water. My question then becomes: Where does the public go to enjoy the public beach that has public access? Certainly not in front of the private beach club. After the town meeting, this project appeared to go into hiding and then reemerged a little later on in a new form, but the use is still Page 65 ____.__~m_.__...___ >..--------.> September 4, 2008 the same. We will not be able to sit on that part of the beach. The private beach club was not included in the original plan, but when the developers found a selling feature for their Wiggins Pass developing, they decided that this would be the born -- this is where the thing would be born. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned in the real estate section -- and I have a copy here -- in April. Naples Daily News and it stated: Exclusive membership in a private beach club. How can this be mentioned when the developers haven't even gone through the public process yet? I guess, we don't have too much truth in advertising. The developer already has one private beach club, which I think they failed to mention, the Floridian on Gulf Shore Drive about halfway down Gulf Shore Boulevard. They could expand that if they want to have a beach club and offer it to the Moraya Bay people, which the beachgoers are bused to already and they could still -- oops. Sorry about that. They can still bus them down to the Floridian. Why do we need another private beach club in what would be a public area? If the plan is approved, the developed could bus the approximately 600, I believe is the number, doors when their Wiggins Pass project is complete. The public has beach access at Vanderbilt Drive. And where will the public be at the north end? There's public access at the south end of Gulf Shore. Where are the people on the north end going to go? The 3,100 approximate people. I'd like the Planning Commission to think about the following and deny the application. Why was the area zoned Residential Tourist in the first place? Where will the public be able to enjoy the beach? Why will the developers be allowed to take advantage of a public beach for private purposes, depriving the residents in the immediate area of the use of the beach that has been used by the public for the Page 66 .^._.,__~_.~~.'_ H . .. '-~'''--'~---''''-~ .---"..,._-"~ September 4, 2008 last 40 or so years? When the developer leaves this project, the beach will be private. And from that time on, the residents in the immediate area will have to live with it, not the developer. The project that -- the parking at Wiggins Pass topic may be mute if Moraya Bay is not accepted as a private beach club or if they decide to shift it down to their Floridian area. That's why I just wanted to show that. I originally thought it showed where the public could sit versus where the 350 people could sit. If you look at that -- and I was told that they could go up to the mean high water line, whatever that is. And that's a pretty substantial area to sit 350 people. The 3, I 00 people are squeezed in an area much smaller than that. So you have a developer taking a n what was formerly a nice public beach. And in season -- I don't know if any of you have been there -- there is quite a few people that used to sit in front of the Vanderbilt Inn. That area is now going to be offlimits to the residents in the immediate area, plus anybody that comes in by car. And where will we be able to sit? We certainly can't walk down to the south end of Vanderbilt Drive to get on that public beach easily enough. And we will have to then go around the private beach club to sit in front of the condominiums that are further on down the beach. And my question is: Where is the public going to sit? Where are the 650 people -- the 600, the other people? Where are we all going to sit? We're not going to have a place to sit on the beach, unless you want to take a nice hike halfway down the beach. So my question would be: Where are we going to go? And hopefully this will not be approved so the public can have some public access to a public beach to sit. Thank you for your consideration. Page 67 _.._.,".~......_. . September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got some questions. Your suggestion that they relocate this to the Floridian. MR. O'BRIEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know about that Floridian. I didn't know such a place existed. MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, yeah. It's for the members of The Dunes, but only certain buildings of The Dunes. I don't believe it's open to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But how would that help your argument? If they move people to Floridian, they're still putting the same amount of people on the beach. I'm just wondering-- MR. O'BRIEN: See, where the Floridian is, it's halfway down Gulf Shore Boulevard. There's two public accesses near it, which maybe there's like 20 or 30 homes that would walk down the street, cross through the beach onto the beach. And there's plenty of room on either side of it, all right? Where they're proposing near Moraya Bay, there's going to be public access. I'm sure you're familiar with this. There's public access right there onto the beach. You need to hang a left, you'd be on the beach enjoying the beach. If they move it to the Floridian Club, they're in the middle of the beach, very few -- well, much less in the amount of people sit there because of only the couple of streets that have a few houses on them. Where the other end, where the Beach Club is proposed, 3,100 people approximately can sit on that beach. So if they move it to the Floridian Club, that frees up that part of the beach that always was there for people to sit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I just didn't understand. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. MR. O'BRIEN: Sure. Page 68 -_.....~,._--- ~. --_._..---- .__"w.____ September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ad that you said you become a member of the beach club, what is that an ad for; what development? MR. O'BRIEN: This is Moraya Bay Beach Tower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they have an internal capture calculation here. So everybody in the -- MR. O'BRIEN: Moraya Bay Beach Tower, which is now underway on northern end of Vanderbilt Beach will feature unobstructed views of Gulf of Mexico. In addition to enjoying beachcombing, Moraya Bay Beach Tower residents will be granted exclusive membership in a private beach club which will provide food, beverage, concierge service and will have an option of membership in a proposed private golf club. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. O'BRIEN: It was in the paper even before this whole thing started. As you can see, I'm not a big fan of this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Ray, you want to call the next to be in line. MR. SCHMITT: Jason Mikes followed by, it looks like Carl Seymour. MR. SEYMOUR: My questions have been answered. I can give my time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Seymour waives. MR. SCHMITT: Joe Connolly then will follow Mr. Mikes. MR. MIKES: Good morning. For the record, my name is Jason Mikes. It's spelled M-i-k-e-s. I'm an attorney at Quarles and Brady. And our firm serves as legal counsel to Wiggins Bay Foundation, which is the association responsible for the operation of Wiggins Bay. I was asked to come here to get more information about this project when it recently came to our attention that there was possibly a parking lot or structure proposed within the Wiggins Bay PUD. I was Page 69 -._.~--- --.. ._,.~_._- --.'"' ...... ..~.,m"._... ...-- September 4, 2008 also asked to come here to reserve the Foundation's right to speak before the Board of County Commissioners if we felt that was necessary as this moves forward. But my main purpose for being here -- and it has already been addressed, thank goodness -- is to point out to staff that the proposed parcel for this parking is subject to the Wiggins Bay PUD. And it states that it's governed by a C-2 zoning restriction in effect when the PUD ordinance was initially approved. And I think, as you'll read, it may require more than simply staff administrative action ifthey want to put a parking lot or structure in this location. So I'm just stating this, you know, for the record. I appreciate all your time. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SCHMITT: Joe Connolly followed by Carol Wright. MR. CONNOLLY: I will have Mr. Burkhard go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Connolly asked that Mr. Burkhard speak first. MR. SCHMITT: Then Mr. Burkhard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no objection for Bruce. That's fine. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Burkhard followed by Carol Wright. MR. CONNOLLY: Well, I still want to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. WRIGHT: And I'm waiving my time to Mr. Burkhard. My speaking minutes. MR. SCHMITT: Followed by Joe Connolly then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you have got about two hours then. MR. BURKHARD: Well, 1 only have 20 pages. So that will just work out fine. Actually, I did write this out. I'm not much of a public speaker. Page 70 ___.0--- .. .,-,,~,"'-----"~--'-"-"'- _..._-"--- September 4, 2008 And I want to make sure that I cover everything that I wanted to cover. So I did write it. As a result of that, some of what I discuss in the writing has probably been addressed during the conversation. So if you would, please, bear with me on that. I would appreciate it. My name is Bruce Burkhard. And I'm the Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association Zoning Committee. Our association is opposed to approval of this particular conditional use. Simply stated, we feel it's an egregious overreach by the developer. It also appears unseemly to us to have a County department, the parks and recreation, signing on as co-petitioner to add credibility to what seems to us to be a flawed idea. If there was a rational nexus for including parks and rec in an earlier iteration of this plan, that nexus or reason no longer exists and they should withdraw and drop the prejudicial appearance. County staff should not be aiding a developer in winning County approval, in our view. It's really a faith in government issue. This project has sought and is continuing to seek variances as it has tried to overfill the space available. When is enough enough? And when is one more use crammed onto a site too much? I think we've reached that point with this conditional use request. What you're being asked to approve is basically a restaurant and a bar business for an undetermined number of actual club members. They want you to write a blank check, plain and simple. Read the words carefully in item two of your staff recommendation. And it says, quote, the club is limited to the residents and their guests and a maximum of 250 non-resident members on site at anyone time. It doesn't specifically state how many total numbers you may be authorizing. And I'm not sure that the 250-plus people are counted if they're not physically located within the walls of the club. And I think we talked about that a little bit. One of the key problems with this petition, and a clear Page 71 ,^'-'-.-'.__..~."~"-' - --'-"'''--_."--'' . -......-.-... -"--- -. .-..-..-.,.-. . September 4, 2008 demonstration that it's really an over-the-top project, is the fact that they've got no on-site parking left to accommodate all of the members, guests and even staff people. Where else would a restaurant and a bar be allowed to open with absolutely no parking facilities nearby? Where will the help -- the bartenders, waiters, waitresses, cooks, cleaners, beach boys and so on -- park when they come to work? And I think we've already alluded to the fact that one likely place might be Conner's Park, thus robbing local citizens of their beach parking spots. And I don't see any way that that is going to be policed. You're offered a solution of a shuttle service which is going to pick up passengers someplace, the exact locations are nowhere spelled out in the petition, other than a nebulous someplace inside one of these gated communities, but is that all? Will the shuttles also be stopping in public parking areas? Will they be stopping in Conner's Park? Maybe, maybe not. This is another blank check request. Is it reasonable to approve a transportation system where you don't even know where the buses will be stopping? How can this system be policed and enforced to ensure that ordinary citizens are not forced to lose their beach parking spaces? The La Playa Beach Club -- they have a beach club on their site -- has on-site parking. That's part of the deal. And we believe that this should be a model for any other beach clubs that ask for conditional uses anywhere along the beach. We're very concerned that if this club is permitted it will be used as a model for future dense packed projects. And these, as was just mentioned, are being put in the R T areas of Vanderbilt Beach. This area is going to be subject to redevelopment. I have no doubt about that. And do we want to set this up as an example for future developments? Do we want to have these busing projects? Do we want to have lots and lots of people come n more and more people come to these exclusive, private beach clubs? Page 72 n_.,,__"._~____ ... w.._,_*__.".,_'w_ __ ...,_'..__,""_, -.-"-..... -.-.-.-. September 4, 2008 The effect of this conditional use would have a negative effect on neighboring properties, both along Gulf Shore and the Baker-Carroll Point buildings. Please keep in mind that the R T designation stands for Residential Tourist. This area is primarily a residential neighborhood comprised of condominiums in which people live. Packing additional intensity by way of a club, a restaurant and bar, in effect, increases the density in that area. This is something that the VBRTO, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Overlay, was supposed to limit. Our aim was to take our neighborhood back from mixed overdevelopment. If approved, this CU would do the opposite. We request that you deny this CU request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Your comment about La Playa Beach Club on site, I don't know -- I would like to ask staff when this comes back, provide us with an analysis of what La Playa did in regards to their beach club use, if such a use exists there, as far as the parking goes, okay? MR. SCHMITT: There is a private beach club in that hotel. It is a separate and distinct entity from their restaurant that they have. It's a separate floor in the hotel. It's a private beach club. And, of course, they have the parking across the street in the parking garage. They have a separate parking garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand all that, Joe. But I'm trying to say is if the residents indicate that's a model of what ought to be set as a standard for up there for this kind of use, I'd like to know what it is they did that was the model. So that if this project could be done similarly, that may be the way to look at it. I just would like to know what the model of the beach -- of what La Playa set. It's a good precedent, if that's the case. If the residents like it, I'd sure like to see what it is. MS.DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. So you just want us to analyze and provide the information as to -- for the parking Page 73 ,--_._-~- '_'~m.~__'.'~__"_' -- September 4, 2008 calculations or what exactly is it you want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The testimony provided here today says that the La Playa facility has a beach club. If they do, that's fine. If they do, somehow they got parking. How was their parking arranged? Is it inclusive or more than the facilities that are there? Is it part of the facilities that are there? Is it off site? Is it shuttle? Whatever methodology they used seems to work well for the neighborhood because we just heard testimony that was an acceptable pattern to use. I'd like to know what it is so if we can do it here and we can make it more palatable. Or if it can't be done here, we need to know that, too. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to caution with the understanding that the La Playa is a hotel. It also has -- what do you want to call it -- convention facilities. There's a separate building for that. It's a -- it is similar, but it is much more than a condominium. And we can provide the parking analysis for that entire project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're right. I had forgot. This used to be a hotel here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that may have a different bearing on the whole thing then, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. But I would like to know ifthere's any additional parking, how they handled their parking for their beach club. Not critically against them. Theirs is an existing facility. I'd just like to know if they added it to the site or they brought them in from off site. MS.DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would help understand better the situation that Mr. Burkhard brought up. MS. DESELEM: All right. I will look into that and provide the information. Page 74 . u___."._._,_~.__"__ _ _.'_~_ -"...- ..~.._--.-..._-, '--"-- ,....- -_.._._-~-~-,.". "m.._ September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Joe Connolly followed by Gina Downs. MR. CONNOLLY: I'm Joe Connolly. And I live at 10633 Gulf Shore Drive in a condominium, the fifth building south of the Moraya Bay. I'm vice president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. And I'm here today to speak and ask you to deny this variance. I'm not going to go into the parking situation. That's already been belabored. I'm not going to go into the traffic situation. That's already been taken care of. You've got the Baker-Carroll Point. You've got Wiggins Pass Point, which may be expanded. You've got the new beach access. You've got additional parking being made at Conner's Park. It's all to let the public and the tourists enjoy the beach. This beach club -- I'm not against beach clubs, but this is the worst site in the world to have a beach club. Because it's the only access point that a lot of people have to get to the beach. And to privatize it is a sin. The County Commissioners cry: Beach access, beach access. Give us beach access. A vote for this denies the public beach access. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. SCHMITT: Gina Downs and then your last speaker then will be Mr. Doug Fee. MS. DOWNS: I waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gina Downs has waived for this application. MR. SCHMITT: Doug Fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody that would like to speak after Mr. Fee? (No response.) Page 75 _ .,,____"~"".__,~..,_.w_.",_ -,--,~._.,---,<-_._-~_.,,-- .-.--_._._---,".- .-._- September 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I saw your hand, Richard. We have questions. I certainly have questions of you. MR. FEE: I'll try to be very brief. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. The first thing I want to -- want to point out is last night I tried to research some of the code -- code references. And I do want to really concur with this Planning Commission on the municode situation. We've got to do something about it. We're a billion dollar corporation. It is a -- I don't even know the word for it. It's horrendous. And we've got to solve because the average citizen, as well as the Planning Commissioners -- I really don't know how they can do their job if we don't have one consolidated book that lists the ordinance, lists the code. You cannot do that. With that comment, on the visualizer is the analysis. And what I'd like to state today is -- at the very minimum I'd like to see that this be continued. I don't know with the information and the testimony that' been presented how one could conclude an approval of this conditional use. I just briefly want to read. It says: Before any conditional use can be recommended to the BZA, the Planning Commission must make a finding that, one, granting approval of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. And, number two, all specific requirements for the individual conditional use are met. And, three, satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters where applicable. Number two states, all specific requirements for the individual conditional use are met. And when you go to Exhibit 0 of the resolution, number six reads: The use of the private club by non-resident members shall be prohibited until such time as the Page 76 "--~..,-~_._.,_.. ."-- ,~~-".._"- .---- September 4, 2008 petitioner has received off-site parking approval or otherwise made accommodations to provide the required 83 parking spaces. I believe we have the cart before the horse. How can you approve and know that this conditional use is in the public interest when, first of all, you don't even know where the compatible issue -- the compatibility issue comes into play? You don't know where these people will park. You don't know what that's going to do to the neighbors to that off-site parking. I believe the facts have shown from even the lawyer for the petitioner that they plan on putting a parking garage located at the corner of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive. And that may be the location for the shuttles. Living in that area, I know that the surrounding people would want to know that that, in fact, is being considered. They would want notice. They would want to vet it. And I can tell you that there's many people in that community who are not aware of this. So it seems to me you'd want to at least have that discussion before approving a conditional use that doesn't have all the answers. One other thing I want to state about the Wiggins Bay Foundation and the master plan -- and let me just put this on the visualizer. On the visualizer is the master plan for that PUD, the Wiggins Bay Foundation. And I've highlighted the commercial 3.5 acres at the corner of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive. One thing I want to point out is it seems to me you'd have to have some kind of an amendment to that PUD because of the access point. The only access point, my understanding, is through the circle, which I highlight, which comes through the resident -- it comes through a gate. And you would have to proceed through the PUD to access that 3.5 acres. Where would the access point for the shuttles be and would you then have to seek some modification to this PUD if this is where Page 77 _..~ --,,-~..-...._- -,-~--_....._.,--- -" ,..."...-.. September 4, 2008 you're going to have the parking? I just wanted to point that out. I'm hoping that you will just continue this and allow further information to be vetted. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doug. Any other public speakers, Ray? Anybody? MR. SCHMITT: That's all we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, before you start I have a question. During the discussion of this building in reference to the overlay when the Bert Harris claim was fired -- filed, was there any discussions involving the -- at the public meetings involving the anticipated use of this site as a club site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. I know that the original -- before this even started, going back to the overlay -- I mean, the moratorium. The application for this specific site was for both a residential condominium and a private beach club. That's when the moratorium hit and the actual VBRTO -- the overlay provisions clearly provide that private clubs are allowed by the conditional use process within the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay. So it also allows for hotels and motels. So it's -- as you know, and maybe the general public doesn't, is the RT district is really a combination of tourist, meaning hotels, motels, and residential. It's a mixture of uses. It's not an exclusively residential zoning district. It's deliberately intended to have that mixture of uses. So the -- it's a long-winded answer to, yes, we've always contemplated a beach club. We always knew we had to go through the conditional use process. And 1 don't think we've hidden that from anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question though was: During the public meetings with the Board of County Commissioners when the Bert Harris claim was settled, was there any discussion during those meetings that there was going to be a beach club here, in addition to Page 78 "._.___..m_____.__._._. _'~'__ -~... . _...__..".,--~.._,._--_.. -.-.....- September 4, 2008 the residential tower that's there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember. I'd have to go back and look at the minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wanting to understand if you knew it offhand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Oh, one question Mr. Burkhard pointed out I'd like to ask. You have the owners -- first of all, this petition is for the beach club. You have the owners listed as VI Limited Partnership and Collier County Parks and Recreation Department. What does the Collier County Parks and Rec Department have with this one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that Mr. Burkhard is right. We should have, when the joint facility no longer was a joint facility, should have separated the two. And the other petition that you'll hear next, I think we have to stay on that because there is a sliver of that property that we do own related to that petition. But that should -- once they no longer are together, the County probably is not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to request a continuance to address staff comments. But I wanted to address just a couple of them right out from the get-go. The first speaker and, I think, Mr. Connolly said, you know, we were somehow privatizing the public's beach for our use. And this is -- this is a pretty good exhibit. And when we come back we'll bring you the site development plan. But what I was referring to at the public meeting is the public beach typically is the mean high water line towards the water. However, when there's a beach renourishment project you establish an erosion control line. And the public's portion of the beach is the Page 79 _."--_...~~..~.,,. -~,""..,,_..."~._.,..._._._.,,-_.._-_..,..,._-_.,... -....,--- September 4,2008 erosion control line waterway. We're not interfering with the public's portion of the beach. What you see here is -- you see the dune line? See the dune? Can you see sand landward of the dune? That's our private beach. That's what's part of the beach club petition. The big sandy white area water-ward is not. We're not intending to interfere with the public's access to the public beach. So I just wanted that to be really clear. Because there were these statements that we were somehow co-opting that property for our use when we're not. That will remain public and the public will have the right to use it. We have -- the predecessor in title to this property has made public access available to the residents through the easements, through the ability to do a turnaround. We've done nothing but try to make this better. We understand that. We're not interfering with that with this. We will come back to you. Frankly, I think we're a better transportation story than La Playa or anybody else because we're two shuttles an hour. Their private. Their people are coming. However many members can come to those parking spaces set aside just for that use is more traffic than we will generate when we're two shuttles an hour. That's minimal traffic impact to provide the public -- and we got to remember, people who live in residential communities that don't front the water are also public. We are providing that public access to the beach in a manner that we don't interfere with public parking and we reduce traffic. We'll come back to you, if you' II grant the continuance, address the issues regarding employee parking, where's the parking going to be if it's off site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got eight issues so far on my list. I can read them to you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think those were the two primary ones. Page 80 ~ . ~ ..u _~_ ._. _..____...._.^......~.."<"~MU .-...- ..-....."----.... --_..~ September 4, 2008 There probably are others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's others. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we'll be happy -- if you'll go through the list and we can all agree that those are things we've got to come back at the continued meeting, we'll -- I know we need to give the SDP to everybody and whatever else we'll be happy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a public easement between Wiggins Pass and this property prior to the easement that's there now? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there was no public access prior to the Bert Harris settlement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Only the generosity of the Vanderbilt Inn in allowing people to access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was there any public access prior to the Bert Harris settlement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You just talked about laying out different levels of the beach. Some of the beach is public, some of the beach is -- well, the white sand you believe is yours. I'm not debating that. Would you mind, in your return, providing a lined diagram showing where the differentiation is and what parts of the beach, whether public or private, you believe your residents will be concentrated on that will be off limits to the public and what is remaining for the public? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are there any other questions of Richard before I read my list? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, one of the speakers spoke that it appears 100 percent of the unit owners will be members of the club; is that true? Page 81 .._.._._--~ .-..-...-------. ~-- .. .....,_. September 4, 2008 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think so, yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the 75 percent in the parking analysis? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we went with less internal capture. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You may have it as a stipulation. And if you do, I'll withdraw it. But I think a very important part of this is how you will, in fact, control the number that you cite. And that needs -- definitely needs to be qualified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Richard, I got nine issues that I think if we grant a continuance they ought to be responded to to come back. The first one is we need the parking calculations. You have provided those today. So as long as everybody has got those, I guess that can come off the list. Are the parking calculations we got today going to be the parking calculations that you would -- this staff has accepted for this property? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one can come off. We need a diagram of the parking locations. I believe you've shown those on the third page of the parking calculations, as well. Is that to be assumed? I'm just trying to eliminate all the paper we can between now and the next one and focus on the paper that's missing. You have three locations shown on there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. This is if we were to utilize the Wiggins Bay PUD site. That would be the layout. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to utilize the Wiggins Bay site, you've actually shown what may be considered a site plan or a layout for some parking layout there. Page 82 ....-.--.-.... .__"...____.__.w,....... "-'-'.,_- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For whatever purpose, staff needs to review this. Whatever you haven't reviewed, we'll be seeking your input at the next meeting, I'm sure. So the -- we need to verify the parking locations. We need a monitoring plan for the -- how you're going to monitor the maximum capacity of members using the facility. And we need copies of the SOP. Now, I'd like to ask the Commission if they would accept 11 by 17s? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think I would. Is everybody else happy with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you can read it. MR. SCHMITT: When you say SOP, I just want to clarify, because the SOP includes a lot of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need the pertinent pages to the site plan, the tower layouts for the floors in question, which I would imagine the first two or three floors would cover that because that would be your pool deck and things like that. MR. SCHMITT: You already have the floors in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. Whatever we don't have. I think we're looking specifically for the SOP site plan that provides the parking calculations, the open space calculations, and then the layout of the second floor or even the first floor, depending on where the pool deck shows up. The layout of the areas that would be club associated with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Also show where the waiver for the additional floor. Show all of the documents supporting where that waiver came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that got to do with -- Page 83 ......"._H.__,_"__",. September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's where the beach club is going. I mean, if it's a -- the code says you can raise the building to put parking and we're putting the beach club there. I'd like to see what the SDP thought about that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we had to do that to get the SDP approved, Mr. Schiffer. We're happy to give you that document to show we meet the 300 extra square feet per space and all the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We want to get the comp plan department to rewrite their -- or readdress the actual application versus the discrepancy that we noted in the -- for their writeup. We ask that you take a look at the La Playa provided -- La Playa has done a good job working with the neighborhood up there. We'd certainly like to benefit from that, ifthere's a way that n that it compares. It may not compare, but at least we ought to take a look at it. The cover page of our supplemental staff report ought to be reissued to remove the County parks and recreation department reference on there. We ask that there be a layout of the beach area versus private area. Show us more specifically how that delineation is provided. Is there anything that's been missed from anybody on the Planning Commission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I only have seven. Did I miss -- what did I miss? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a couple of them we dropped and combined. I had one on here we hadn't even got to discuss yet, but it doesn't matter. It isn't something that needs -- it isn't applicable to a recondition -- a withdrawal or a continuation. That's some kind of -- if this were to be approved, that outside area is a n right now a residential use. You got a tower there. No one would expect outside bands, music and noise. And so the amplified sound and noise issue would be one that would have to be addressed one way or another on that property. Page 84 -,...._.....~- _.~_..._,_._,.__._-~,_.,..- ....._-. __.____.__e______""., '.. "".--..-,.,...-- September 4, 2008 So if you want to think about that. It's not a submittal issue. It's just something you need to think about. Anything else? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one thing. And this would probably come from staff. As to why adding this to the residential use doesn't cause this to be a mixed use property. Staff can answer that in an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The simple answer is it's listed as a conditional use under the zoning use. So, I mean, they wouldn't have to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, in other words, to me, I think it's a mixture of commercial and residential, thus a mixed use. But if they can give me the code trail, I'll back off on that. MR. SCHMITT: You want that addressed -- MS.DESELEM: Ifl'm-- MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. MS.DESELEM: I'm sorry. I missed exactly what it was you wanted, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this -- right now this thing is a residential property. And bringing this into it -- for example, let me make -- let's say you put a gas station in there. Would that not become now a mixed use property, thus falling under different standards of the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't. There's not -- it's not a condition -- that's not an allowable conditional use. MR. SCHMITT: It's not part of the YBRTO. You're not even allowed to put a gas station in the Residential Tourist Overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That was a bad example then. I mean, I don't have all the uses in front of me. So what you're saying is that this is still a residential property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we put the uses for the RT Page 85 _._---_._~.~ _._~ _.~-- ~.,._,-~--_..~-".- , ."--""'--~- September 4, 2008 district up here so Brad can see? Because you have principal uses under this R T district and then you have accessory uses and conditional uses. And all of those could apply to this property through the right process if it were to be approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, for example, if you put a marina on here, what would it be? Is it a commercial? My concern is that I think that these -- this is a commercial use added to a residential property. It's certainly allowed by this through this process. MR. YOY ANOVICH: It's two pages, Mr. Schiffer. It's two pages. The top is the permitted uses, which are hotels and motels, multiple family dwellings, family care facilities subject to Section 5.0504 and timeshare facilities. And then there's accessory uses related to those permitted uses. And then there's the list of conditional uses, which, as we all know, are uses that are appropriate on the property, but not on every property within the RT zoning district. Churches, marinas, noncommercial boat launching facilities subject to an LDC section. Group care subject to an LDC section. And you go to the next page and you have private clubs and yacht clubs and then you get into the dimensional standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Leave that up. MR. YOY ANOYICH: So there are six specific conditional uses cited within the YBR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So what you're saying is that if you mix a permitted use with a conditional use that is not a mixed use building then? MR. SCHMITT: That's absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It falls under the requirements for the residential then? MR. SCHMITT: It's a -- Page 86 -.-. ,-",~_,--"",_,,"',-_.'-""'...._'.__. ""--'-'--",..--"---"'-'. -'-'- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as the dimensional standards? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or architectural standards or anything else. That's what you're saying. MR. SCHMITT: It's a permitted use by public hearing. It's a conditional use by public hearing, which is allowed within the VBRTO. It's a -- I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it could be resolved by answering the simple question: Does the -- does a conditional use that's allowed under the typical zoning, which is RT here, change the zoning? MR. BELLOWS: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we wouldn't need to -- we're not changing the zoning in any manner. I'm trying to understand how they could answer your question. That's what I'm trying to focus on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern -- let me tell you what. The architectural standards. Is this exempt from qualifying for the architectural standards, even though it now has a commercial use in the building? I mean, the private club is not a residential use. It's allowed by conditional process. MR. SCHMITT: Principal use for the building is a -- it's a condominium. And as such -- I mean, it falls under the architectural standards for a multifamily development. It was reviewed under those criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I tell you what, I'll do the research then. And if I see something, I'll send -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. That what probably be simpler than trying to figure out what you mean by staff. So that would work. Okay. Those are the issues I believe we've all asked. Is there any other questions? Page 87 ----------- __"..__w'" _ __......__... ._....M.'__~^ '_""W___'._'_'_'__ ----- September 4, 2008 There's been a request for a continuance by the applicant. As far as the date, do we need to peg a date certain for the time at this point or does it have to be -- MR. SCHMITT: The earliest I could bring this back is October 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October 2nd? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. That's -- there is no way this could be heard at your next meeting on the 18th because, frankly, I'd be -- I'm distributing packets on Monday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. The 18th we're going to -- I can tell you, based on how long today is going, everything this afternoon I bet you is -- a lot of it is going to be deferred to the 18th. So we're going to be stuck on the 18th as it is now. MR. SCHMITT: And I can't even guarantee the 2nd right now. I need to look at the list of petitions. This may be continued to no earlier than October 16th, which will -- I will advise the applicant that there will no way that it will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on the 28th of October if it's delayed to the 16th. It just will not happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a request for an indefinite continuance. And the date will have to be pegged in the future. We don't have a date then, do we? MR. SCHMITT: I will -- I will state on the record we'll continue to the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I may end up putting it on the 2nd. But my guess, just sitting here with Ray looking at -- we're closed out on the number of petitions for the 2nd. But I don't know if any one of these are going to bump or be bumped off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLA TZKOW: If this has to be readvertised, it will be at the cost of the petitioner. Page 88 __'u.__,__" ~,_.- _.,-~-,_.,-~-,..- --.,-.-..-.... --,', -." '-"~-'-'-"-- -- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, did you have any -- you said -- you're standing there surprised. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't -- the last comment kind of caught me off guard. If we're going to tell the public it's the 16th, let's do it the 16th. MR. SCHMITT: We'll do it the 16th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe tell the public the 2nd, let's do it the 2nd. And, of course, the advertising costs, that's a given. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. I will state for the record then continued to 16 October. Board date to be determined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a request to continue to the 16th of October. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. That was a lot of time to not finish. Page 89 ..~-,--"---,-,-----"-,.---- .,....-. ^ -~..._-..."..... . -- September 4, 2008 The next issue. By the way, we customarily take our lunch break about quarter to ] 2. We're going to have to stick to that because I can tell you this is going to go on into the afternoon on just the first two issues. So we will take a break at quarter to ]2 and then we'll take an hour break at that time. I'm assuming the court reporter is comfortable to that point. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2008-AR-] 3201 Okay. The next petition is CU-2008-AR-1320], VI Limited Partnership, Collier County -- and Collier County Parks and Recreation, Moraya Bay Beach Club. And the drawings say toilet facility. I guess that's not the most polite way of doing it, but that's, I guess, what we're doing. So all those wishing to testifY on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- conversation I had with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The same conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, neighborhood. And myself the same conversations I had would have occurred at Page 90 _....-._----~.._.- - ------ --.-. --"-"~- September 4, 2008 the same time. Okay. Presentation by the applicant. In this particular case Mr. Y ovanovich has switched sides. He's gone from the dark side to this side. And he's representing Collier County as Parks and Recreation. He's like an amoeba. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you know, Collier County is one of the bigger developers in the County, so it's still a developer. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. There are three people from your parks and rec department here or public services, Barry Williams, Gary McAlpin-- and I just blanked on the third one. Murdo. Dan Miller is here also to answer any architectural questions regarding the -- I call them restroom facilities. The request is for a conditional use to allow the construction of public restrooms. I'll take you through a few exhibits to show you where the facility is and how it will look from the public's perspective. The restrooms would be constructed within the County's right-of-way for Bluebill A venue and, as I said earlier, a small sliver of the Moraya Bay condominium property. As I said earlier, this -- the restroom really is a result of the Bert Harris settlement for the Vanderbilt Inn. The County negotiated a payment of $500,000 to cover the cost of constructing the restroom, as well as a turnaround. And the County has stated -- and, I believe, that there is a tremendous need for public facilities at beach access points for people who are using the beach. There currently aren't any County owned public facilities in this area. Due to building code regulations, we cannot build the restrooms at grade. We tried to get a flood zone variance and that went nowhere. So we have to build -- we have to elevate the restrooms and that's why the restrooms are elevated. We used -- because these are non-residential, non-residents and non-habitable structures, we use the FEMA elevation versus the DEP Page 91 '~""___"__""_"_""""'''_....__M'__ ._.~.....~ ....--".------,...--- ..--- September 4, 2008 elevation. Dan can get into greater detail on that, if necessary. But that's the reason you see a difference in elevation -- minimum elevation requirements between this petition and the condominium. If! could take you -- you have all of these exhibits in your backup, but they were too big to put on the visualizer. I don't know if someone is going to focus in on that now for the public or not on the monitors. I don't think they'll fit, Joe. This is -- as you're going facing westward, this is what you will see. This is the County's restroom facility. This application doesn't include the turn lane -- I mean, the turnaround. But this is the turnaround that the public's been discussing. It's not part of this petition, but that is what is also part of the settlement for the Bert Harris -- Bert Harris claim. This is another -- another view looking west to east showing the public restroom again. And then there's the public access underneath it. I believe that's our wall. So that -- that will show you an elevation looking from the water towards the residences. I'll put a site plan up. If you want to see the other elevations for the architecture, I can show you those, as well. This is the site plan that. It's an overall site plan. As you can see, it also includes what we talked about earlier. But this is the dropoff. And this is the portion of the dropoff on the Moraya Bay property, which we're prepared to give an easement for. The public restroom facilities, as well as the public beach access that was part of the settlement. The issues that came up at the neighborhood information meeting, some people were concerned about their view. Some people were concerned about the loss of the 18 parking spaces because of the dropoff. And question arose as to how frequently the County would be maintaining the facilities. Marla Ramsey was with me at the neighborhood information meeting. And, I believe, she says the County would be maintaining Page 92 ----"_.~"- ._~- September 4, 2008 those facilities -- I'm looking for the summary. I think twice a day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do I have that right, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Twice a day. And, I believe, open 8:00 a.m. to dusk as it is down at the southern end of this area down by the Ritz. There's a public beach access with public restrooms. So it would be operated similarly to those facilities. Those were the issues that were raised. These issues were -- you know, the turnaround and the public restroom facilities were all vetted as part of the Bert Harris settlement. County Commission basically directed, you know, parks and rec to make the bathrooms happen. That's what we're in the process of doing. The developer has already paid the $500,000 to the County to address the cost issues related to the restroom, as well as the turnaround. And with that, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the proposal. I do want to -- I know that the loss of the 18 parking spaces was an issue. There's a proposed expansion for the existing parking in the area. I believe they're adding 90 spaces. MR. McALPIN: 88 spaces. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 88 spaces to address the loss of those 18 and provide additional parking in the area. And that should be done relatively soon. They're waiting for one last permit based on yesterday's conversation. Gary can answer any detailed questions regarding that. But the County is aware of the parking and is increasing parking in the area. And with that, that's an overview of the request. Staff is recommending approval. We're requesting that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. And with that, we can answer any operational questions that the Planning Commission may have related to this request. Page 93 --_.._--_._,------_.~- -~...,... -- .._-~-~ "_."."" ---_..><......_-,-->~ -- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, this is from the building code side. You're building a building over a property line. Has anybody looked into what that means, in terms of the building code? In other words, I don't know how you're going to do it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the County staff is aware of the sliver that we're going over. And the zoning department and the planning department has raised no issues with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifit is an issue, could you give us the land underneath the building? It's of no use to you. And move the property line? MR. SCHMITT: Brad, I discussed the issue with the building director. As basically, as you know, the building -- Florida Building Code specifically states that no building will cross a property line unless it's -- but then there's a provision that says all buildings will be accompanied by the applicable site plan. The site plan, if it clearly defines legally -- ifthere's an element to transfer that property or to allow it through an easement, as long as that's clearly expressed from a legal document and on the site plan, there's no prohibition in authorizing the building to be built. It just needs to be legally -- either the property has to be legally transferred or an easement or some other mechanism to allow it to happen. So we clearly define from a legal perspective that the -- I'll call it the encroachment is allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean we'll get title to that property underneath it, so n MR. SCHMITT: I can't tell you what mechanism they were talking about, as far as -- there would be no approval until somehow that legal aspect was defined in both the site plan submittal and, of course, with the building permit. Page 94 -.-----.- 0'_< ~._"..,_m._ --._...._~ -....-.~-- September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not going to be perfect because we have overhangs cantilevering into the neighboring properties. So somehow someone is going to have to look away or something. And, also, the fire rating of those walls on the property line are not something you want. You can't have openings and things like that. The thought is: Can we push it away? Can we pull this thing into a different position so those issues don't exist or is this the spot it has to be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe this is the spot it has to be. MR. SCHMITT: Again, there are mechanisms to apply for openings on a zero lot line depending on the separation between buildings, which they, again, can apply for through the building director. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, but -- okay. I mean, it's building code stuff. You'll take -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The building will have to comply with the building code. I mean, you may want to ask the architect -- architectural team some of these questions. This has not come in for any type of permitting yet from a standpoint of building review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Just sort of to follow up on that issue of an easement. I mean, we all know that easements can be changed. There's nothing -- so I would think that you'd have to come up with some other instrument, other than just an easement for that land under there. Because what happens -- if you turn out to be a lousy neighbor and the people in the tower say, we want to take that easement away. MR. SCHMITT: Again, I don't know what agreements -- I'll have to turn to the petitioner and the parks and rec on what agreements they've settled with how to handle this legally. I don't know. Page 95 _...~.,<.~'-'--~-' .. - , '- -,~. ~<_...._- _.'-"-' ~. - .._-,~- -._' ..---- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand that that's an issue. And we'll either have to convey it in fee or we'll give you an easement. And I'm sure that the County Attorney's Office is going to review that easement to make sure that there aren't improper restrictions within the easement to make the easement go away, if that's the mechanism we do. I don't know the answer to that question right now, but we do know we need to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why wasn't it addressed before you brought it to us? We keep finding this on these projects. Why wasn't it given to us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now, Mr. -- well Mr. Strain, the commonplace right now is we'll probably give it to them in fee. But, you know, the ownership issue is a building code issue that we can resolve at the building code time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see it as a building code issue for this Board. I think it's a comprehensive issue, just like the church that's coming up this afternoon. We actually had to have that continued because they failed to provide the easements. They wanted to give them to the BCC, instead of us. We deserve to see that stuff. And on many times the BCC will defer to our analysis of it when they do their review. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, it is not a requirement of the conditional use. If you stipulate it as such from this Board, but it is not part of the review process for the conditional use. As you well know, the conditional use is zoning. Some of these -- this type of -- these issues are dealt with through site plan review and for building plan review. If you -- if this Board wants that as part of the condition of approval, then we need that direction. But it's not part of the package. It is not part of the requirement. Page 96 ___._,,______ . _ ._.._~.m.. -"". .~-_..~,..._. ,_..._~- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get into a lot more questions on it. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Joe, it is a problem. And the building could be reconfigured to adjust to it if it has to. But you do have to be careful. Things like this have come before the building commission and they haven't been all that successful at this scale anyway. MR. SCHMITT: Clearly we understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building code has a property line requirement that you can't ignore. You'll have to take care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Richard, I got a few. The site plan -- if you look at the site plan that we were provided, and it's the one that focuses on the one you have there to the Bluebill side. If you could slide it that way a little bit closer towards the -- oh, there it is. Lower right-hand corner. It says 45 front yard setback line. The Bert Harris document I thought said 52. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did that on purpose, didn't you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as soon as he gives them back, I'll ask another one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. The architect can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to -- someone needs to-- MR. MILLER: For the record, I'm Dan Miller, architect for the Moraya Bay Beach Tower project. The reference you have to the Bert Harris claim settlement refers to side yards. This is a front yard. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Side yard setbacks to remain at 50 feet for the parking structure and show increase from 50 to 52 feet for the remainder of the building over parking. Front near side back setbacks Page 97 --,-_.~-_. --.-.- -., "'"...~"_.__.>'.. .'.- ~..-._,...~...__.__.'- -._---- September 4, 2008 VBRTO. So you're saying that on their plan, the master plan that we just reviewed, they call out 52 feet, but they could have gone to 45 feet? MR. MILLER: Yeah. This is the front yard along Bluebill Avenue. But we kept the building back 52 feet honoring the intent. But the actual legal requirement is 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since you're up there -- no, no. Don't go away. On the elevation of your finished floor, the tower at Moraya Bay had to be at a DEP setting that was different than what you've indicated. Can you explain why? MR. MILLER: Yes. There's two requirements. One is the basic FEMA requirement for flood elevation. This is the V zone. The elevation is stipulated as 15.3 NGVD to the underside of the structure. And that's how I've designed the toilet room facility. There are additional -- there are additional overlapping requirements in the Florida Building Code in Chapter 31, which refer to buildings that are constructed seaward of the coastal construction line. And in that requirement it refers to habitable structures and which they further define as buildings that are intended for human occupancy and may be used for shelter in the event of a storm, such as residences, restaurants and hotels. Because this was not a residence, a restaurant or a hotel, I took the proactive stance of putting it at the FEMA requirement, which will reduce the number of steps for the public to access the toilet room. And it is legal to do it that way, unless the building director decides that this, under Chapter 31 of the building code, should be stipulated as a habitable structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the letter -- what letter do you have from the DEP indicating they're in agreement with your elevation? Because their elevation is 21.9 for that location. MR. MILLER: The building code speaks for itself in that regard. Page 98 ~ ~ ..,,,---_._--_.~_.. ,- _...~_..". - _.,-~----,~._._--- "'.- September 4, 2008 It's not applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it is. It says under DEP Rules 2007 62V-33, page 22: The Department will evaluate the applicant's proposed structural elevation based upon available scientific and coastal engineering data and would advise the applicant of the specific elevation requirements for the site. Where is your elevation? MR. MILLER: That's for all structures that become part of that requirement according to Chapter 3 I of the building code. This structure does not need to be thrown into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. MILLER: Because it's not a habitable structure as defined in Chapter 31 of the Florida Building Code. So that's the basis on which I made my determination in designing the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you be able to get some letter from DEP indicating that your basis -- MR. MILLER: Yeah. We'll discuss that with Brett Moore, our coastal consultant, but he concurs with that opinion that -- but we can go through that additional bureaucracy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not asking additional bureaucracy. The tower at Moraya Bay is at a certain height. And I just want to understand why you weren't at that height. MR. MILLER: Because we have residences and we have the restaurant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. MILLER: Whereas this building has a toilet room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the differences. MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where did you come up with Page 99 ----~-- ..-~.. _,_"."u..._.,,_____..~ ".~. " .-,...-.-..-...-.-.---.-,-..--- .._,- September 4, 2008 21.9? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it -- I'll give it to you, if you want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the reason I'm asking is the beach club is at 21.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could have a letter that varies, but the department has to make the determination based on the documentation I have here. You're more than -- all the maps and everything. You'll see the indentation on the construction setback line happens to go around that one piece in that area of the code -- that area of the County. I have a zoning question, Mr. Y ovanovich. Richard, you said something earlier -- this is -- what zoning district is this in? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually in two zoning districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with one. Pick the biggest part of the building. What zoning district is that in? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be in RMF-16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why in RMF -- or where in RMF-16 are toilets listed as an allowable use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I'm going to -- and I'm going to tell you that the other portion of the property is Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I'll ask that same question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm going to defer that to your -- if you don't mind, to your planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because I probably will not do it justice in the explanation. MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem. In Section 2.01.03.A of the land development code it talks about essential services. And if you go to G of that section, you have item I.e. I.e Page 100 ---"-.-..~._-- -"-"- .-------.--,--- September 4,2008 allows for government facilities. And I'll read the rest of it: Including where not identified as a permitted use in this section safety service facilities, such as law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and then it goes to the next one. Staffs interpretation of this is that it doesn't say limited to those uses it says such as. Staff is looking at this restroom facility as an essential service facility. Therefore, as it states above, it requires a conditional use. And it says conditional essential services in every zoning district, unless otherwise identified as permitted uses, the following uses shall be allowed. So, therefore, staff believes that it's appropriate for this petitioner to seek conditional use approval as an essential service government facility limited to the restroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let me read what you didn't read. The following uses are allowed as conditional uses. And it provides examples. Electric or gas generating plants. I guess bathrooms may be that. Affluent tanks, major re-pump stations, sewage treatment plants, including perc ponds, water aeration and treatment plants, hospitals and hospices. And then government facilities where it's defining in its examples the types of facilities that are used by government for safety service facilities, such as and including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services. Now, to me the intent of the conditional use section that you have cited are for uses related to these vital services and for government facilities that are used for a vital service. Now, if the toilets are going to only be used by government employees, you may even start to have a little argument. But how you buttonholed this zoning -- this into an essential service is a dangerous precedent for all of Collier County. Because basically now you're saying that everywhere in Collier County where essential services can be -- can apply in the same manner and have bathroom facilities pop up. And I certainly don't Page 101 -- "_''''B_ ~--." -- September 4, 2008 think that's the intent of the essential services provisions, nor do I find anywhere where it could be construed to be such under the section you cited. So from a zoning viewpoint, I certainly don't agree with you and I don't see how you got there. MS. DESELEM: As I said, it requires a conditional use. So that doesn't imply that a restroom facility would be allowed anywhere in the County. It would need to do just like this one is. Go through the public hearing process as a conditional use request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to get to the point where you're allowed to be even required to have a conditional use, you've got to be accepted as one of the conditional use applications. There's nothing in here that even relates to bathroom facilities that would even construe that to be part of that process. And if that's the application Countywide -- I don't care if it's conditional use or not. If you say that's an allowable conditional use as an essential service Countywide, we have a problem. And I don't know why we wouldn't have gone through like we would have with any other developer on this property and said: Rezone the property to parks and then put your facility in with the variances you need to get to the setbacks that you are trying to vary from. Instead, government seems to have contradicted itself and it's got different rules for the way it wants to apply the zoning criteria. I know if any other developer came forward, we'd be outraged at this application. MR. KLA TZKOW: Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. KLA TZKOW: One of the definitions of essential services of public park -- and, I believe, this is being considered as a public park facility if you go into the definitional section of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. But I'm reading the Page 102 .---_._-_.'--_._-_. --...-". ~--" .. _M_'___....~_.__._ ...., ".,,--_.. September 4, 2008 conditional uses that could apply under the essential services. And I don't see it there. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But when you go -- as far as the definition of essential services includes public parks. And, I believe, this would fall within the public park parameter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the definition, instead of under the uses? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have 2.01.03, which lists all the uses in essential services. And we have a definition that overwhelms that use? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm just pointing out what the definition of essential service is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why under 2.01 .03 don't we have parks listed there with all these other uses? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think it's an exclusive -- I don't think it's an exclusive provision. I just think it's giving certain examples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says essential services are hereby defined. And it goes on to what seems to be a listing of essential services. Well, I don't see how this fits under the zoning category that you've applied. And I was looking for better strength than that. Government facilities and the way it's referenced here -- use of government facilities, not toilets. But safety service facilities and things like that. And I don't see -- I just don't see where we're getting there today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can just -- I looked at the LDC and the various off-line ordinances and tried to figure out which zoning district you can either build a park in as a matter of right or by conditional use. And I will admit I didn't spend hours on this, but I couldn't find one. And I find it hard to believe that the County is saying that -- I Page 103 -._-,~~_.-.."---' ". '_'_'__'__~_H'" ---~-"--"-"'~' .""+..-.- September 4,2008 would -- which makes me believe that you would look at the definition of essential services, which is all of those things -- and I have it here if you want to put it on the visualizer -- of what is an essential service. And public parks -- and that's listed as one of those things. I believe government and other -- you know, it's those services and facilities, including utilities, safety and other government services. And I believe providing parks, because it's listed, is a government service. I believe that the restroom facilities are a part of the park. I think the County has historically viewed beach access, together with the beach, as a County park. So I think that it does fit within the definition of a governmental service because it's really a park facility. And most parks have restroom facilities within it. So 1 don't think it's a stretch to say that, yes, it's a -- because, remember, when you look at that list that Kay just read you, it says: All government services not specifically referenced as permitted use. That's very broad. And I think you have to read that broadly because if you don't, I don't know where you'd build a park in Collier County without having to rezone every piece of property to whatever the new designation is in the land development code as a public facilities or whatever for parks. I don't think that was the intent. I do believe that, you know, parks are essential services by definition and that this would be an appropriate conditional use on a case by case basis, which is what we're doing. So you will not have public park restroom facilities springing up throughout Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the essential service reference that staff has provided is not the appropriate reference? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- MS. DESELEM: I think either one would be appropriate personally because I think it could be a park. Because we don't, in the land development code per se, have a use of public restroom. So it Page 104 ._,_....,...,_...,- '-"-~-'-'--'''- -_._~-- September 4,2008 defers then to an essential service facility. Or you can look at it in the context of what Mr. Klatzkow said. Part of the park. Either one works. But restroom facilities -- if you go through the list of permitted uses like you were talking about, that's the kind of things that essential services are. They provide those elements to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anywhere we wanted to put up a public bathroom basically in any zoning district that allowed essential services through a conditional use process, you're telling me that's okay; that could be done? MS. DESELEM: It could be evaluated as a conditional use, which is the process by which -- you know, that gives it the scrutiny it's supposed to. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, I know your issue and I understand. We certainly, as staff, will -- I'm not predicting the outcome of this. But when this goes to the BZA, we will certainly point out to the BZA the concern that you raised. And this will have to be pointed out to the Board that it puts them in a position of making a policy decision as to how to apply essential services with regards to restrooms because it is not clearly defined in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you only need to move this forward to the Board if the rest of this Board feels it's necessary. I have my own concerns over the way this interpretation came down and I honestly don't -- am not convinced by what I've heard, but that will be my position. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. Just to follow up because I had made a note here on something else. Weare also trying to tie this into the community character plan for Collier County. That the proposed public restroom within the right-of-way is consistent and Page 105 ~..,-.._, -~ .....",,.~_.._--_.-_..-.- -- September 4, 2008 compatible with that very theme. And I just don't get it either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you mean -- you say you don't get how the restroom could be there or you think it should be there? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I don't think it should. I mean, I don't understand how it's compatible. I don't see how it's consistent. I don't see how that promotes the community character plan for Collier County. Maybe I missed that paragraph. But, I mean, that's one of the reasons that was given in here for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- being appropriate in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern -- and I understand your point, as well. My concern was the process issue. And I think that the right process would have been to get the right zoning. I understand now why staff didn't see that, as well. I understand the applicant, whether it's Richard or whoever. But I still think the right process could have been followed and obtained the same objection -- objective through the process. But neither here, nor there, we'll go on with the meeting. Any other questions of the presentation so far before we go to staff comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does staff have a presentation? MS. DESELEM: Yes. Kay Deselem, for the record. You have a staff report for this petition that is designated for the hearing date of September 4th. And I emailed yesterday hopefully to all of the Planning Commission members and to the interested parties, as far as the County Attorney's Office and the applicant, we realized that there was an error in the condition of approval that identified the wrong site plan. So we do have a corrected condition that identifies correct site plan that's with the resolution. Saying that, then I'll go into the staff Page 106 ...__.,~--<..._.,.._,._. <..--..--.'..,.--- .'.-...-" .. .-.,.---..-......---. ~-~ '. --- September 4,2008 report. As you know, the applicant has explained what the requested action is. And you know the geographic location of the site. We've provided a description and some background information about it, as far as initially it was part of the one building that was going to be separate from the tower facility. That building was going to house both the restroom facility and the private club. Now they're two separate facilities, but you do have co-applicants in this petition because it's on two different properties. One is the County right-of-way, the other is the Moraya Bay Beach property. So you have co-applicants. You have the surrounding land use and zoning provided to you on page three of the staff report. And you have what I believe to be a fairly extensive analysis of the growth management plan consistency issues with various citations from the elements, other than just the future land use category. Staff does believe the petition is consistent with all relative elements, policies, objectives and goals of the growth management plan and we are recommending approval based on that. And we have provided the analysis that begins on page four of the items that are required for conditional use approval. And I would preface in response to one of the questions as to why this is here. It's been explained to me through different conversations -- I mean, I haven't got it directly. But it's explained to me that the restroom is proposed here because of a perceived need because, I guess, there were resident complaints of people urinating on private property because there was no facility in this area of the County. Therefore, parks and rec was responding to that by trying to provide something to alleviate that problem. And that is why you're seeing this petition for a conditional use for a restroom facility. Like I said, we only have one condition at this point and that is the one that Page 107 _._-----~_.-_._--~,--_.--_._._--_._"...- ----<_. _._-- September 4, 2008 identifies the site plan. I f you have any questions, I'd be happy to respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of staff? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I remember back when this right-of-way for the beach access walkway was being proposed as part of the settlement agreement. Marla Ramsey at the time was asked, A, if we were asking for enough right-of-way here. And while there was some ensuing discussion about, sure, we'd love, you know, 50 feet as opposed to 20 feet, the bottom line was that she had told Commissioners, I believe, that she would have no problem putting these bathrooms within that 20-foot right-of-way. Now we've got it out into road right-of-way. What happened? What happened? MS. DESELEM: I personally can't respond to that because I don't know what Marla Ramsey said. But there are people here from parks that may be able to respond to that and tell you how it evolved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Somebody on staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Before we go too much further, I want to ask the Planning Commission -- we can finish up with staff presentation and then take a break. We can finish up with staff presentation, try to hear the public so they haven't got to sit here 'til after lunch and then take a break. How many public speakers do we have on this issue, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at least a half an hour of discussion with the five public speakers, as well as wrap up. So what do you want to do for break? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I suggest we break now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Page 108 -,,_...,..- ~-'-~""'''- September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I would say in deference to the public why don't we continue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I was thinking, too. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let them continue so they can -- not have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we've got two different stories here. Mr. Wolfley, let's start with you and work our way across. Break or wait -- go through the rest? It will probably be another 45 minutes before we get out of here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In deference to the public, I think we ought to hear them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Hear the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hear the public. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Go with the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It looks like we're going to go with the public. So we will -- we will at least take a 15 -- we'll take a ten minute break until noon to give the court reporter a few minutes. And then we'll come back and then we'll take a major break after we hear the public. Thank you. (Brief recess) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back from our ten minute break. We left off with Ms. Caron was asking a question of staff. And we'll continue there and move into our remaining questions Page 109 _._".__._.._.'"~..'m...u,__"._, _ -'"---'~'-~'-'---'---"'-----~'---'-- "-- September 4, 2008 of staff and then public speakers. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I have somebody from parks who can respond to your question. MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, for the record, Gary McAlpin, coastal zone management. When the question was asked about Marla Ramsey agreeing to the 20-foot easement and whether the facility could be built in the 20-foot easement, I think that determination was made at that point in time assuming that the facility could be built on grade. Subsequent to that, whether a variance to a FEMA variance was received or not, the decision was made that we would not go forward with the FEMA variance, which made the facility had to be elevated which added stairs and elevators and all the appurtenances associated with that. The facility could be moved back, but then it would jeopardize the total beach access and also the emergency access to the beach. So the -- I think the comment was made, whether right or wrong earlier, based on an on-grade construction. With further information and further analysis, we can't do that. We have to elevate it, which will cause a larger footprint. And that's why we have what we have right now. Ijust wanted to clarify that point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) Okay. Ray, if you'll read off the public speakers. And at the end, I'll ask for anybody else that may want to speak and we'll go from there. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Alex O'Brien to be followed by Bruce Burkhard. MR. O'BRIEN: Hello. Just about good afternoon. Alex O'Brien. I'd like to thank the Board for stopping their lunch break Page 110 .......___~__.____.__.._m_. ,-...,.....-- September 4, 2008 until the public gets to speak. That was very commendable on your part. I have some questions about this bathroom facility. I don't believe I found anywhere -- and I hope you have the answer. How many bathrooms would there be in total in this whole building? Is there a number for that? There has to be a number, somebody must know it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eight. Four and four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four and four Mr. Schiffer is reading. Four men and four women. MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Now, is that the total capacity of the whole building; four and four? Okay. How many are for public and how many are -- is there a public? Because originally when this was planned the -- and the beach where they were going to be X number for the beach club and X number for the public. These are strictly all public facilities? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I understood that they will all be public facilities. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There's a drawing on the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. MR. O'BRIEN: No. I just -- that was just a concern was it was all public. Because originally it was so many for this and so many for that proposition in the beginning. All right. Thanks so much. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard to be followed by John Connolly. MR. SCHMITT: Joe. MR. BELLOWS: Or Joe. MR. CONNOLLY: I'm going to waive. Page III "'W~_..__.,.". _'_,^.__m,_~...~'___' ".._,,~_,'._ A._<"_""" .... ~.."_.,'------"" ._,,"--_. September 4,2008 MR. BURKHARD: Bruce Burkhard, 283 Elk Avenue. I'djust like to say that I'm in favor of the petition since it's actually part of the original settlement agreement with the developer. And it appears to be a good project. I'd like to point out though that in the resolution form that is part of the package it's stated that the facilities will be constructed within the public right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach Club property. And there is no such thing, so I would say that that needs to be changed. So that -- that part of the description I think is inaccurate. Since there's no beach club, they obviously don't own the property. It actually belongs probably to the developer under his -- whatever his name is. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Doug Fee to be followed by Joanne. MR. FEE: Good afternoon again. For the record, Doug Fee. And I'm here also to support this application. I think it's important that wherever the beach access locations are that we include restroom facilities. We do need this. I am concerned with what some of the Commissioners are raising. And on page two it says the restroom facilities will be constructed mostly within the County's right-of-way between an agreement between the parks and rec department and transportation service division. That is concerning -- it's opening up a -- in my opinion, a broad scope as to where these facilities should be located. And I would be concerned with that. Also, ifthere is any way to fee simple the land underneath this. You've talked about a property line. I believe that you may in the future have some issues or have some problems. And so it seems to me the County, in the best interest of the public, somehow has to figure out a way to bring that land underneath these restroom facilities Page 112 -.,.._----~_._""_.,.._-- . M___"__'__"__"~___~____~'~'~"'__ "_.._..._ ..<_...._.,.,,"_.~_._,__.___,_._~,,_ --.'--- September 4, 2008 to County ownership. That's my comments. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Just Joanne. MS. KIRKBOTTOM: Good afternoon. I'm Joanne Kirkbottom. And I live in Eden on the Bay. I can leave my home and be on Vanderbilt Beach in three minutes. For the past nine years, I've walked nearly every day at the beach and parked at the Bluebill parking lot in one of the 18 parking spaces. Ifwe lose those 18 parking spaces for a bathroom, it's a tragedy. I feel safe because there's always people there, unlike the County parking lot off of Bonita Beach where there's been two rapes that I know of. I go there frequently at sunset because it's cool and the sky is spectacular, but the State park is closed at sunset. I visited all over Florida and I think Vanderbilt Beach is one of the most beautiful beaches in our state. When we chose Naples, it was important for us to be close to the beach. As a result, we paid premium for our home. We pay $4,000 in property taxes and we pay an exorbitant amount of money for house and flood insurance. With the elimination of the 18 parking spaces on Bluebill A venue, I'm denied easy access to the beach. I have talked with over 100 people who are very unhappy about the closing of the lot. These are just people I see between 6:30 and 8:30. I haven't gone out of my way to cause trouble. Some have said: Can't we sign petitions? Quite frankly, I'm too old to get into that. It's too big a project for me. Also, I think my two attorney children would have probably given a better presentation than me. And they certainly would have been here if! had asked them. However, since I was on the Republican Committee in Rochester, New York for over 20 years, I'm familiar with commissions and I know that each of you are good and Page 113 . -'-~---'"'"""-"-"-'---'''--'-''''''-'-' --_._--~>>._-~--_.._._---_.._.,-_.,..,---- ~""'-'-"-'~"'-'-- September 4, 2008 decent people. I know that you'll be responsible about your decision. I hope you will consider the following points. Mr. Halas in his correspondence with me considers the sacrifice of these 18 spaces for a bathroom as improvement and upgrade, a turnaround, bathroom and drop-off area. At present there is a turnaround. It may come as a surprise to you, but nobody I have talked with is concerned about a bathroom. And one thing that nobody has mentioned is there is a bathroom at the State park a block away. For a dollar people right now can use that bathroom. I think if the County can cooperate with the State about a possible parking garage, they should be able to cooperate with the State about the use of that bathroom and save us from this monstrous building. A few did say a bathroom would be nice. The reality is there is plenty of room for a bathroom and sti II keep the 18 parking spacing. Mr. Y ovanovich has said he thinks that it has to be there, but he's implying that he's not sure. No amount of pavers and shrubs will replace the importance of those heavily used parking spaces. Mr. Halas feels the expansion of the Conner Park will compensate for the loss of these. I have not met anyone who wants to walk three blocks from Conner Park. I measured it. It's 4/ I 0 of a mile, three blocks. One girl, a young girl, she frowned and she said: Who would do that? There's talk of a tram to take people to the beach from Conner Park. Certainly you cannot use the sidewalk, which is less than five feet wide at the bridge. Certainly you could never get insurance to have a tram out in traffic on Bluebill. And if the County chooses to self-insure, I hope they have a large legal contingency fund. I don't know of any mother or grandparent that would put children on a tram out on the traffic at Bluebill and the traffic going into that State park. And there's not enough room for a tram lane and a car lane on Bluebill. Page 114 "_"~~H'_"____'_'___,,____"_'___' "____ ..... .-.~.-._.._--- -.--." September 4,2008 Four, eliminating these spaces will place greater pressure on the garage on Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is already in a congested area. The talk of a parking garage in the State park is a big maybe. There are many hoops to be jumped through. Many I've talked to are opposed to spoiling the pristine beauty of the park, but I will admit I'm for it. Six, one of the letters to the editor said: Do no harm. Some people have been coming to those parking spots for 12 years. Some come from Cape Coral, Fort Myers. Many are tourists that we spend millions trying to attract. I'd like to ask each of you before you vote on this to visit Bluebill parking area before you vote. And I hope that you have it in your hearts to keep easy access to the beach for the hundreds of people who use these parking spots every day. And I thank you for hearing me. And I just want to add another comment. Mr. Schiffer has brought up a very important point. For the last many months the construction workers have been parking in this lot. The Park Ranger comes some days when the workers come to work and stops them from parking there. Finally, I think the construction company has put up signs telling the construction workers not to park there. But I think the same is going to be true for the private club parking. And I think the same is going to be true for people parking at Conner Parle But I just hope you'll consider what I said. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else wish to speak? Mr. Kolllat. COMivllSSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, just for my edification, is there handicapped parking in this facility? Page 115 _.o_____~___."~..,,_~. ._~. .,_~__. ~~._-"'.._<-- -'-'~-~"-~-" _.-.~~- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In which facility? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In the bathroom facility. Is there any handicapped? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe what happens -- if the bathroom facility gets permission to move forward, the parking spaces are over on the other side of the Bluebill Bridge where there are currently 85. And I think they're going to add another 80 or 88 or something like that. So within those 170 or so spaces, I'm assuming -- and by nods of the head, I say there are handicapped parking spaces. But they're on the other side ofthe bridge. MR. SCHMITT: The drop-off area, as well as the restroom facility has to be 88. American Disabilities Act has to be ADA accessible. And as shown on the plan, there is an elevator, which will bring you up to the restroom floor. So that will be part of the review process when it comes in for review, but it is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Point of information. Isn't the decision for the turnaround and the bathroom -- isn't that long been made? Is this the vote today or -- I mean, if we vote no would those 18 spaces remain? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The bathroom facility takes up about three spaces. The turnaround takes up the remainder. And it's my understanding that none of those 18 spaces are handicapped spaces at this time. They're just regular general parking spaces. But I think -- to answer your question, all of this was discussed at the adoption of the Bert Harris settlement. We're just simply trying to implement Board direction at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was discussed. Was it part of the settlement or just in the public process brought up as a solution to some of the issues raised in the settlement? Page 116 "-,,_._,."---~--,-^,---,~-"~---~-_,,,'-'._.- '--'--'.-...",.-..-.--.-..--,-.. '---"---'---~-~--"--'-' ._.,-'"-"- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, when we did the settlement there was -- the County staff and Commission was very clear that they wanted not only the restroom in that area, but they wanted the turnaround. And the turnaround we were -- we were required as part of the settlement to design it and include it in the -- our project, the condominium project, for that turnaround and pay $500,000 for that. And, yes, that turnaround was -- that was very, very integral to the County's decision to go forward with that settlement. And we -- we have fulfilled the obligations under that from the developer's side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that-- MR. SCHMITT: That drawing is attached to the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the spaces that the lady has been asking about are kind of doomed to begin with; is that a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- if this is part of the settlement agreement, does that turnaround then have to be built? MR. SCHMITT: It does. It was indicated during the discussions in the settlement agreement on -- and I'm going to probably defer to the architect. There may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the settlement agreement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm only saying from the turnaround. There may be some requirements for fire safety issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That turnaround has nothing to do with our project. MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm talking about the fire safety for the restroom facilities or Gary. The turnaround was discussed as part of the public access, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the answer that Brad received, so that's fine. Okay. Are there any other questions as a result of any of this; Page 117 "~_.-~._--- ,>"...-- ------,-, . ...- ...~.._~~~----_...,._-- 0" __.__._ September 4, 2008 any questions of the applicant? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. One question as to the turnaround, which I have here attached to the -- to the settlement agreement. Was there discussion though at the time that there would be no parking within that turnaround; that it would be just a turnaround and not -- I honestly don't remember, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't either. I'd have to go back and read the minutes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I will go back and read the minutes. I will do that because I'm unclear. As you can see though by that drawing, again, there are no bathroom facilities specific -- shown on that plan anywhere. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The reason that exhibit was added is -- I believe it was a last minute request of County staff for the turnaround as part of the settlement. And we wanted to come up with -- because we didn't have a -- an engineered or surveyed turnaround. We wanted something in the exhibit -- in the document to depict what our obligations were going to be as part of the settlement. That's why that was actually included in the exhibit. To kind of give us a general idea what impact it may have on the remainder of the property by doing the turnaround. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the Bert Harris agreement, number four reads the following way: The property owner shall grant to the County a recorded easement in a form reasonably acceptable to counsel for the County, an additional easement along the property's northern boundary to accommodate a two-lane vehicular turnaround as conceptually depicted on a not-to-scale plan attached to as Exhibit A. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like it was referenced in the Bert Harris Agreement. Page 118 _____~_".~_~~__~_<___.__u_._u.~.__ ,_.., " ,,"---~-, .. ~._'-'-- .....-.......,-. September 4,2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's no question about that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. There's no question about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just -- that was my original question. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you put the plan up there, I was also looking for text. I found it, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. My question just went further than that. It was -- I don't remember whether there was a discussion about whether that will preclude parking spaces being a part of it. For example, if you go to the other end of Vanderbilt Beach, in the turnaround there at the beach end there is -- there are a few parking spaces, as well. There are a couple of handicapped. They may be all handicapped. I'm not sure. I use the County parking garage. But there are parking spaces there for handicapped persons for sure. And I don't know how many others. As well as bike racks and all of that. So I didn't know whether this turnaround precluded that or whether there was any discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: My recollection -- you can actually reading in the minutes again was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And I'll go read them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was -- the goal was -- because, as you know, it's basically a choke point there. It was to get people through the intersection, get them out of the way, let them unload whatever they're taking to the beach out of the way and then go park at the parking facility just up the street. So I don't think there was really ever contemplation that you could fit the turnaround and parking within it. It was a goal just to keep a drop-off and get out of the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Page 119 - ...._---,_..~- --^,_.._,., ~,~.~-._---.-"_., . ".,.--.--..--.- September 4, 2008 Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for clarification, I -- I recall discussions on the parking and I just asked Gary. Again, that's the entrance to the state park. In reality the existing parking was always I'll call it -- certainly not legal because people were backing right out into the entryway into the state park. The only parking could ever have been accommodated in that right-of-way, given the agreement, would have been on the State park side. And that would have had something built over on that side of the -- in the State park property if they were going to try to put additional space over there. But, again, it's an issue with backing into the entryway into the State park, all the other associated safety -- traffic and safety issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there are no other questions, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make a -- make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion has been made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Wolfley. Discussion; any discussion? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The situation of the property line under the building -- I mean, do we just go away from that and are we just allowing the use? I mean, it's a site plan. It's part of the application, but it's -- it's kind of problematic. MR. SCHMITT: We will not issue a building permit until we have some instrument. Probably the easiest will be some kind of a lot line adjustment to deed that property over to the County. Page 120 ~_'_.~_'_"__'~'_____"__'_U_.' .._.__m. - --"..._-,,--~---- -.- September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we should probably just put that in as a stipulation. That would be the correct way to handle it. MR. SCHMITT: You can put that in as a stipulation, but it's going to have to be done regardless whether you stip it or not. It's going to be -- I have to have the legal transfer of some sort that will allow for the building to be permitted. COMMISSIONER CARON: Lots of things are supposed to happen that sometimes don't, so it's better to stipulate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the stipulation -- MR. SCHMITT: I will bring the permit back if you want to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to the time this went forward to the Board of County Commissioners there would be an agreement drafted and presented that would establish how that piece of property that is in the R T zoning is to be handled; is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll add that to my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there further discussion? I'm not in favor of the precedent this sets for essential services. I'm very dismayed that the County has decided that that tact is going to be taken. I don't believe it's consistent with the definition. I understand what -- I should say with the uses outlined as essential services. I understand the use of the definition, but as we've been told before the definition is not where we should seek to find the uses allowed within the zoning district. You're supposed to go to the spelled out areas in the code. When you do that, it doesn't work. Besides that, I'm not -- Mr. Klatzkow, I'm not going to. I have -- Page 121 _.._._....,,~."-<._""-----_._---,_._- ~.~---- _u""_",, --_..._.._-_._---,-,.~...._-- -....,.--<-...-. September 4, 2008 we have had a lot of public speakers. The ones that spoke I have great respect for all of them. I know some of them. I know they're civic leaders from the area. I've heard items from our various people up here that this is something the area needs. I don't like the precedence it's setting. I'm going to rely on staff that in the conditional use process to hopefully stop it. But for that reason I will probably go along -- I will go along with the motion at this point. Anyway, that's the best I can say on it. With that having said, ifthere's no other comments, all those in favor of the motion signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. And we'll take a one hour -- well, yeah. One hour break for lunch. Let's sayan hour and five minutes. We'll be back here at 1 :30. (Brief recess) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from lunch everyone. Item #8C PETITION: CU-2008-AR-I3060 Page 122 ._~-- --~-~..- --_. ----,.---.--.-.",. ~._.~-- September 4, 2008 Moving on to the third petition for today. It is Petition CU-2008-AR-13060. It is the Naples Baptist Church, Inc. on 2140 Moulder Drive. This was continued from 8/21/08. And disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I had an e-mail going back and forth to try and talk with the petitioner, but we never got together. And then the next item would be 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. MS. DeJOHN: Good afternoon. I'm Laura Dejohn. I'm a planner with Johnson Engineering in Naples here today representing the Naples Baptist Church, Incorporated in this request for a conditional use for a church facility at 2140 Moulder Drive. Naples Baptist Church is the contract purchaser for the site. Here today with me is Michael Piazza, the pastor of the church. The property owner, Diane Sage is here. Chris Hagan, an engineer, and Laura Herrero, an ecologist, with Johnson Engineering are also here to help answer any questions you may have. I want to clarify one point that is in the application documents that you have. The anticipated closing date for the church to acquire the property was in July. And that date has been extended. So the church remains a contract purchaser for the site. The property is located about two and a half miles east of the intersection of Immokalee Road and 951. It is approximately five acres and contains a single-family home currently. The site address is on Moulder Drive, but as you can see the site is currently accessed by two different access ways. And I'm going to grab this and show you. One access way is down -- up Immokalee Road, down Moulder Drive onto Cannon Boulevard east/west and into the site. The second Page 123 --.--..- ",..>- .""-.,..--. September 4, 2008 way it's currently accessed is off of Immokalee Road, down an access drive known as Cannon Boulevard north/south that the applicant proposes to name Cornerstone Drive and into the property from -- straight from Immokalee Road. The site is in the rural fringe mixed-use receiving lands on the future land use map. This allows for community facilities, including places of worship. The site is zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay. And churches can be approved by conditional use in this zoning district. Immediately adjacent to the site are single-family homes to the north and to the east and undeveloped property to the south and to the west. All surrounding sites are also zoned agricultural with a mobile home overlay. To the west is the proposed Elementary School "L" that is being proposed by Collier County Public Schools. And the school's proposed preserves aligns with the church's proposed preserve on the west side of the site. The church is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 294 seats in a 12,000 square foot building. Basic church functions are proposed to occur during evenings and on weekends. There are no proposed child care services. And the existing house on the site is proposed to remain as an accessory to the church and be used as a parsonage. By providing the code required buffering, lighting, parking, water management and preserves, the site is consistent with the land development code and the growth management plan as indicated in your staff report. We did hold a neighborhood information meeting on July 7th. The only members of the public that were not associated with the application were one couple who live along Moulder Drive. And they did ask the question whether Moulder Drive would be paved associated with this application. Because the church is using the Cornerstone Drive access as the most direct access off of Immokalee Page 124 .~_._._~., ---,-_.__."~.~.. -". ..."._..._,-----_._" ~--- September 4, 2008 Road, that is the driveway they propose to pave, consistent with staffs request. I will refer to the staff conditions quickly. We agree with the staff analysis and appreciate that they've recommended approval. They have listed four conditions attached to the ordinance that came in your packet. And we just have three exceptions to those conditions. Under condition two there is a stipulation for a five-foot sidewalk along the access drive to the property. That five-foot sidewalk cannot be accommodated in the given 30-foot access strip. So we request striking the five-foot sidewalk along one side of the road. Condition three has been satisfied. In your supplemental packet you received quitclaim deeds demonstrating that the title holder to the 30-foot strip accessing the site, which was Bank of America, executed its quitclaim deeds to the Naples Baptist Church. And the County Attorney's Office also signed off on that as acceptable. And condition number four is quite limiting because it determines that the church could have its services on Sundays and have Bible study classes just on Sundays and on Wednesday evenings. And I don't know what best interest it is in the County to determine whether a service occurs -- Bible study occurs on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. I would like to add some flexibility so that evenings and weekends are acceptable for any types of services that need to occur at the church. That summarizes my presentation. We're here to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the presenter? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Laura, relative to availability at any given time, do you have a given time in the night that you think might be appropriate to restrict a lot of cars coming and going in that Page 125 -.._--~---_.- --"' " - ~".._--, --..-...-. .--- September 4, 2008 area? PASTOR PIAZZA: Most services are over by 9:00 p.m. We are not real late. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. The pastor has indicated that 9:00 p.m. would be the latest that a service would go on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Laura, the new road, this Cornerstone, are you going to pave it? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. The church has agreed to pave the access drive from Immokalee Road to the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the width of that pavement? MS. DeJOHN: Staff has requested a 20-foot wide travel way, which is acceptable to the church. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And why aren't you using the southern road going down and coming out Moulder? Because there is up at Immokalee a cut-through, correct? A median cut? MS. DeJOHN: Right. The proposed Cornerstone Drive has a right in turn lane and a left in access. And it's the most direct route from Immokalee Road to the property. Instead of going down Moulder and then on the east/west Cannon Boulevard, and then getting to the church -- to the church proper with an existing single-family home there that will serve as the parsonage, it lended itself to better have a direct, shorter distance access route down the Cornerstone Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you know what that distance is down Cornerstone? MS. DeJOHN: 1,800 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern -- again, it's Page 126 ,~~---_.",..._, ----~, _...._,.._._~.- September 4, 2008 a one way in, one way out. So essentially it is a cul-de-sac that needs to be -- somewhere there needs to be a turn-around. Is there assurance that a fire department vehicle would be able to turn around in the parking lot? I think it would be easily available there, but -- MS. DeJOHN: Right. The parking lot would be designed to fire department standards, but I will mention a vehicle can navigate through the site still. There is an interconnection to allow the home area to be connected through the parking lot area. So it's not a dead-end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do have a 1,000 foot, don't we, requirement for cul-de-sac? MS. DeJOHN: Right. I'm describing that this essentially is not a cul-de-sac because a vehicle can navigate through the site from Cornerstone Drive and then to the south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. There will be no gate ever on that? MS. DeJOHN: There is no gate proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It may be inappropriate, but I'm just curious. Signage. How are people going to find the church? Are we going to be looking at a signage issue? MS. DeJOHN: The signage will be on the property itself. There is a small label indicating that the signage would be placed -- a monument sign right at the entrance into the parking area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. DeJOHN: I'm assuming the Pastor is comfortable that his congregation would know where to find their church. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was thinking about the Page 127 ... ~-'-'-'~~'.~"-'-'-"-"--'-~'---'-'--"-~'~'- --------.., ---",,,,~-~,."--._,~--. ,"'" - -----~ September 4, 2008 1,800 feet. It exceeds the distance for sign off-site and I just wondered. Okay. Ifhe's comfortable, then I would be comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Laura, can you please provide the Planning Commission with the details regarding the interlocal between the School District and the County and how that relates to Cannon, your proposed entrance? If you wouldn't -- I can summarize it as well. During the permitting process for the public school Elementary "L", County transportation asked us to enter into an interlocal agreement. The School District. And basically the agreement provides that a traffic impact study would be done after the opening of the school to determine if additional access to the site was needed off of Cannon. And as a precondition for the School District to contribute funds to that site, it's required that that is a public right-of-way through that area. And, ifl'm not mistaken, in the beginning of this presentation, we now know that your client owns that and it has just been conveyed by Bank of America. MS. DeJOHN: Correct. And the church is in the position of understanding that the record of title of these access ways in this area of the County are all hard to follow. It took awhile to track down the fact that Bank of America was the title holder to this 30-foot strip. It has been the access point for property owners along that 30-foot strip for a long, long time. And the church would be -- think it is very appropriate to go to each of those neighbors and ensure that the access they have always enjoyed is still provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, 1 don't think that addresses your question. Did you want your question addressed or not? MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission members were aware of the existence of this agreement and its terms and the fact that the precondition -- that that Page 128 ".' .,...__._.~~.__._--_.~----- .. '-'" .~ ._, .u_,~.__ September 4, 2008 would be a public right-of-way before it could provide any relief for the future school site, in terms of access, ingress and egress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far, do you have a copy of that agreement? I need to understand what you think you're asking her. Because my research on the site doesn't provide any easements across that site. And I intended to ask for them before this meeting got over to interconnect the road systems that are there. In fact, that's the one piece of property where the easements are blocked. And I have them all laid out on an aerial right here. It's highlighted in color. If you could pass this over to Ray to possibly put on the screen. I need to understand what you think the agreement provides and where the easements you're looking for are. And then we need to see by this where we could possibly have interconnecting easements, especially on the South Cannon Boulevard where they are provided -- where they are not provided at this time, at least on the County Tax Assessor's map. MR. EASTMAN: I would like to clarify. The School District's position is that Moulder serves as an adequate access. And through negotiations with County transportation, we have as a safety valve, if warranted, an additional access if proven by a traffic impact study. But in order to have that, the precondition would be that it would be public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look at this map here, on the left side, that's Moulder. On the bottom, the farthest colored one down there, that is a piece of Cannon that currently exists. If you go over to the right, there is a small easement. I think it's only ten feet or something right there that exists. And then if you go up and down on the right side, that is another easement that exists. On their piece up there that they just clarified in today's meeting would be Bank of America. Page 129 --,_._-~._,-~---- .-----.-.--- '.--.-".'---"'-- ---'---.-- September 4, 2008 When you get to that property, everything stops. So if you're looking at interconnections as an auxiliary access for the school system and you have some agreement, where is it that your agreement is provided? What color -- what pieces of this are fitting together? MR. EASTMAN: It would be the piece that you pointed to that was recently conveyed to the applicant by Bank of America. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The northern piece? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. Once again, it's not the School District seeking easement rights to that property. It is just that there is an agreement in place that after the school is opened, if additional access were required, warranted by a traffic impact study, that it would be on that piece, the piece in question from Bank of America. But a precondition to the School District contributing funds to that road is that it would be public right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess maybe I am lost. Where is the school? MR. EASTMAN: The school-- the school lies immediately to the west of the site. That is a -- sort of a long tail rectangular piece that would be the preserve area. And then the larger portion of the school site fronts Immokalee Road. So if you were to slide what is on the visualizer down and have Immokalee Road, you could see the future school site better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From that future school site you're trying to get over to that piece that they now -- so how would you plan to get to that piece? It doesn't connect to your parcel. MR. EASTMAN: It does actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because you've got a "T" piece that goes over in the north closer to Immokalee Road. MR. EASTMAN: Yes. On the visualizer now you can see the entire School District site with the southernmost piece being designated preserve. And the connection to that future access, again, Page 130 _._-_.....>'~--_.,--_._--_._-_.,.~'~-". '.........-..-.-.----.--...,..-- September 4, 2008 if warranted, would be to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got you. On the bottom where it says Cannon Boulevard -- you notice on this map it shows the boulevard going through. But on the Tax Assessor's site I can't find the easements. I didn't see any provided in this package. Are there any easements there? MS. DeJOHN: There is no easement there, no. That's another example of where the chain of title has included the southern ten feet in the property as a whole and historically excluded the southern ten feet. So similarly to the 30 feet that we pursued and found out Bank of America could execute a document and give that land to us, the southern ten feet are in question also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to clear that up and see what transportation needs. Because whatever the interconnections are there, now that we have an opportunity, they certainly ought to be clarified. Any other questions of the presenter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, where are the utilities going to go? You're going to have, I'm assuming, power and maybe telephone and cable. How will you bring those onto the site? MS. DeJOHN: Well, power currently -- FPL lines currently run down along Cornerstone Drive. I mean, there is already power to the existing home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the existing home usually has 150, 200 amp service. Your facility is much larger. I was just wondering if you would be looking at a larger service and if you had adequate power access to the site. I fthere's easements there, that's fine. That's kind of what I was looking for. Page 13 1 ",._..._._~._--_._._,~".~----- -..-.-. <.- .-.--..." September 4, 2008 You're on your own water and well system? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under number two on the list that was provided -- the sidewalk issue I am going to ask transportation to address when we get to that point. As far as the building permit or the certificate of occupancy goes, in a prior meeting we had the same issue come up in regards to when the work would be done for the site work that leads to the property. And we didn't accept the certificate of occupancy because, as we learned with the Naples Nissan, it just requires someone to come in and cry a little bit and they get it changed. So I don't think that's a good thing to do. We may want to tie it to something different. And I think Nick had some language at the last meeting and staff was going to check on that for me. And did you find that, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: We have the proposed language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, when Nancy gets up here we are going to have to listen to that and what she found out. And then transportation can comment on the width of that road and the adequacy of whether or not sidewalks are safely needed or not. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Staff, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And today we are recommending approval of the Naples Baptist Church conditional use 2008-AR-13060. And there are some changes to the staff recommendation that I would like to share with you this afternoon. And one of those Page 132 "~______~..m'.__" -.-,- ...-.-...--,.......-.--..... - ._.._--._-- September 4, 2008 comments is regarding item number two, which -- which will state that prior to vertical construction the Naples Baptist Church will have its paved road in for the access from the site to Immokalee Road. And transportation has confirmed that that roadway will be 24 feet wide and will include a paved shoulder. And then also, as the applicant had previously stated, condition number three has been satisfied, so that is no longer a condition. And, most importantly, also want to confirm that this is consistent with the growth management plan and, therefore, staff is recommending approval. And it's my pleasure to answer any questions you might have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarity, you spoke of two. And I'm looking at your original submission. I think that's where you are. And it does talk to a five-foot sidewalk. You didn't mention that. You said a paved shoulder. Is that in place of the sidewalk? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. That's going to be in lieu of the five-foot sidewalk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that for safety for -- associated with the vehicles passing, or what? MS. GUNDLACH: We can certainly ask transportation to clarifY that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I appreciate the paved shoulder but, yeah, I would be curious on that. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning. Because of the constraints of the private easement being 30 feet, the engineering behind trying to get a full 20- foot of pavement and separation as required in a rural segment and then a five-foot sidewalk, Page 133 ~-"'._'-'--"" .._-- '--.-"'-" September 4, 2008 it just can't be put into this easement. So to allow for vehicles and pedestrians, we have gone with a 24-foot width of paving with a striping that would allow a pedestrian access down the side on the shoulder. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How thick would that material be? In other words, how long will it last before it erodes as a result of the motion or the movement of the earth, etc? MR. GREEN: It's probably going to be about three and a half inches of asphalt. It would be your typical paving section of the other County roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So all the underlay and everything would be there? MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would last a long, long time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti and then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nancy, question. Is there any reason you're limiting them to Sundays and Wednesdays and denying the flexibility of a Saturday night service or a Tuesday night or a Thursday night? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is. We had a problem with a church in another location that had expanded the uses and services on the church site. It was like a 74 -- seven day, 24-hour activities on the particular site. And we had received numerous complaints about it, so that is why we are a little more reserved with our recommendation for this particular church. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But this site is very remote. There is nothing much out there. I can't see doing any harm of giving them -- again, they are not going to do seven days a week. They just might do a Tuesday night thing, Thursday or Saturday night service. So I would like to see them get the flexibility to do what they need to go. Page 134 '.--.-.---- ---'--- -,---- ,.,.....-.--.- September 4, 2008 MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the farther out you are and the more quiet it is the farther the noise travels when you have those kinds of things. So it does work both ways. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't you just stipulate something like one evening a week and that it doesn't matter particularly what evening? But if it's limited to only one, then it keeps with the spirit of what staff was recommending and -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A lot of churches do a Saturday night service and a Sunday night service. That seems to be the trend, where they do a Saturday night and a Sunday morning. Rather than expanding these facilities, they do two services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is another problem. The applicant clearly on the record in the NIM says the following: The church will seat 294 people for services and Bible study will be held on Sunday mornings. Bible study will also be held on Wednesday evenings. There will be no day care. Now, we had the ABC Liquor project come through here. If you recall, they said on their NIM that they wouldn't use anything -- any more than two-axle vehicles or something to that effect. Well, it turns out they might have an occasional three-axle vehicle. Now they have to go back and do an NIM all over to clarify that point because they misstated it in the NIM. Well, I think the same kind of thing would apply here. And if they are not going to be consistent with what they told the members of the public, no matter how few they were that attended, then I don't know how we could change that without going back through the process again. I don't know. Page 135 _..__.~_"___"~._..__._m'_u__~_._c,__.__ ~__d __, .' - -, '-"~'-.._-.,.~-~.~'_---"..,----.- - ,,-- September 4, 2008 Is there -- what is the staff -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would we be able to add on there though that they could meet during church holidays? I mean, if Christmas fell on a Friday, you wouldn't want them not to be able to have Christmas Eve service or Christmas service. Let's at least add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- all I'm trying to go by is what we've made others do and what the rules say, which I don't -- myself, I don't care. I do -- I'm not in Mr. Vigliotti's corner. Golden Gate Estates is a very quiet area. You have a church there making noise multiple times a week, it's going to travel. So we do need to limit it. And the last time we did have a problem it was a church in Golden Gate Estates. So I really don't buy into the program that it goes -- it's completely loose. We have to do some kind of curtailment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where I walk my dog there's a church I hear at nights quite a bit, too. So it can be disturbing, but I do think they should have the right to the holidays. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for Mr. Klatzkow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the church that you referenced made an appeal and I don't know the outcome of that appeal. I thought -- I thought that appeal was successful or else they have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The church I'm referring to didn't make an appeal. They actually got a day care that went through a very stringent public process and got -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one I'm thinking of was the one over by Max Hasse Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the Jehovah's Witnesses. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I'm not sure -- the information I'm Page 136 '..-----'"..- ....H.____ ,-.-.'-""--'- "..,...~_.- September 4, 2008 sharing with you is information I received from somebody else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't mean to put anybody on the spot. But I would be concerned with our efforts to limit one when perhaps another found its way. I'm sorry to bring the matter up, but it's stressing me because there ought to be some way we can deal with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know. I mean, we have these neighborhood information meetings for a reason. And it's been stated that the commitments made -- they are real commitments to the community. To go back and change them afterward without good reason -- I mean, I don't even think there is a reason. If they had made the commitment at that meeting, then they obviously knew what they wanted out of their church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Laura, could you tell me what happened at the meeting, who came and what questions they asked? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Again, there was one couple who was at the meeting that was not associated with the application. And Pastor Piazza recalled that he was asked when -- because he has an existing church service now in another facility. And he was asked when his church functions are. So it wasn't a commitment that exclusively services and studies will be on certain days of the week at this location. He answered the question of when are his typical services and when are his typical Bible studies at his current location. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. The petitioner originally submitted and specified the hours that he wanted to operate and he hasn't made any request to change those. I don't know why we Page 137 ."~,_..._,._".' _~_.____,_,-'_""~""_'O__' ..~~"--- September 4, 2008 wouldn't stay with what was submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the beginning she did make a request to change them. That's kind of what -- she actually said number four on the staff recommendations, which does provide limitations, they wanted more flexibility in those limitations. And I'm just trying to figure out -- I think Mr. Vigliotti had suggested almost virtually no limitations. So there is kind of a disconnect there. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What would you suggest would work for you? Because apparently you're not going to get unlimited. What other nights of the week would work or what flexibility would work with you? P ASTOR PIAZZA: I guess, you know, those are regular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to address the Commission, you have to come up here. Otherwise, she can consult with you one-to-one. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just wanted to quickly add that this limitation on church hours traditionally did not exclude holidays. So I don't think -- that should be made clear that they would still be allowed their holiday services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have expected that. MR. SCHMITT: Religious holidays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. In fact, I had made notes on Sundays and religious holidays. P ASTOR PIAZZA: Mike Piazza, Pastor. The church -- the question was made to me: When are your regular service hours? And I said: The Sunday, Sunday nights and Wednesday evening are normal hours. Occasionally, you know, we might have an extra Bible study, things like VBS. You know, you might have a weeklong Page 138 -- -""---'--.--..--,--- ,-~.- ."_..~-,'."'-'- _....,,_.",.~".- September 4, 2008 youth meeting like that, VBS. You might have a revival service once a year where you have three, four, five days. But those aren't normal, regular things. These are occasional. You know, maybe a few extra meetings per year. Scheduled events, you know, where we're not a -- a regular service every single night. I understand that you don't want -- you don't want that. But, you know, ifthere is some limitation in the -- help in the wording there that can allow us for special events, that would be great. We'd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem that has come up before, and it was the Jehovah's Witnesses where we got a lot of this discussion. They used -- they let other congregations use their facility. So the problem is they weren't building it to use just for the local congregation. They were using it for congregations throughout a huge area. So they ended up being constantly in use with multiple times more days than one. That caused a great concern for the neighborhood. There's no restrictions on you at this point. PASTOR PIAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what we are trying to deliberate. That's why we are getting into the issue. PASTOR PIAZZA: Yeah. We have no intent to do anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many special occasions do you have a year, do you think, at the maximum? P ASTOR PIAZZA: Usually we have a weeklong VBS, maybe once a week -- once a year, we have maybe a weeklong revival type setting where you have a Monday through Friday. And then occasionally -- you know, 1 would say right now at the maximum we have an extra service maybe once a month where we are meeting for, you know, an extra evening for dinner or some kind of activity like that. So we're not -- not talking a whole lot of extra usage right now at Page 139 --, _,~.~.".'" o. w_ .__.'''',"~.' - -~...__._-~ September 4, 2008 this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifteen events? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve, plus five. So we are looking at 17 on special events a year in which you would have different uses. Each day would be an event, let's say. Even though you had five, it would be five events then. P ASTOR PIAZZA: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing. He has services and Bible study. Can we not restrict Bible study? That's a group of people sitting in a room. I mean, I don't know how that could get out of control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it is -- Mr. Klatzkow, let's go back to the statement made in the NIM. Do we have any issues there that restrict us in regards to what can or cannot be approved? And it is on page seven. It says the church will seat 294 people for services and Bible study to be held on Sunday mornings. Bible study will also be held on Wednesday evenings. MR. KLA TZKOW: Here's the problem within there. People go to a NIM, they get their objections made. Usually an arrangement is made and they come to this Board. And they don't come down here as part of the public hearing because they think all their objections have been satisfied. So that -- although I don't believe there is a real requirement that you have to fully abide by the restrictions in the NIM, but in interest of fairness, I think, to the community I think you ought to. Because these people would be showing up if they knew that there was going to be a more intensive use proposed for this church than what they were told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the people that you're referring to are those that would have attended the NIM? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Page 140 _n____"____.__"_',, ~..,"--_....,_."..-- ~.,.,._..._._-- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the people that attended the NIM or -- do you know their names offhand or do you want me to read them off of the list? MS. DeJOHN: The couple who was not associated with the petition actually didn't sign in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I would like to make a point of clarification. I'm the person who asked about when they were going to have their services. So I can't say for sure it was really an issue with the neighbors. It was just an informational question on my part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers listed for this one? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there anybody in the public who lives in this area that were going to speak on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't have any help on anything. MS. GUNDLACH: And there's no letters of objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So based on all that, we probably could expand the times. Although I personally don't believe that total unflexibility -- total flexibility is the way to go anyway. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, too, reading over this and discussing it with Nancy, I don't think the applicant made a firm commitment to restrict hours. It was more of a general, offhand typical type of situation, not what they are committing to. So I don't think the Planning Commission would be constrained from providing additional flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if the intent all along was for several weeklong revivals and other weeklong events, wouldn't you Page 141 '-'--'"--~----'...'....".^".- '^.~"- ..~-,~......~ .',. ._,,-".~-~-.-,._-,----...-;~^_. .,,', ---- September 4, 2008 expect that to be disclosed at a neighborhood information meeting? We are talking about impactful events, not just another Sunday servIce. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I believe that would be something that-- if that is what they were intending to do, then it should have been mentioned. But if it wasn't really discussed and the staff just raised a general discussion and the answer was just general and not a firm commitment, then I don't see how that is a restriction that we're going to force them to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, they are governed by the noise ordinance though. If they are out there, you know, making a big commotion and disturbing the neighbors, that's the proper place to deal with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you need to live out in Golden Gate Estates. Gee, I wish my life was that simple. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifa slash pine falls in the woods, will we hear it? From my part of it, I'm thinking if we had a NIM -- and sometimes this happens, maybe more often than not -- no one shows up, no one raises the question, should we then introduce information that we perceive should have been there? And I have a hard time with that. I recognize that unfettered use might be detrimental to the neighborhood in the long term, perhaps not today. But on the other hand, if two people came to a meeting and they asked: What is the color of your britches and had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand, then I think we are investing something that needn't be invested, at least to the point of trying to make it too restrictive. I agree that some restriction is essential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Page 142 ...~---,~----,-~~ .____._..'......o.... September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Pastor, do you have a church right now? P ASTOR PIAZZA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What services do you have for your church right now? P ASTOR PIAZZA: Currently we have Sunday morning from 10:00 to 12:00. And then Sunday evening it is 6:00 to 7:00. Wednesday evening from 7:00 to 8:00 currently. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So that would be the same -- P ASTOR PIAZZA: Those are our regular services. And that's what I was asked. And when I was put to it -- I mean, I never intended that to be our only services. And I believe at the informational meeting it came up and they said: Would that be your only services? And I said: No, we do have special occasions. And I'm almost positive I responded in that way during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any suggestions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Give them 20. Give them 20 events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it would read: The church services shall be limited to Sunday -- to Sundays and religious holidays and special occasions not to exceed 20. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That sounds fair. Is that fair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the rest of it stays the same. I'm just adding to the one portion of the sentence. And Bible study and classes shall be limited to Sunday mornings, Sundays evenings, and Wednesday evenings, unless you need another -- do you -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you need one more during Page 143 ._.. n_____.__"..__.,,_..~,,_. - -_.....- . September 4, 2008 the week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say Bible -- why are we even limiting Bible classes? Do they generate a lot of people? P ASTOR PIAZZA: At this time you're talking about 10, you know, people; 10, 15 people for Bible classes. They are not a huge service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you all shout or scream or anything? PASTOR PIAZZA: No. We're not the kind to jump up and scream and shout, nor do we blare out the music and see how many people we can wake up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For number four-- PASTOR PIAZZA: We're not that kind of church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we rewrite number four to say the following: The uses shall be limited to church services and a parsonage. Day care uses are prohibited. The church services shall be limited to Sunday mornings and religious holidays and special occasions not to exceed 20 in total for the special occasions per year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't you mention that you wanted Sunday evenings also? P ASTOR PIAZZA: Yeah. Is that in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said Sundays. I didn't say morning or night. I just said Sundays. And I dropped out the issue about study -- Bible study because there should be more of that anyway. So go for it. P ASTOR PIAZZA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of number four. Nancy, are you fairly clear on that? MS. GUNDLACH: I just added in the words: And religious holidays, but I think you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the third sentence: The church services shall be limited to Sundays and religious holidays and not to -- and not to exceed 20 special occasions per year. Page 144 ~--,~._."---_._.- .. ,--_. .._--,.~ --.., .__.,-~,.,--,.- ..~~--_. September 4, 2008 MS. GUNDLACH: That would be like funerals or something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty days of special occasions per year. And then we would drop the rest of the service. Mornings -- from the mornings on would be dropped. And that would give a fairly flexible schedule. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the word Sunday on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you would say Sunday and religious holidays. So after the word Sunday everything drops, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON: Just a point of clarification, because Mrs. Gundlach suggested you were talking about funerals as being the 20 days, so you might want to clarify what you mean by the special occasions. Because I heard the pastor saying revivals, Vacation Bible School, as being those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care what he calls as special occasions. If that many people die in his congregation, he may not have -- PASTOR PIAZZA: Hopefully. MS. ASHTON: Maybe special events might be a better choice of words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Special events. That's fine. Okay. That takes care of number four. Number three has been removed; is that correct, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number four we're going to say: Prior -- and you used the word vertical construction, but last time I think we used building permit. Wouldn't that be a better item to put in there than vertical construction? There is already vertical construction on the site. MS. GUNDLACH: I'm going to defer to transportation. There may be reasons for that. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning. Page 145 - --, "~-''''--'--''-'-~''--'~-- -'~---"'-'- ,..,~',~"",._"W",_ September 4, 2008 The intent of having this tied to vertical construction is to ease the burden of mobility to the site for this equipment and the costs associated with this to allow them to pave this roadway in a similar fashion that they are paving their on-site parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But I'm saying, why don't we tie it to building permit? Because you can't do vertical construction without a building permit. And a building permit is something we officially issue. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't do that. We won't know when vertical construction is going on. We just know we've issued a permit and within a year's time it's going to have to start. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I mean, isn't the ability to build parking tied to that building permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That is an SDP. All the site work can be done, which gets you to the site. Before you get your building permit to put the building up, you have got to have your road paved. That's all. MR. HAGAN: Commissioners, Chris Hagan, for the record, with Johnson Engineering. The point here we are trying to avoid is the remobilization. As you all know, the building permit and the site permit generally lag a month or two months between, just out of practical history. And what we don't want to do is have to mobilize that paving crew twice, if we can take them out there once to do the parking lot and the driveway at the same time. That's why tying it to the vertical construction gives you all some comfort that it's going to be there when it needs to be. But conversely, if we pave the driveway and then have to come back and pave it with a second paver visit, we're going to get hit for -- our owner is going to get hit for several thousands dollars in remobilization. We're just trying to avoid that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the parking lot for a structure, Page 146 ....,~...., .' '~--'-'~'-'._---._,~--- --- . W'_" -_.......,-~_.- ..,,, ,-- September 4, 2008 wouldn't it have come through on a SDP? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then what is the problem? You put the parking lot in under the SOP. The building goes in under the building permit. I still don't see where the connection is. MR. HAGAN: Construction timing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand. MR. SCHMITT: Chris, you are going to do an SDP for the site? MR. HAGAN: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: You can pave the parking lot. You have to have the SDP to do the parking lot. MR. HAGAN: The thing is we won't do all the site work before we pull the building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you're going to have the problem that you were saying you wanted this issue to avoid. You're going to have double mobilizations. MR. SCHMITT: You're going to do the road before you pull a building permit. That's what Mark is saying. MR. HAGAN: What we would intend to do is pull the site permit and then the building permit and then do all the construction in one fell swoop. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. HAGAN: What we want to do is we want to make sure that -- what we don't want to have to do is pave the driveway immediately. What we want to do is do that in the normal course of building. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normal course of building what? MR. HAGAN: In building a site, pavement is one of the last things we put down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chris, I know. I probably do more of this than you have. MR. HAGAN: I know. Well, then I don't understand why-- Page 147 .- ..".._-_.._---_._...~._-. ---"'''-- ~..._..,.,,-~-----.~._----_.__.._- "'.'-.-, September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand where you're coming from. If you're going to go in and get an SDP, it's going to give you the road and all the site work. The well, the septic, everything but the building pad. The building pad comes with the building permit. So if you can do all the site work and all that work and then you just -- and that is all going to be done before you get your building permit, where are you at a loss? MR. HAGAN: That work doesn't have to be done before you get the building permit. I'm confused. I'm talking about sequencing of construction, not sequencing of permits. That's where -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't you want to do the work if you want to avoid the double mobilization? If you're just going to do the road and then come back and do the site work later, don't you have double mobilization? MR. HAGAN: Yes, you would. MR. SCHMITT: How about if -- I'm just trying to think of sequencing. Prior to your 10-day spot survey, if you want to be that specific, you're going to pull building permit. You're saying you're going to pull building permit. MR. HAGAN: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: You're already going to have your SOP. You want to pull your building permit. You may start vertical construction before you actually start paving is what you're saying. MR. HAGAN: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I thought that's what we are trying to avoid. MR. SCHMITT: Him and Mike are both on different wavelengths. Because Mike says before they start construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, when you and I met, I suggested the language that Nick has used in other projects that he brought up about a week or two ago. Why aren't we just simply using that? Page 148 _,_.,'~_u._.__._.'''_ ...._..M____._ ....__..,_._.._ -~.- . -..---- September 4, 2008 This doesn't need to be a negotiating point. That was what worked for other projects. We simply make it work here. Do you have that language? You were going to get that from Nick. MR. SCHMITT: Prior to the building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what he said? I don't remember how he worded it. He had two of them. Construction was to start at a certain point and then the work would be completed prior to a certain point. And that's what I was trying to get at. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. My understanding is that the language is: Prior to vertical construction. Ifthere is something else that you're thinking of, I could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was here. Nick never used those words. He doesn't -- MS. GUNDLACH: We'll have to find those words from Nick then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think Nick knows anything about vertical construction. He's a road guy. Okay. Any comments? We'll just go on and see where it all goes. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a concern I have about this being essentially a long -- maybe a cul-de-sac if the turnaround is right. Would you have a problem adding a clause that you can't gate that until you -- until Cornerstone connects to Cannon Boulevard? The concern I would have is an emergency vehicle coming down there and you've got a gate at the end of that. MS. DeJOHN: There's no problem with the condition that there is no gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just no gate ever? MS. DeJOHN: You can condition that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go that far, the response to Page 149 ,_..--~--- ~ -"'~'-'-'.."'->"'''-;-'--~'--'^' ....---.- September 4, 2008 Brad earlier was the vehicles could continue through the site to the south. Could you put that aerial back on that I had provided with the yellow markings on it? Move it up a little bit. How do you get to the south? How does an emergency vehicle, Brad, get through there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm looking at the improved plan, not that. Actually, what could happen in the parking lot is it could turn around and come back out the same way it came in. If they gated it, there would be no way for it to turn around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no gates? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want a gate in the future, we could word that so that once the road is connected you can put a gate. PASTOR PIAZZA: No gate. MS. DeJOHN: No gate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go into the staff presentation. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I already gave my presentation. If you have any other questions, I am pleased to answer them. Any questions? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick question. Do they have to do a panther consultation? MS. GUNDLACH: Do they have to do panda? COMMISSIONER CARON: Panther. I mean, I like to push the envelope, but really. MS. GUNDLACH: No. Page 150 ...._-_.__.._.__..~......- -----..-.-.--.---" " ----.." - ,,_.------ September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: They do not. COMMISSIONER CARON: They do not? Because they are just in the secondary zone, is that why? MS. GUNDLACH: This particular petition did not have to go to the Environmental Advisory Council because it's under five acres. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. That's not what I asked. Do they have to do panther consultation? That's it. MS. GUNDLACH: No, they don't. They do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, you had clarified some items on two. I just want to make sure we understand it. There will be a 24-foot rural paved roadway from lmmokalee Road to the subject property with shoulders -- with paved shoulders? MS. GUNDLACH: With a paved shoulder. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, actually 1 asked for clarification from both Ms. DeJohn and our transportation planning staff. And the language that they are both in agreement with is -- however, you decide the first part to be: That the church or its successors or assigned shall construct to County standards a 20-foot rural paved roadway from Immokalee Road to the subject property with a four-foot paved shoulder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a bit different. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a 20-foot rural paved roadway from Immokalee Road to the subject property with a four- foot paved shoulder. Number one stays as it's presented. Number three was dropped. Number four we've modified. Number two, the only thing remaining there is a discussion about building permit and vertical construction. Are there any other questions of staff at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gate. Page 151 . .~--".~,._~.._,... ,. .~~...__._--~---_....,- --".. ,,--- -~,- September 4, 2008 MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I have a point of clarification about Commissioner Caron's question about the panther. Would you like to share? We have an environmentalist here today. She is going to share some information about the panther. MS. HERRERO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Laura Herrero. I'm a certified ecologist with the Ecological Society of America and a consulting ecologist with Johnson Engineering. And it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to talk a little slower so she can type as fast as you talk. MS. HERRERO: As Ms. Caron pointed out, the project is located in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services secondary panther zone. As such, when the project does go through, you know, for the site development plan, any ERP permits that are required, it will require a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at that time. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you said there were no public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody wishing to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any final comments from the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and we will entertain a motion. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, could you read to me Page 152 _ ""__"_n' .m.___._..______"_..___'._..._____________ ---..-----.-'-''', ---,----, September 4, 2008 what you had down for that stipulation four, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The uses shall be limited to church services and a parsonage. Day care uses are prohibited. The church services shall be limited to Sunday mornings -- or Sundays, religious holidays and up to 20 special events. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, you have excluded Bible study classes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There would be no restriction on that. That's not a large crowd. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the uses are limited to. And then you have listed what it is limited to. If you don't have it there, then they won't allow Bible classes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are not limiting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. This is church services. I guess Bible study might be classified as a church service. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think that's a stretch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say church services shall be, and we'll drop the word limited. Or shall be restricted to. No, that is services again. MR. BELLOWS: Howabout: Excluding Bible studies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Or there shall be no restriction on Bible studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or excluding Bible studies? Good catch, Mr. Kolflat. So the language at the end of that sentence as it was modified would end adding another sentence that says: Excluding Bible studies. Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will. Page 153 .,' ~'____,.H"_~~' ""'---'-".-^---.-- .-,.-.--.,, . ...."._",..-......~.~---.~'~". .'.--.-.- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve with the changes to number one using the words building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's number two. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Number two, building permit. And the roadway of20 feet plus the four foot. No gate at the end. And the changes you have discussed with staff in number four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Thank you. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-I3063 Okay, next item up is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13063. It's the Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc. It's on 951 about one and a half miles south of Tamiami Trail. Page 154 .__..,...._,-"----_._._--,,.._,~<,~._.,,---_..._,._'''---- -.-<" ---_..-._.,~ ....'"....,--.-.....-.-. .... ""'-,,'- September 4, 2008 All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a meeting with Mr. Pires and Mr. Nadeau concerning this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I also had a meeting with Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Pires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Mr. Pires. And Mr. Nadeau and I never were able to hook up in time to have a meeting. And the issues I talked about with Mr. Pires will be discussed today. With that -- were they sworn in? Yeah, we just did that. Okay, it's all yours. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm the planning manager for R W A and representing the Silver Lakes Property Owners Association in this petition for a minor amendment to the Silver Lakes MPUD. This is AR-I3063. With me today is Mr. Tony Pires of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, as co-agent for the association. A few of you may recall that last time I was before you in 2005 we were on opposite sides. Weare now both representing the property owners association in this request. In addition, we have Conway Bennett and Leroy Richards from the park. Mr. Richards is the vice-president of the association. First thing that I need to bring to the attention to the Planning Page 155 ~._._.,---_._,.__.,---,,-,-"~--~ M____' __ .---- _..~ .~---~~---_.. ---- September 4, 2008 Commission is that this petition does not request any additional density. It does not modify any development standards or request any intensity changes to the PUD. For a little bit of history on the background of the project and how we got here, the original I 46-acre PUD was adopted on May 22nd of 1990. That's Ordinance 90-40. The first amendment was adopted September 24, 1991. And that was Ordinance 91-90. That is the ordinance that I drafted back many years ago. The second amendment, and currently in the current document, was adopted March 22, 2005. And it is Ordinance 05- 1 4 and a part of your review packet. This last amendment was the -- MR. NADEAU: -- attempt to clarify the means of clouding or siding accessory structures. On December 28, 2006, the former building administrator issued an opinion that the accessory structures were to be constructed of specific materials. A request for an official interpretation was submitted to the planning and zoning director on August 29 of '07 that disputed the building administrator's policy related to the specifics of construction for accessory structures. On December 10,2007, Susan Istenes, your planning and zoning director, rendered the official interpretation, agreeing with the argument proposed by myself that there was no specificity on how accessory structures could be constructed. Shortly thereafter building permits for accessory structures stopped being issued by the building permit department based on objections from planning staff that the accessory structures relating to the porch were not habitable space. This then is the reason why we're here before you is that we're very simply clarifying that these accessory structures may be living space. We are looking to maintain the status quo where property owners will retain the opportunity for improving their lots with the permitted principal and accessory land uses provided for in the Page 156 '_~__'__~'.e .,..... _~.__,__~____ -"'-'-"'-~---~_.-'.-..-- ,--- September 4, 2008 MPUD. The Association, Collier County, Attorney Pires and myself crafted the text amendments to remove term -- remove the term "porch" and identify the square footage limitations on the principal and accessory structures. Ray, if you could put this exhibit up on the visualizer, please. Now, it's important to understand -- you will have to zoom out a little bit. It is important to understand -- zoom in a little more, thank you -- that there is two tracts in Silver Lakes. Silver Lakes is a mixed use planned unit development because it is a travel trailer recreational vehicle park, which is a commercial type land use, and it also has recreational residence land uses that allow for, let's say, parked trailers that are greater than 500 square feet but less than 700 square feet. There are 400 platted lots that are TTR V in the subdivision. And they have a maximum square footage of 500 square feet. There is 160 platted recreational residence lots in the park, and they have a maximum square footage of 700 square feet for the principal structure. There are 38 lots that remain unimproved. And the balance of the platted lots are improved. And for Commissioner Caron's information, there are approximately 115 lots improved both with modular and principal structures attached, joined together in a single lot. And it would be similar to what you see in the picture on the bottom, second from the right, where we have two units that have been merged together into a single principal and accessory structure. This is -- this is on an AR lot. And one can assume that there is 700 square feet of principal structure and 700 square feet of accessory structure. And that accessory structure would be living space. The remainder of the park -- excuse me, 20 percent of the park is built out in this fashion with these joined units. The remainder of the park is developed with more traditional Page 157 . ._..,.~....__.e..._._._.._~_____._~_."...._ .~.__.--_._-,-'" .-- September 4, 2008 park trailers, motor coaches, travel trailers and the like as principal structures with the diverse accessory structures that you can also see in the photos. You'll see a fifth-wheel trailer with a screen porch attached to it. You will see another R V over-the-road travel trailer with a screen porch attached to it. You will see a parked trailer that has a carport added to it and potentially a utility room. You will see one vacant lot with a -- a shed on it. And it is -- we were fortunate enough to get a picture of -- on the very left side of your screen on the bottom you will see that there is a travel trailer or a motor coach that was in place at the time the aerial photo was taken. But when I shot the picture on Tuesday, it had vacated the site. And the screen enclosure and the shed remains. So this is the status quo that we're trying to maintain: Provide the opportunities for the lot owners to improve their parcels, their lots, with what is permitted by the PUD. For the record, I would like to offer 286 petitions of support provided by the association. These petitions represent the support of 334 property owners in the park. The reason why there is 334 properties and 286 signatures is that some people own more than one lot in the park. So I offer it to Ray. A copy has been given to the principal planner in charge of the petition, who is not here today, and I will offer a copy to the reporter. Thank you. Two neighborhood information meetings were conducted to explain the petition. Our first meeting had 150 people there. It was very productive. However, the Naples Daily News did not put the ad in the paper so we had to conduct another -- had to conduct another neighborhood information meeting. There was less people there and there were no objections. With that, Commissioners, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of the applicant Page 158 '" _....._,.._.._-_._~_....'.-.._._--_..~_.__.._._~-,_._-'.--.-- ... ~ ",---_..._----". ---~."._------- September 4, 2008 anybody? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It looks like from the-- what you've written here that some of these accessory structures, which you're trying to codifY, can actually be larger than the principal structure. Is that -- MR. NADEAU: No. That is not the intent, nor is it the way that it is drafted. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if you go to Page 31 of your PUD -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: For example, under park trailer, the definition of a park trailer, it can only be 400 feet. MR. NADEAU: 500 square feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Depending on who constructs it. MR. NADEAU: Oh, yes. That's accurate, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But according to the amendment it could be 500 feet. MR. NADEAU: It is whatever -- however the state would license the construction of that park trailer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'm just saying that the wording needs to be clarified here because I'm not sure that that doesn't affect the travel trailer and fifth-wheel, as well as -- almost any of them. The camping trailer and the motor home. MR. NADEAU: Of course. Referring to Page 3-3, the parens "B" in the middle of the page, you will see that the square footage of accessory structures permitted in this subsection shall not exceed the square footages of the associated principal structure, except for recreational vehicles other than park models which are over-the-road vehicles. MR. NADEAU: So motor coaches and fifth-wheel trailers and Page 159 .'_"._"_"'n'~___.,,_,_,,^"'_,",_,'_"'_'_ ~___"_'_'_"~~____~_'''^'''''''_ _..M"",,"_ ~_..,,_.'_._..._'-' -",--- September 4, 2008 travel trailers wouldn't be subject to that restriction because they are over the road. It would just apply to the park trailers, which are the only principal structure in Tract A that is anchored to the ground. COMMISSIONER CARON: In this PUD it allows you to build at ground -- MR. NADEAU: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at ground level? MR. NADEAU: Yes. We don't have to meet FEMA requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't have to meet FEMA? MR. NADEAU: Other than for those structures that are going to be anchored to the ground. They will have to meet the flood requirements. But a travel trailer, no. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Dwight, all of these buildings have obtained building permits? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And they all passed the energy code, they all have insulation, they all meet flood criteria? MR. NADEAU: They are required to comply with the Southern Standard Building Code, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hopefully the Florida Building Code. MR. NADEAU: The Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that they are all built -- they're all at the proper elevations? MR. NADEAU: Well, I can't validate every -- all 560 units in there. But they are n were to have received building permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they are all above flood criteria? MR. NADEAU: Those structures that are required to be, yes, sir. Page 160 ~'__W>_'__"'_'__'__'_'____'_"'_.__A______ .-....'....0 -..^..,-.-....... - September 4,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: The PUD amendment is basically -- was driven sort of -- well, was driven by staff at the request of the applicants because we had many problems out there. This goes back several years. I have had inspectors out there to correct problems, review a lot of structures. And we -- it is my understanding, or at least based on the staff that has been out there, what was not constructed properly has been removed. I mean, we had -- basically what was happening is areas were morphing from screen rooms to enclosures, laundry rooms to whatever. And most of that has been cleaned up. This amendment is to now allow for some of the expansion that, frankly, some of it has already taken place because we had a n some code cases and other issues out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because my concern is that some of the wording you're adding would bring it into the building code that it would not have to come into prior to that. So the concern I have is that if we allow something to be considered a living area when essentially it has been under the accessory uses, essentially a porch, then the requirements are raised as to what it is in the building code. MR. SCHMITT: lfit's an enclosed air-conditioned living area, to be permitted it has to comply with the building code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For either a sunroom, which it could be, or for a habitable space? MR. NADEAU: As I understand it, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It would be subject to enforcement if it does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In other words, this brings in the -- raises that bar. Something that is below that bar has to Page 161 .._____~_,_..______._~__,.____.______,,..__~_.~,,_..._,_,.~_^,~.,..h_'"~'_'~"_~ ~'_,."'d.._ ..._,,- September 4,2008 be removed? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Nadeau, in your PUD on 3-4 you have Item E that says: Maximum gross per area of principal structure/unit; 500 square feet exclusive of decks and porches. The building department sees the additions as air-conditioned, habitable space. I would suspect their next move would be to consider them part of the principal structure. If they do and those exceed the 500 square feet, if left like it is, wouldn't that pose a problem to you? MR. NADEAU: It very well could. And I believe you might have a suggestion that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm suggesting drop the word "unit. " MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps. But I want to make sure it's understood by staff what the intent here is. So when we get all done with this, we haven't got to tell them they have to come back through agam. So I guess Ray or Joe, I need you to take a look at that. MR. SCHMITT: 500 square foot -- yeah, that's fine. That is principal structure. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we drop the word "unit" and leave the words "principal structure" there, then these additions that occur and they are habitable air-conditioned space, they don't get added to the principal structure's square footage so they don't have these constant -- continued violation of the square footage maximum then; is that fair to say? You're interpreting this today. This is an old PUD. So whoever -- I saw the letter of intent that you wrote, Dwight, and you didn't intend for this to happen today. I want to make sure it doesn't happen Page 162 '___._.0._."'_"0~__' ._._..",U,,__.___~_ ------,---"" ~._--.._..~ September 4, 2008 again 10 years from now. MR. SCHMITT: Principal structures is the additions. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it works if we drop the word "unit". MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That occurs twice on Page 3-4 and 4-3. MR. NADEAU: I have that annotated as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a question about the picture you got on the board. MR. NADEAU: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a curiosity. The picture you brought to our attention on the bottom, the second one from the right, that is one unit on two lots, right? MR. NADEAU: That is one unit on a single large lot. That is an AR lot or recreational residence lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Each half of that unit a travel trailer? MR. NADEAU: They are modularly constructed. They are not travel trailers. It's like a modular home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Each half ofthat is -- so what I'm getting at is: What is the square footage of that home? Is it greater than 500 square feet? MR. NADEAU: This tract is allowed to have 700 square feet. Therefore, one-half would be 700 and the other could be 700 as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm trying to get to. How does the other half of that one structure have an additional 700? MR. NADEAU: Because it is considered an accessory structure. And that's how it was permitted by the building permit department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is pretty slick. So you're bringing two trailers, you tie them together, and all of a sudden one is an accessory to the other half that couldn't function without the accessory if it wasn't attached to it. Page 163 _. ~ y '. _M.____.,_~_.__._~..__~~.__~__ -.....,...-.. ...- September 4, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: And that's what brought us here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to understand that. When I first read this -- MR. SCHMITT: That's what brought us here today. That's why we're amending this to allow what, in essence, has taken place. And what was added as accessory structures were now being identified as enclosed air-conditioning -- MR. NADEAU: Living space. MR. SCHMITT: -- living space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have got to commend staff. This should have come before us today. At first I was puzzled why it was even being brought forward, as you all know, from my discussions with you. MR. SCHMITT: And as Dwight knows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a great example as to why we are here. I understand better now. MR. SCHMITT: Dwight knows this has also happened in other areas of the County where we had to go back and make corrections. And this is one where, again, we -- in order to do what they need to do, we said the best way to do it is to amend the PUD to allow it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which half is the principal and which half is the accessory? Just out of curiosity. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to say the principal is the kitchen. You can't live without the refrigerator and the beer. How is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a problem without the bathroom then, too, huh? I'll be darned. Okay. The last thing that I had is Mr. Pires wrote us all a letter-- MR. NADEAU: The errata letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With his typical nitpicky stuff. MR. PIRES: I appreciate that. MR. SCHMITT: He resembles that fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2 of 3 of our appendix one, Page 164 "_^'_'_'~'_M..._._~_ , '-'.~-----,,-- -.------. September 4, 2008 which is our staff report, he says the word "not" needs to be put in there in regards to, "It will not impact any traffic congestion." I think that is a real relevant point. The other items he pointed out certainly merit reading, but I think that's the only physical correction needed to the document. MR. NADEAU: I will look over your shoulder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, is there any other correction to the document? That's the only physical correction, I think, that was needed. MR. PIRES: That's correct. F or the record, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get a little taller. It's hard to see you. MR. PIRES: I have been trying. MR. NADEAU: He actually asked me to put the petitions on the floor so he could stand on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just not going to let Tony go. He appears so rarely, we have to give him a bad time when he does. Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a staff report, please? MS. ZONE: I'm sorry, Commissioners, I was -- I stepped outside when everyone was being sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. I am not the project planner on this petition. I'm filling in for the Principal Planner John-David Moss, who was the planner assigned to this. According to John-David Moss, the planner assigned, there were no outstanding issues. Of course, this is an existing PUD, which has Page 165 ~~'-,- ______._.__.,....vo_.._ ,. ""_'~'_'"_'-"~._---~-"" ,,-- -~.._..".,,--_. September 4, 2008 been brought through the process and approved for the zoning and the compatibility. I have noted the changes in the PUD to strike out the word "unit." If there is any questions I might be able to clarify for any of the members here, I would be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? Five? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You put your hand up like that. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. I was trying to read what -- this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was going good. I didn't know if you really meant it or not. Okay. Having no public speakers, are there any final comments from the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion, please? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forward to the Board of Collier County Commissioners a recommendation of approval for PUDA-2008-AR-13063 known as Silver Lakes PUD, with recommendations by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron seconded the motion. Page 166 ---------~~,--,-~~, ---.--."......-- --,-,,-,.__. .-~-- September 4, 2008 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have notes that we made three changes. I'm going to ask the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't remember what they were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I will read them to you. The first one would be that we would add the word "not" after the word "will" on Page 7 of number seven on Page 2 of3, appendix one. That we would drop the word "unit" from 3.5.E and 4.5.E in the PUD. That's the only notes I have. Does the motion-maker accept those, and the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries eight to zero. Okay. We'll take a -- it would be a good time for a break. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to thank the residents, because this was a very trying time for them. And I know it was very difficult to go through this process. And I appreciate them having the patience. Page 167 .. -,~..'-~..-.., "'-"--'-'~'--'-'-'---- --~~""'-"'.^--' ,-, --- ...-.,.....-..,,-.,,- ,--~,-,...-._-_."....._- -_._- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not the difficult part, you guys are. MR. SCHMITT: I know we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break until 3:00. When we get back, we need to discuss the balance of this afternoon's agenda. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will resume their seats, we'll continue. Wayne, before we hear from you, we're going to talk about our agenda today. We have one more scheduled hearing, which is the one coming up. And based on the questions and the people left in the audience, we may spend some time on that one. I do not think it would be a good idea for this commission to start an LDC item that we can't finish today. And we have two that are rather important. I don't think there will be enough time left today to get to either one of them. And that is 305.07.HLH.I and II. It's preserve uses and water in preserves. They are on Page 197 and 20 I respectively. So I would like an acknowledgment from this panel that we would agree and not do those today, but they will be scheduled first up, assuming there is enough time, at the next meeting in which we schedule these LDC hearings. Does that concur with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those of you that are in the audience that are here for the preserve uses or storm water and preserve items, Pages 197 and 201 in our LDC book, we will not be hearing those today. Ifwe have any time left over and we can squeeze in the groundwater protection, the SRA designation, the EAC powers and duties, the submittal requirements for permits -- we'll probably not get into the utility ones today, but then -- and the Immokalee ones are going to be off for awhile. Page 168 _ '._ '_.'_~'~___'_ ,__..._._" .M"_'_..~.. -,,-"- -"'-'~--''''''-'-~''--------- September 4, 2008 And that might just end up all we'll get to, except for specific standards for locations of accessories. Those are the only ones, if we have time, that we might get into after this hearing today. The rest will be continued to a point in the future that we hope is going to be the 18th of the month. With that in mind, we'll -- Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just so everybody knows, the reason is we have to be out of this room today. Some people came in late and I wasn't sure they knew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to be out of here at 4:30. COMMISSIONER CARON: At the latest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a budget hearing. And the budget has taken priority over this for sure. MR. SCHMITT: The budget hearing is at 5:05. And I do want to point out, Commissioners, that there were four LDC amendments that we handed out at the last meeting that are, quote, part of your first hearing that are scheduled for the 18th as well. And, of course, anything we don't finish will go to the date -- and I believe it was the end of the month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 26th. MR. SCHMITT: The 26th. And we do have the room all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you between now and the 18th contact the CRA Board in Immokalee and get their input on the Immokalee issues that they are concerned about so that we can have their input before the next meeting and the time? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Item #9E PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR- 1 0294 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move on to the Page 169 _."_"M_._"_._'_'_'_'_ ._ ~~_ _. _~'H___'...__ . -.------ September 4, 2008 last public petition today. It's Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-l 0294, the Naples Church of Christ, Inc., mixed use PUD on Livingston Road, approximately 6.6 miles south of Pine Ridge. All those wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As earlier explained, I had conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich via telephone and they included this item. COMMISSIONER VIGLiOTTI: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich by phone with some questions that I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had conversations with Mr. Y ovanovich on issues that I will also repeat in discussion here today. Mr. Arnold, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor Engineering here representing the Naples Church of Christ, Inc. Rich Y ovanovich is here for the land use items related to the project, if you have any. Reed Jarvi is here, who prepared our traffic analyses. Kim Schlatka (phonetic) with Boyle Environmental prepared the environmental impact statement. And then elders of the church, Bob Murrell and Dr. Kris Kent are also here, ifthere are any specific issues that you might have as a request of the church itself. This is a request to rezone a little over 19 acres from agriculture to a mixed use planned development. And the primary uses that we're proposing to permit would be a church with an accessory preschool Page 170 .. _'._'-'-~'-"_"__._'__"--"""'"-'_.-""'_-~'..,.~..'-",-.- ._--_."~-_.,~"..." '. ----..- September 4, 2008 through elementary school component. We would also be asking for, on another tract, up to 72 multifamily units, two existing single-family units to remain and then also the option to have up to 200 units of assisted living CCRC use for age 55 and over housing. We have a location exhibit here that we can put up with the master plan on it. As you said, this property is about a half a mile south of Pine Ridge Road on Livingston Road. Although it's almost 20 acres in size, it is an infill project. We have the Positano Place condominiums to our north, which is part of the Arlington Lakes project. Arlington Lakes also wraps around to our east, but we are adjacent to their flow way that's a portion of that project. And then to the south we have the Aviano of Naples project, which was developed by Toll Brothers. And you can see that we abut a portion of their project and then another larger portion of their preserve. On the master plan there you can see the large bright green strip that runs east and west through the site. That is a Florida Power and Light easement that is located on the property. The master plan -- as you can see, we have two development tracts that we have identified. The parcel closest to Livingston Road would support the church and the church school uses. The orange tract that we've highlighted in the back would be the location for multifamily housing and/or the assisted-living facility type uses. You can see our native vegetation preserve that's on the northeast corner of the site. It's adjacent to the flow way and also separates us a little bit further from the Positano Place condominium. Of course, we have the Florida Power and Light easement to the south that's un- vegetated, but it's a large buffer to the existing A viano project. We also, at the request of the transportation department, have identified a potential interconnection with the Positano Place project. It's located right at the point of which the rear tract and the tract closer to Livingston Road come together on the project. That's something Page 171 --,~,---_.._-_..,." -"-_.. .-.-- ~...~--~~_._.. ." ~._'''__H'____~''~.'' w ...'---.- September 4, 2008 that at our neighborhood informational meeting the -- only a couple of residents from Positano Place were in attendance, but they had not supported that interconnection idea. I would tell you though that originally when this project came about we had a contract with the original developer of the Positano Place. We thought that had merit, but obviously that project has now been turned over to their association and the developer is no longer there. From our perspective, it's certainly something that makes less sense today than it did when we started the project. And I did have a discussion with the property manager just a few moments ago. You will hear him speak, but they don't support that interconnection. I did want to point that out. The project as we have it -- I think that it has been a fairly innocuous project with regard to the uses that we're proposing at the church. They are currently located out at Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. They have merged with one of the other churches and they purchased this location to bring their new facilities forward. Part of their mission would be to try to establish also the preschool component, as well as possibly an elementary school into the future. And that's why we have identified those uses on the larger tract. With regard to the rear tract, we have the opportunity for multifamily and/or this assisted living. We have included standards in there that you'd see on other projects for the independent component of this that would mandate a dining component, transportation, those kinds of things. And hopefully you will agree that those are consistent with what you have seen before. We have asked for three deviations from the land development code for the project. And staff has supported, I guess, one and a half of those. Because they have offered, I guess, a compromised position on one of those. The first deviation was for a parking deviation so that we didn't Page 172 -~-_.--~--_. .._---~_..-.__._-,_.._._-- '-"-'-"-"-"~'~ ~"~--"-'---~ , .. '--'-.,--~_.",,-,,-,"---<--_. ..- ---- -~.,,---, September 4, 2008 have to provide parking for both a school component and a church component. Their hours of operation don't conflict, so it makes sense to provide the parking lot that we would for the church and then allow the school function to utilize that. Staff did not have a problem with that. So we would encourage you to support that, too. The other deviation that we requested -- the other two deviations are really in reference to landscape buffer treatments. Staff had originally told us that we needed the deviation between our two development tracts that would be -- I think it started out as a 30-foot wide buffer, two IS-foot wide buffers. And we said, well, it's the same potential development. It's all internal to our project. Let's look at something less. And we offered a 20-foot buffer without a wall. And now, through the process, we are up to a 25-foot wide buffer without a wall. And staff does not support that. I think from their perspective if we had a residential use developed on the back parcel, that we should then have a wall separating the church from that residential component. We don't necessarily agree with that. It probably should be the residential developer's responsibility if they really did want to separate themselves from the church. We don't think that it makes sense today to have that, because right now we have two single-family homes that are existing. They will be utilized as part of the church. And it would make more sense not to have a separate wall buffer between those two uses. It's not only one of function, but there is a financial side to that, too. These walls cost anywhere between 80 to $100 a linear foot to construct. It's a large cost factor. And certainly it shouldn't be the only consideration. But I think one of the things that maybe is the compromise here is that if we develop that with a community facility use -- adjacent to the community facility use, we shouldn't still have to do a buffer and Page 173 ...~_..,-_._.._. ...~-_..._._- - - __".__~_"~M,.~..._.+'rn__ ...-.-, . '---'-- September 4, 2008 we certainly shouldn't have a wall. But I guess I understand the thought that if a separate residential developer moves in there should be some additional buffering. But I think that can be determined at the time of site development plan approval for that particular use. So we are going to need to discuss that and have some discussion with the Planning Commission on how to treat that internal buffer. The other buffer deviation that we had was to deviate and not provide a wall on three sides of this project. We have residential to the north, east and south. And as you can see, on the south side is the A viano project. Toll Brothers built a wall along their property line up to their preserve area. And then they have a large wide preserve that you can see on the south side of our project. We didn't think a wall was necessary. On the east side we have our preserve, which is at least 30 feet wide at the minimum, and it abuts a fairly significant flow way before you reach the residential component at Arlington Lakes. We didn't feel that it was necessary to put in a wall adjacent to our preserve when we had that type of separation between uses. Staff agreed with those two assessments that a wall was not required there. And at this point we were debating whether or not a wall is required between the church project and the Positano Place project to the north. We have offered that we should be providing a landscape buffer that would include a five-foot high hedge at the time of planting with trees meeting the code requirement, rather than having to construct a wall of almost 900 feet along that common property line. Part of our justification was that, one, we think the landscape buffer can be more attractive to look at. Two, if you look at our orientation to theirs, we do have a drive aisle near our property line and so does Positano Place. And if you have been out there, you notice they have a chain-link fence with landscaping. And so I don't think it is a question of security necessarily, but I think it was one with Page 174 . _-..___._'_'_"_.<_.' .. ~,_,_,,~,__'_"m _,_,.__","_~'._._'___m... ","_._- September 4, 2008 staff of having a code that requires where you have a nonresidential use to a residential use the code says you must build a masonry wall. We don't believe it is necessary to actually do that. And for the church to expend, as I said, anywhere between $80 to $100 a linear foot to construct that wall, we think we can do a nice landscape buffer in lieu of that and that would be a satisfactory buffer. With regard to the staff report, there are a couple of issues that we had that I wanted to address. And one was staffs condition that recommends that we would build a tot lot to standards. And I can turn to that. I don't remember the -- it says on Page 9 of 14 on your staff report, under parks and recreation review, that we would be responsible for building a commercial-grade playground for two to 12-year-olds. And it would be for common use for school kids, parishioner's children, residents and guests. And I couldn't find any reference when we Googled those to find out exactly what those standards are. The church doesn't currently have a separate school component where they are located. It is not something they will probably have in their very initial phase of this project once approved. But I think our question was: Ifwe don't know what that standard is, it is hard for us to agree to that. I couldn't find a reference in the land development code that mandates it. The church doesn't have an unlimited budget here. They are a church like many others. They rely on donations to keep them going. So 1 think what we have discussed internally was if they choose to build a playground facility for a school component that they have, they get regulated by several other state agencies that do have standards for play facilities, fencing and things like that. And agreeing that we would meet whatever those standards are makes sense, but to mandate that we have to build a tot lot initially for this project didn't make sense to the church. So we hope you can see that. And if we need to discuss that further, we certainly will. Page 175 -,~"",,".^""~"""-'~'-"' _.---..'-~--,. "--'~---"'-- . .__._...._.~"'-----'"--_..-.._--"..-~ " -- ~m__ --- September 4,2008 The other issue that I had was with regard to the permitted use section for our CF/R. It's the tract that would allow the assisted living and/or residential in the rear. If you look at the language that is there on page -- that is Page 2 of the Exhibit A to the PUD, it lists the permitted uses for the community facility residential tract and then it also lists accessory uses to that tract. And part of the initial phase for the church that they would like to use the rear parcel for would be some water management. They would like the opportunity to have potentially some overflow parking and they might even like to have that service some very limited recreational opportunities for themselves. I know we have the Florida Power and Light easement, but that is going to take us an additional permit to go forward and get some water management there and even put some parking there. So there would be an opportunity for us to utilize our own property where they currently have the two single-family homes as almost an interim type use. So I would propose -- I have got some language that I have proposed where we would make those types of uses permitted as long as they were accessory to the church related use on the other parcel. If! could -- Ray, help me focus in on that. It's item four on that sheet. I did it as an underline because it's an addition. And what I did was borrow language from what is in the accessory use section. And it simply says that we would be allowed to have parking, water management and recreational facilities accessory to the church uses on the adjacent parcel. I think I'm covered because the residences already exist there and this could be deemed accessory. But I just would like to be certain that the church could utilize all of their property for this limited use on the initial phase of the project. So that would be a change that I'm offering here. And again, I can certainly answer any questions you have about that. Again, otherwise, I think we're -- we're in agreement with, obviously, staffs recommendation of approval. We did have those Page 176 ","~_._.'...,__ _....__....._.___.___._..__u.. --, .. ---,-,,-,-".""- -"'"~--~ September 4, 2008 couple of items that are at issue. I know we have, I think, one registered speaker. And I don't know if Rich needs to add anything else at this point, but I'm happy to maybe answer questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think Mr.-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Outdoor recreation. Give us an example or two, if you will. It's fairly broad what that might be considered. Is that passive or is that active? Is it recreational ball field, or what? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the way we have described it is if the church wanted to go out there and have their Easter egg hunt and utilize it for that purpose, they would like that opportunity. Ifthey wanted to have an unorganized game of things related to their Bible school studies that they have where the kids go out and play in that area. We're not talking about something that would be a lit, organized manicured ball field or something of that nature. We're talking about something that's really -- utilizes the land in almost its existing state for that type of purpose. I mean, I don't know -- in that version I talked about unlit play areas on what was an accessory use. I don't know if I used that phrase there. I can't read that from here without my glasses on. But I think that's something that we could obviously agree to, that it would be unlit and, if we need to, put some additional setback restrictions in there. We are fairly far along in planning for this. We have gone ahead and submitted a site development plan, so I know fairly -- with fairly good certainty where we would propose to put some of our initial water management. I know where the home is. I know how big the preserve is. So I think we can tighten down an Page 177 >__"_"._._~.W._'._'''~_' _, ',.. "'__'_'.~_ ,m.....~"..,. _H.,_.,._' September 4, 2008 area if it means talking about some minimum setbacks [rom property line, if that helps get there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the school; how long before the school is to be built? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have an answer for that. 1 know that that is something that they have as part of their mission. Right now their initial plans are going to be to construct the rear building on our master plan. The second yellow building, if you will. The smaller one. It would eventually become maybe the school and their family life center, but it would be constructed initially as their sanctuary to help reduce some of their costs. And then the primary sanctuary building closer to Livingston will be sort of their phase two once their fund-raising efforts catch up with those plans. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And finally, it's kind ofa Chinese menu, or is that a Greek menu, with the numbers of types of opportunities you want to have. Is there no clear direction as to which way they want to go? Are they predisposed to a given approach? MR. ARNOLD: I'm assuming you're talking about the rear parcel really because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: -- the front parcel is pretty straightforward with the church and the school. The rear parcel is the one where we've got the options. And it's -- as I said before, the original developer of Positano originally was under contract for that rear parcel and wanted to continue the development scheme that they had to the north into this project. Of course, with the market as it has been and the residential market, they have since let their contract lapse and the church is left with that. They still think that there is an opportunity for some housing. It wouldn't be related necessarily to Positano, but they do believe that Page 178 .---.--"._--._._----,.- ,-~-~--> ._._~-~~~----~._-~ -.--,..-. September 4, 2008 there is still a market longer term for housing there. But they also have recognized that there are a lot of people in the market right now looking for this assisted living or these blended community care/retirement community type facilities. So we'd hate to not have those opportunities should the market turn and we can take advantage of either one of those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't want you to put on your soothsayer cap, but I'm trying to understand whether or not -- because you're speaking about a wall, you're speaking about boundaries, et cetera. Is there a good chance the church will retain that property, or is there a good chance the church will dispose of that property? MR. MURRELL: More than likely, good chance we'll keep it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, it is open to anything, right? Anything can happen? MR. ARNOLD: It is right now. And I think the church has not precluded the opportunity for them to sell this to another developer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So whomever it is that would buy that would have the burden of the wall and whatever else is necessary? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think not knowing because -- if for some reason the market doesn't turn or the church decides that it makes more sense to keep it and utilize the two existing homes back there for their minister and caretaker type facilities, then to me it makes no sense to require a wall to be constructed between the person who is there caring for the church and the church that they are a part of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fair. MR. ARNOLD: I mean, that is fair. I don't know how -- it seems like on the initial phase there certainly should be no requirement to build a wall when we are going to continue to have the residents there in that initial phase. So I don't really know how to answer that. I don't have a great answer for you, sir, about how to deal Page 179 .... ,.__..~-_._..._-------._--------,_. -..-......".- <H_ . ..--.,-- September 4, 2008 with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't know that you could give me a great answer. I know we are in kind of a wild time here in terms of economics. And I understand it's a church with limited assets and opportunities. Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on your table --let me find it. Table B, Exhibit B. Would you have a problem on the minimum distance between structures to changing that to greater than 20 feet on both multifamily and the ALF? MR. ARNOLD: Right now, if I'm looking at it, it is the minimum distance. It says -- you're saying on multifamily? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the ALF. Trust me, you're doing yourself a fire code favor there. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. We haven't designed those buildings. I don't have a particular issue. Is there a building code issue that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, first of all, you know you're going to be four-story, so you really have the option ofa l3-R sprinkler system, but the areas are kind of small. I f you go greater than 20 feet you could count that as your frontage, maybe bring your building -- keep it in the 13-R. Secondly, when you go less than that, the requirements for the rating of the wall and the amount of openings becomes limited. So trust me, you're doing yourself a big favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But ifit's 15 feet that's left there as a minimum, if their designer wants to do 20 to save that money or if they decide the extra five feet is worth doing the extra treatment, why Page 180 --"--,--"-,_..'---""~--- . ._...._..__._-_.,"'""'~.'..,-_... ,.......-.-....--- .... September 4, 2008 couldn't they have that option to do it from a zoning perspective? I understand your argument from an architect's perspective, but this is a zoning board. And I'm just wondering why we have to be concerned about those issues when they have got to make that judgment call as they go forward and do their design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here is what happens, is they -- the designer will look at this 15 feet. He will immediately use the 15 feet. And then the next thing you know, they are in trouble now with the fire permit. They call me and I come in as the code crusader and try to help them. A lot of people get bit by this particular clause. Just by putting 20 feet we kind of keep them out of trouble. You're right, we could put 15, we could put 10 feet. But remember, this is between buildings. Do you really want bedroom windows 15 feet away from another building anyway? So I think it's good planning to be 20 feet apart. Twenty feet is the minimum width that the fire department will accept going in to to fight a fire, so why would we not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what he's asking you to do is do something for your own good. As far as from a zoning perspective, I'm not sure there is an issue that he's citing from a zoning perspective. It's a building permit or building issue. If you want to do it, I guess that's your call. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, 15 feet for a four-story building I think keeping -- widening that is even good zomng. "- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather you have said that. We are a zoning board. If you've got an issue too tight for zoning, I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think we ought to be regulating zoning based on architectural review that we haven't got to you yet That's the only thing that I'm -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But don't forget the footnote. The Page 181 ..~_..~'._-- '_'_"_--'-".-._'~' --~_._._-~~--_.-- September 4,2008 footnote talks about it's 15 feet or one-half the sum of the heights of the adjacent building. So if you have got two -- did you say -- yeah, 45-foot buildings that -- next to each other would have to be one-half the sum of the building. So we would never get them that close. Mr. Schiffer, we appreciate the advice that you have given us, and more than likely we'll lay the site out that way to reduce costs, but there may be other reasons to live with the 15 feet and absorb the additional construction-related costs for other reasons. Unless that is a really hot button item from the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could go on for 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 think designing a building that works well with fire codes and stuff like that is good planning. We don't need to argue that. But the problem is that sometimes somebody will plan these buildings. The person who is planning isn't aware of the other codes. And it is down the code processing trail that the problems occur. But you can leave it. That's it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. You had said that it is ALF and/or residential. Show me where it says and/or anywhere here? I see where you have to reduce your density in order to get ALF, but that's not an and/or situation. Because you can still end up with housing. I understand the square footage, but you don't have those here so-- , MR. ARNOLD: Well, in our list of permitted uses we have multifamily housing, we have townhomes and we have assisted living. So we have. And staff inserted the conversion. So, I mean, I do think there is a potential you could have both. And that's why I said and/or. Only because I think -- maybe it's a Page 182 . - -..--_..._-".._-_.._.__...._._--~-_._._-_.._--.~------_.-,~-- .-- -----,----_.-.,.... September 4, 2008 small component. Maybe you have one multifamily building and then you decide that you're going to have an assisted living. But staff inserted that conversion for that -- for that potential where you would, I think, have both or the potential for both. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you want the potential on that back parcel to both put an ALF facility and housing? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And I say and/or because it could very easily be one or the other. Or I could see there being a blended. Even with a CCRC you have a component -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What size is that area back there? MR. ARNOLD: It is about three and a half, four acres, I believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: Back there? MR. ARNOLD: That tract, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. There are no square footage limits to the church. Usually we see, you know, whatever, 1,000 seats and 25,000 square feet, whatever. There are no limits. MR. ARNOLD: No limits in terms of the square footage of those buildings? COMMISSIONER CARON: Of the buildings. MR. ARNOLD: Right. Well, the traffic analysis that is prepared, they back into a number for square footage, as I understand it. And Reed can address that, if you want. But, you know, from the church's perspective, they measure what they need based on the number of attendees that the church -- they are going to have. I mean, I guess I've got enough information -- if you give me some moments, I think I could come up with a number of what I think our maximum square footage is related to the church. It is just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I would like to know that number. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Back to the site that you had up before. I think we had a picture -- an actual photo up earlier than that. Page 183 .. . ~'__'h'__.____,.__~"_."_~_~."_.._~.~,~.,,~..____,.~._"___,_,_._ ,___.__., ._..__.._, ._--~._._..._". ,.-.---. September 4, 2008 It is not -- it is just a wider view. That's good. Any of the landscape buffers surrounding this, are they all standard code? Do any of them exceed code? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the -- I'm going to say the Positano Place buffer probably meets code for the most part. It does get a little bit wider in places, so I would say that it exceeds code. The Toll Brothers project to the south, A viano, it has a wall with landscaping. I think it probably exceeded code for its project because it abutted agricultural. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm talking about your project. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry. Our project. Yes, we would meet minimum code requirement for any of the landscape buffer. And we exceed the buffer, I guess, to our eastern boundary because we have the preserve that is at least 30 feet wide there. COMMISSIONER CARON: But not landscape buffer. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the landscape buffer would be a component of the preservation area. In that area where Ray is highlighting. COMMISSIONER CARON: So there -- there is no advantage. We are just going to do minimums there. And the -- the tot lot issue -- actually, before we go on, what is the number of feet that you actually are -- on your project through to the south here, through the FPL easement to -- what is the one to your south? MR. ARNOLD: Aviano. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aviano. MR. ARNOLD: The FPL easement is about 170 feet and then-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 30. MR. ARNOLD: 200 feet total. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about to the back here when you go through your preserve at its narrowest here? MR. ARNOLD: The narrowest part of the preserve is 30 feet. Page 184 __"'"__n"__'_',__",,__ --"-""""-----,.,-,~ ,",d_,.m'_ _ .,'. ..__.___~_~_._._ .-...."- -""'-'-~-' September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And then how wide is that flow way before you get the homes? MR. ARNOLD: The flow way is at least -- a little over 100 feet wide at its minimum. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And the distance to your north? MR. ARNOLD: Again, the narrowest part of that preserve is more than 30 feet in that location. We can -- let me put on my eyes here. I have that dimension. I believe that it's at least 50 feet at its narrowest location and it's about 100 on the widest part near the northeastern portion of the site. COMMISSIONER CARON: On your tot lot issue. MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: While there may not be specific standards, we have had a great deal of discussion about when it is appropriate to request tot lots and make those stipulations of PUDs. Certainly anywhere where there is an elementary school and below certainly seems to be an appropriate request for this development. Also, if you end up doing multifamily in there, that would also be appropriate. If you end up with an ALF facility in there, you probably don't need it for that. But if you have the school, you will still need it for your school functions. It just seems more than just logical. That's all I have for right this minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions? Mr. Wolfley and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. First of all, can we go to deviation number two. I think you have it in a couple different places. It's 11 of 14. It is also back on -- I think I need a little visualization. You're asking -- do you have anything that I can see? I'm trying to figure out why the County didn't like it. I can understand from the numbers standpoint. MR. ARNOLD: I don't. I got the impression that staff didn't like Page 185 ---"._'--'-"~'-'----'- ._------~._._.__._-,..~.....__.,.,.".---~--~.__.__.,.--.- _..~--~ September 4, 2008 it. I mean, Nancy can certainly answer that better than me for herself. But I got the impression that the staffs position in part was that we were potentially shortchanging them on the number of canopy trees. If that's the issue -- I think the number was 14 in the staff report. I'm happy to agree that I can plant 14 additional trees. That's not the issue. It really came down to the wall for us. A wall is, again, a cost factor. I don't know that it's necessary, especially at the initial stages of this project. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I sort of felt the same way. I was trying to figure out where they are coming from. It looked like there was just an awful lot of width there to deal with that and you can certainly plant some trees. My real concern -- and I realize this is a zoning board and it is a mixed use PUD, but I just did not and do not like the idea of the 74-unit -- 74 multifamily dwelling units. I can appreciate the ALF; I think that is very compatible on the site. But I just don't -- I just can't imagine for the life of me putting in townhomes or apartments in there. It just -- to me it just doesn't -- I cannot imagine the neighbors liking this. This is a nice mixed use PUD. And I just personally -- I know it's not a -- it is a personal thing. I don't see where that is even compatible to the site. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, tell us about water. Where will the water go that will be cast off from those buildings -- two community facility buildings? MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We have got a drainage plan that has been prepared with the site development plan. And what we would be doing is collecting the water through -- typical that you would through a series of either pipes or some swales. And it would be discharged into a series of dry detention areas Page 186 .---.-----,,--.... "---_..~-~,...." -_.._., September 4, 2008 that are going to be developed under the Florida Power and Light easement. Pretty typical how we would treat that. That water ultimately then stages and discharges out at near our southeast corner of the site into the flow way. That's my understanding. That's what we are proposing to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if you were to build those in the CF/R area, the residential area, if you were to build any units over there, do you not -- are you not required to have some kind of water feature? MR. ARNOLD: We would. And they would have to be probably either -- either our initial design for where we want to put some of the water management, we'd have to try to figure out so that we could accommodate the future. Or, as we have discussed with the church, they need to be in a position potentially to reclaim that water management area, reshape it to accommodate the ultimate use of that site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. The question -- you answered the first question. Well, you have a plan with respect to water. Does that plan encompass all of the highest potential uses? MR. ARNOLD: It would -- the initial plans would allow for us to put some water management on that CF /R tract to the rear to accommodate the initial phases of the church. When that back parcel develops with something other than the two single-family homes, we would be in a position to reshape whatever water management we build so that it could satisfy the requirements for both the church and the other units or the ALF that would be there. There is plenty of space to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The genesis of my question is, is that it doesn't look to me that there would be plenty of space. And I will trust what you say is so, but the arithmetic doesn't seem to lend itself to it. There is no other -- I mean, I saw the flow way part of it. I don't Page 187 ..------...-..,.-....-......,...-..,.. ......-.-"-. .w__,._ -....,.... September 4,2008 see any kind of procedure there to get rid of excess water. And with the numbers you were talking about, it seemed that -- I think somebody else mentioned it seemed like an awful lot of density. MR. ARNOLD: Well, we have -- just keep in mind that the Florida Power and Light easement, it's pretty common usage in our community to put parts of your water management system under them. We have done it for other projets. So you have a very long linear system that is 170 feet wide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you going to vault it; is that what you're saying? MR. ARNOLD: No. It would be a small bermed area that would retain water and do the pretreatment or some continuation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. As long as you're on record as saying you're covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that means that you don't really need to do water management in preserves. MR. ARNOLD: In this particular case, I don't think I have any water management in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, you do. MR. ARNOLD: -- in terms of it being a permitted use. I'm look at our initial -- COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 4. Principal uses, preserve tract, water management facilities. MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe you should take that out because you have plenty of places you just told us to handle your water management. MR. ARNOLD: Let me, if I could, check on that with our design engineer just to make sure there is not some need for me to have a structure or something to bring water through or something. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Outflow. Page 188 ..__...__.".._,_d._."_.._,,_..___u_.~_".,~,~~__, "._---~._"._-'''~~--_....._- -" September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get the staff report during that period of time, why don't you consult with your water management guy and find out. Generally you have outflow structures or something like that. MR. ARNOLD: Right. It's not atypical to think that we would need it. It's pretty common language. These are largely pines. You know, Ms. Caron, I don't think we're proposing specifically to use this as water management, but I can't say at this second that I wouldn't need a control structure of some sort. So I can check on that and get you an answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any area taken up by those aren't counted as preserves either, aren't they? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: I should say treated, as well, if that's going to be the case. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 5 of your report you indicate -- it is under Exhibit B, development standards. For the multifamily and the ALF where you have n it would be 50 feet zoned height, 55 actual height. And over on table two you have zoned height 50 feet and actual height 60 feet for the community facility. Why the difference in one case, five feet, between the zone and the actual and the other 10 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Principally because the church roofline is steeper than it would be for a typical multifamily type structure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's no way to make them all the same, the 50 feet? MR. ARNOLD: I think the initial designs that the church has looked at has a top height without the spire somewhere around 58 feet as their actual height that they are looking at on an architectural elevation for the site. And I can show you what they're potentially Page 189 . -~.~-- , ...- ~--._----_.~.~._"" September 4, 2008 looking at, if you're interested. This is just a preliminary sketch of the structure. And you can see that the roofline on the structure like that for the sanctuary type building is different than you would typically find on an assisted living or a multifamily. Those roofs tend to be more flat. These would typically be more pitched. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I can see that. On Page 6 of your presentation you have 0- foot minimum side yard setbacks on either or both sides. MR. ARNOLD: Right. That is applicable to the townhome use. And that's so you could have attached townhomes because they are on individual lots. So you might have a middle unit that has zero setback, but then each building would have to be separated by 12 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I thought one side would be more than zero. Only one side would be zero and the other side would be wider. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I -- the language could probably be improved, but I think the intent was I may actually have two sides of a townhome building that are on a common lot line because they will have a unit on either side of them. That's how it was intended. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, the way it is written-- look under general up there. It refers to all structures between any structure, which would include accessory structures as well as principal structures. And then on item one there it says O-foot and then on the side yard setback on either or both sides. And what confused me is the possibility that you might have zero on both sides. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I would if! was the middle unit in a three-unit building. Because each unit in a townhome is sold as a fee simple land interest. So I have a platted lot below the building. So I would have to have a O-foot setback to have an attached building in that instance. That's why it's only for the townhome use, because of the way they are actually sold. Page 190 ~...~,,_._._...._.__..__....~... ..----- . September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, to meet your parking requirements, as I understand it, you're using the point that they aren't consistent at the same time. In other words, the church parking use could be applied to other facilities there; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: For the school use only. Because if we operated a pre-K or an elementary school on a weekday, in the mornings the church functions are not ongoing. The seating -- the parking for a 1,000-seat church is fairly significant. We are limiting ourselves to 150 students. We don't have the parking needs that would create a problem for any other accessory related uses to the church. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What if the operators change their scheduling so no longer is there that void in the church parking that could be used by the others concurrent? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that would only be an issue if that school function were to occur on Sunday. But I don't believe that if they are going to operate a traditional preschool and elementary school that they will be having school functions on Sundays. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But as of right now, it does leave it open to readjustment. MR. ARNOLD: That I think is true. I think it was -- the church would be the operator. Let's keep in mind the school can only be there as an accessory to the church. The school can't be there as a standalone use. I can't sell this to some other private school or charter school. They have to be an accessory to the church function. That was one of the restrictions that we imposed on ourselves so that -- because we didn't want it to be a freestanding school site and didn't want to imply that it could be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, before the meeting started today I ran into a gentleman in the hall from the project to the north. And he Page 191 .. ----,,-----~-_.^_.~-~ .~..<.M~...' '---."'-"'.".- September 4, 2008 said something to me that I need you to verify. And I certainly will ask staff and a representative of that project to the north when they come up here to do the same thing. He indicated to me that at the neighborhood information meeting all the uses that you're now asking for were not, more or less, relayed to the people there. Can you verify that all the uses that you're asking for today were actually mentioned at the neighborhood informational meeting? MR. ARNOLD: I'm pretty certain they were. There were only two residents, to my recollection, at the neighborhood meeting. A lot of the discussion we had was informal, but I know we discussed with them the opportunity that we would have assisted living. We talked about preschool uses, school uses. Keep in mind, too, at that time we were advertising this as up to a 300 student school. We have reduced that down to 150 students. I think we are covered. I don't know specifically what use that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-four multifamily. And it's not in the neighborhood -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We discussed that. MR. ARNOLD: That was specifically discussed, yes. We even had a plan, I believe, that showed them that had multifamily buildings on that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I will ask verification, of course, from staff, but I wanted to hear what you had to say about it. On your mix of76 or 74 dwelling units and 200 ACLF, do you need both? I mean, if you do one, why don't you drop the other or vice versa? If you do the single-family, why would you need the ACLF? If you do the ACLF, why would you need the single-family? It gets into a lot of units and a mix that I don't know why it's compatible, especially if you have different sized buildings. MR. ARNOLD: You're saying that if we do-- Page 192 .,-'""~-"""-'-'--~"-"-""'--'---"'._'._"~ ----""-..-._--""---,.,_....,_.,- September 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do the ACLF, you don't need the single-family. If you do the single-family, you don't need the ACLF. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the way that I see it, the single-family, there are two homes there. I think you're familiar with the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm very familiar with the site. MR. ARNOLD: I think that the intent would be that they remain at least initially. I think in the event that the tract were sold and another developer comes in, I agree with you that the single-family probably do go away in that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Or was your question multifamily? I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's the 74 multifamily. I know the single-family are there now. I actually built one of them. MR. ARNOLD: Maybe you can give us a few minutes to talk about that, because I don't think that is something that we've contemplated doing one or the other or, at least, giving up one. Or is your request that if you initiate one, then the other one doesn't follow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you do -- if you decide to do single multifamily, that's one thing. But don't do 50 multifamily and do a small ACLF. That would be difficult to -- MR. ARNOLD: I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For compatibility. But if you're going to do the ACLF, you're better off doing a larger one. Why would you want to do the single-family? How would they fit in? I'm not sure that you need to have that kind of flexibility. MR. ARNOLD: If you can give us a few moments before you make a recommendation so we can discuss that amongst ourselves, I would appreciate that. Page 193 - -----,~- _._.~---- - - September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the playground goes, Ms. Caron's points were well taken. If you do provide a school and it does not have recreational facilities, then I think a playground should be provided. If you provide the multifamily and it doesn't have recreational facilities or recreational center, then I think a playground is necessary. But other than that, I don't know why it would be, unless you're going to be -- did they offer you an impact fee credit? MR. ARNOLD: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they tell you that it's going to be included in the AUIR so the taxpayers don't pay twice for it? Probably not, huh? MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't believe we have had that conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to verify for the record that there's not a lot of benefit coming out of it, except for an exaction. As far as the wall goes that you've got, you're challenging one of the wall criteria; that's the one between the two uses? MR. ARNOLD: Actually, the deviation applies to both our northern boundary and the tract boundary, internal tract boundary, and the northern boundary against Positano Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the problem lies is if you do the rear project in a facility that is owned and consistent with the front project, you don't see the need for the wall. So maybe we just put a trigger in there that if the rear project is sold off to a third-party user or to some use that is not related to the church facility directly, then maybe that is when the wall becomes a criteria. But you need to explain that language as a solution. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along the north side you have an area that you're pretty close to Positano, or however you pronounce that, along the church in front. When you get to the area in the back, you Page 194 _'""_~_~__.__m_________~__~'=""""'- , ' ~.~~-_._-_...._".--~..,.~. September 4, 2008 have a preserve that starts out narrow and gets wider. Originally along the front where it's narrower I would think that it would be wise to have a wall there. But you're telling me there is a chain-link fence there with a landscaping buffer already existing? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens when it gets towards the rear; does that still continue down past that preserve area? MR. ARNOLD: I believe -- the gentleman who is here can answer. But I believe it does continue on their side. They have a chain-link fence and landscape their entire -- the entire length of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't do much good to have two side by side. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the wall requirement at that point -- I think staff agreed with us that adjacent to the preserve it wouldn't be required. I think -- I took the way the condition was written that they wanted it adjacent to our northern community facility tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with removing that interconnection? I don't think you do, but I want to make sure. MR. ARNOLD: We certainly don't. I know that the County had requested that and we put it on our plan because we do that on many of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly want to hear the County's thought process on why that's needed, because it doesn't make a lot of sense in that location. But as far as the language you want to change by adding the outdoor recreation area, you have a number six under accessory uses. Now, you were going to move one to a principal use. I understand why you want to do that. But as an accessory use you have more intense wording of the same thing. Number six, outdoor recreation facilities, such as Page 195 .--..-...--.....-.---...-...--..-.-- ..._....~-,,,.><~.. "-,,, -"- September 4,2008 swimming pools, tennis courts, unlighted play fields, playgrounds and similar facilities. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that wouldn't be a standalone because it has something to do with the church in front. But basically that entire parcel in the back would be used for recreational facilities for patrons of the church? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the way I drafted the language, I said: Parking, water management and outdoor recreational uses accessory to the church/school uses permitted on the CF tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you moving number six into -- out of accessory to principal? MR. ARNOLD: No. I modified that slightly. And I did that because I thought I was de-intensifying what we were asking to do there as an accessory to the church. And maybe I'm not making myself clear. But I took out the uses like swimming pools and tennis courts because if I did go and do the assisted living on that tract, I definitely want those accessory uses. But initially we would like to be able to utilize that portion that is going to be controlled by the church for these limited accessory type uses to the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the language you were proposing is in lieu of number six, not number two. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in addition to number six. Number six would apply if we did a multifamily or some other type of development on the property. Then those accessory uses would be accessory to a multifamily or an assisted living or a CCRC or an independent living facility. And then the new language would apply to the church or school. MR. ARNOLD: I think I just got what you were saying, Mr. Strain. I think -- I think I just got what you were saying. Number two on our list right now says church/school related Page 196 ..".,._,_._._--<~.,-~._~-. "..,.M__',"'_. ---_.-",---- -.--.--.-.-- September 4, 2008 facilities, such as parking and outdoor recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we met, that's the one we talked about. That's why I'm confused with what you're trying to do. MR. ARNOLD: Right. I think we would strike that and move that to the language we offered as the a permitted use on that tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So number two becomes what you offered on principal use, is that right, with the new language and number two gets struck? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you're suggesting? MR. ARNOLD: I think that's exactly right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now you're saying that number six applies only if it's multifamily? MR. ARNOLD: Or assisted living in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that cleanup needs to be added to that paragraph. MR. ARNOLD: So we would insert some clarifying language with number six for ALF, CCRC or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually it has to go in one of the principal uses. MR. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it would be -- you would leave it then. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want it to be standalone with the intensity of number six. But I understand your language has changed number two. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you think in number two -- now that is number 3-A, how do you think that language is better by your reference to plainly outdoor recreational? I mean, if I were to ask a developer what he thinks is outdoor Page 197 ~,-_._-,-,,_._._.- - ".__. _,_ ._....._.0." ... ,__ .,._.~._._~__,_____ .--....-- September 4, 2008 recreational, he could come in with a soccer field with light all night long. You're saying you're not going to have lights. But still, where is the limitations that you can't go beyond what you have insinuated to us would be more of a less intense nature? How would you propose to fix that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we could easily commit to no lighted facilities. I think that's a start. And I don't know if you're going to take another break, but maybe we could work on some language to clarify. Are you headed in the direction on that, Mr. Strain, things like that, like the lighting aspect? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here is the --I'm more concerned with the noise generated from this project that wasn't anticipated for the neighborhood that is there. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to a residential tract. You admitted that. You said whatever that place is to the north was going to build there, as well. Those people up there didn't expect a ball field, people screaming and yelling and rooting for their teams or whatever. I want to make sure you don't do that. That's what I'm concerned about. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And I don't believe that's our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I heard you say that. Now I just need to figure out how you put it in words. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the -- the questions I have at this time. Anybody else have any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have -- the applicant is going to have to come back with some language here before we are over with it. Page 198 ....._.._~._.._..,__ __"_0,_,___,__,_~...~._..q..o.*.,.~________.._~" . ..... ------.---~.____,_.,. .. .. --- September 4, 2008 Wayne, if you have nothing else to add, then while you're working on that we'll get a staff report and then public comment. Ms. Caron, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: A comment on Page II where it says: List of developer commitments. I'm not sure that number 2-A is actually a developer commitment. I think it is just an explanation of how you're going to get to your acreage. MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm not sure that it actually belongs there. It may belong somewhere else in the PUD, but it is -- MR. ARNOLD: I see Ms. Mason here. COMMISSIONER CARON: The County gets nothing from you. MR. ARNOLD: I agree with you. I don't think it's a commitment, other than the last sentence, which says we have to provide a minimum of .818 acres of preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that's all-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think maybe that's all you really need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the rest of it has already been -- I mean, if your bottom line is that last sentence, why don't you just leave the last sentence? Before you leave, I just thought of one other thing I didn't see in the packet, but I saw that you put on the screen. That is that elevation. Put that back there for a minute. MR. ARNOLD: Let me locate it in my stack and I will be happy to. I know it's here. Give me a second. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't take it, did I? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think you did. I shuffled it back in my paperwork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a question for Richard because he's good at these things. Richard, where would you -- how would you measure the actual Page 199 - ----.-"--,.-.,...........-..-. ...-<---...-,.--. ~.--,.~ September 4, 2008 height on that building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not allowed to use those words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to know. I want to know where you think tippy top is, because that's how actual height is. MR. ARNOLD: Can I offer -- I have another drawing. This isn't exactly. This is a cutaway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ARNOLD: But I have penciled in the heights because I reduced that from one of the architectural -- I reduced that from one of the architectural drawings. And I can actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your actual is 71 feet. MR. ARNOLD: Well, the top of the spire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the tippy top referring to -- the reason the actual came across. So if you're at the top of the spire, you're looking at a higher elevation than you're asking for in your table two. MR. ARNOLD: My reading of the exclusions from heights are that spires and cupolas are excluded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not for actual. That's the problem. I wanted to make sure you understood that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also they're showing it's at the grade at the building, when essentially it's the average of the road out front, so -- MR. ARNOLD: But I don't think that's an issue necessarily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It may be lower, it may be higher. MR. ARNOLD: The road could be slightly lower than our finished grade here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To make it worse, it could be higher, which could make -- MR. ARNOLD: I think when you look at that -- and maybe we Page 200 -" ,-,~-,,--,-"",~._-,.'- .. .. ,-"-,-,,,,-~~-,,---'--~~-"--' -.-.-.---- September 4,2008 do need to clarify our table then. I think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you do. MR. ARNOLD: The way we were reading that is that that decorative cupola and spire would not be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought the exclusions from the height applied when you were measuring zoned height. And the reason we came in with actual height -- and we have this conversation quite frequently. And the reason we came in with actual a couple of years ago is people weren't -- it's truth in lending. If your building looks 170 feet high, then that's where you're going to measure to. That's not the zoned height, but that's the actual height. In this case this -- the question is relevant in regards to the top of that spire. And if you have that as an issue and you can't resolve it in regards to -- you can't find a better definition or stafftelling me it's -- my thoughts or our thoughts on this is wrong, that's fine. I need someone to clarify it, though. Because I don't want you surprised when you come in and having this whole thing unravel. Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The land development code indicates building actual height of the vertical distance from the average center line elevation of the adjacent roadways to the highest structure or appurtenances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate that word, too. MR. BELLOWS: Without the exclusions of Section 4.02.01, which is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without the exclusion. MR. BELLOWS: Without. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would go to the top of that spIre. MR. BELLOWS: The tippy top. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the definition of Page 201 .'__m.._."._."." ---'_.__._-----~,--~,..'.."-,_..,-,. ,.. -,-,<"",-"",,-,--,-,,~"-,--,".~..,.,_...,-_. .,'._..-.----_.', _.._.'....~'~ .._-,~.,-,.-,._--- September 4,2008 zoned height excludes -- it allows those exclusions. So this one is without those exclusions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a height issue, guys, if you're going to try to do what you've got on the screen. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Rich has a height issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we just simply say we get actual -- we can add however many feet that is for the cupola and we'll tell you what that is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the meeting is over, I want to hear what it is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had always read that a little differently, but we appreciate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You invented -- you are the person that brought all of this about. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I invented the term tippy top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know how you define-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't come up with the word appurtenances. MR. BELLOWS: Can he pronounce it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that said, there's no other questions of the applicant. Let's move to the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they are going to change that to mention -- the intent is the average of the road. Because the intent is what do the citizens in the road have to deal with. I would get that number, too. Before we're done here today, they will have to provide a number in order for us to vote on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, thank you, sir. Have a good night and safe drive. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Au revoir. (Commissioner Midney left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know Spanish, sir. Thank you. Page 202 "_,_'_..,._._._..._._.._~_._...".,__...M'__._ - '---"~--"-'"--~-,-- ........- . -....- September 4, 2008 MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And this petition, the Naples Church of Christ, is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and staff is recommending approval. I would like to share a little information with you today about our recommendations. And our first recommendation was regarding the playground equipment. The parks and recreational department has simply recommended that it meets a certain standard, which is CPSC and ASTM standard. It's not saying how big it needs to be, what it needs to be. It's just a standard of quality. In other words, we don't want a Home Depot play-set. And the second deviation which we have recommended denial of is regarding the landscape buffer between the community facility site and the community facility/residential site. The rear site. And should -- the applicant is providing 25 feet. That is the minimum code requirement, not 30. It is 25. And a wall is not required should the rear site be developed as community facility, just to let you know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go past that, if the wall -- if the rear is put in with multifamily and the front is church, is the wall req uired? MS. GUNDLACH: A wall is required in that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: And the particular deviation simply results in 14 less trees. The applicant has stated that he is willing to provide the 14 trees. So my recommendation is that that particular deviation number two be denied. And then the third deviation, which is regarding the walls throughout the site. As I previously stated, it wouldn't be required between the two tracts if the rear tract is developed as CF. Page 203 .----.--.-, .-,',.- .......--,- -,-_.~_.,"._-"..- ---.'----- September 4, 2008 I did conduct a site visit out to the Naples Church of Christ. I drove on to the Balmoral site, which is the site that is to the south of this particular petition. And there is a wall that exists -- we don't have our graphic. I can probably work off of our aerial that's provided in the staff. If you look at the aerial and you see the sites that are located closest to the Naples Church of Christ petition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want to get the nice picture that Wayne had. Where did he go? MR. YOV ANOVICH: He is drafting language. MS. GUNDLACH: I think we can see it pretty well here. Do you see where Biscayne Court is? Those first, I want to say, six or seven houses that are -- thank you, Ray -- that are closest to the property line. There is a wall from Livingston Road that runs along those six closest homes to the property line. Once it starts to curve and the preserve becomes larger, there is no wall. That is the only wall that exists around the Naples Church of Christ. It's one of the things that I noticed when I was out there. It is pretty easy to see through to Positano Place. And, of course, the reason we require a wall between nonresidential uses, such as the Naples Church of Christ and residential uses is because they are not compatible. We have a proposal for 1,000 members. We have a proposal for 150 school children. That can generate some noise. There is the issue of car lights at night that can shine into the adjacent residential properties. So that's why the wall is important in this particular case. And the way -- the compromise that we wrote is that if they had existing preserve and it could be counted cumulatively between the two properties -- between Positano Place and Balmoral -- along with what's provided by Naples Church of Christ, and if it has opacity -- 100 percent opacity and is a minimum of 100 feet wide, then a wall Page 204 <'__""""_'._~_.___,A_"____ '~""__""__._" ---,...~...""---,,~.._...._-~_._._.._..._-"'_.-._~ - ~". .+- _._~,_.__. September 4, 2008 would not be required. Obviously a wall would not be required by code anyway where there is already an existing wall. And then back to my -- there is also some language in the PUD document in regards to the environmental requirements. And Susan Mason is here to clarify that language. And should you have any questions about transportation issues or more detailed questions about the playground requirement, we also have a representative here from the parks and rec department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti and then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to speak to your representative from parks and rec. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. For the record, Murdo Smith, parks and rec. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why are you requesting a playground here when parks and rec was specifically asked on other issues not to demand playground areas? MR. SMITH: The only recommendation that we had, since it was a -- there was a child care center and so forth in there, we thought that it would be a good idea or a good recommendation to have a playground facility in there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the way it is worded, you didn't suggest, hey, that is a good idea. You're telling them they have to do it. MR. SMITH: No, sir, we are just recommending. We are recommending -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You may recommend. It is a requirement. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. But what has happened in the past is you may recommend it, but it's going to be part of the agreement and they're going to have to do it. That's happened in the past, like Wellfield and other things like that. I don't think it's fair to make it even a part of it. Page 205 ---'''--''-_.'-''-'''"'''-'"''~-''''-''''""",,,,-'_._~,-~~,. _..,..~.,,"---~- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have suggested that we make the playground contingent on the uses that are there and if they don't provide them on their own. I think that's what he was previously suggesting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was going to suggest as a stipulation. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us to where I think you're trying to go. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. SMITH: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the playground, too, this school is going to be accredited. In the standards for accreditation there is going to be all kinds of play areas, play equipment. So they are going to be governed by the state on what they can do and what they can't do. We don't need to put that application in there. I think referring to ASTM standards, that is a huge amount of standards. You may find that the cheap ones at Home Depot l-ASTM standards and that is not their intent. So I would leave it to the accreditation to determine the square footage and the type of equipment. And it's going to be -- I have done schools. And the way they have it laid out, they are going to be surprised to realize they need a lot more playground than what they show alongside that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other questions of the staff at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you had a question. I'm sorry. Page 206 , -'_....,~-_,_____. v. -----.- __"_m'_',~ .........>.-..--- September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. A couple of them. One was -- ifI could get a little bit more understanding of why you denied that deviation two. Was it just simply the numbers, the width? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Deviation two -- I'm putting my landscape architect hat on. That pertains to landscape buffers. We denied it because basically what it boils down to is that they just simply weren't going to require -- weren't going to provide 14 trees. And it just sort of seemed like why is it even-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's why I reasked the question again. I just didn't get that. Fourteen trees. I mean, okay. So that was the 14 trees. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Transportation I have a little question. Is that okay, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You might have heard before I have got sort of a mental issue about the mixed use PUD with the 74 -- 74 multi-unit building facility. I'm okay with the ACLF or the ALF. And I guess my question is: There is a big difference between the traffic generated from the townhome to an ALF. Can you comment on that? MR. GREEN: That's correct. Actually, a townhome and a condominium is going to generate more traffic than an ALF. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. That was my point. MR. GREEN: So the trip generation has been done for the higher impact use. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Nancy. Nancy, if you look at the tract -- and it's actually the orange or red, whatever that is, color. If you take the density they are allowed -- Page 207 - ._,--~-.. --~,---,~."..,,-,,_... ~~"'.'----------'"'-""--' - -----~.~-- September 4, 2008 and that is about a 3.6-acre tract they said -- it would be about 21 units per acre. It would be pretty high. So the only way they are going to get it hopefully is they are going to be putting parking under the building. So is the potential here that -- you know, we almost find ourselves in the Moraya Bay again. They are obviously going to lift the building to get one layer of parking. They could put two. But to obtain that density, they are able to lift this building, correct, and it is based on that waiver that is allowed? MS. GUNDLACH: Ray, you can -- if you can confirm this. I don't know of anything in the LDC that would prohibit them from doing parking below the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it wouldn't count as one of their stories? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The LDC allows for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You know, the way that's worded is for the zoned height. How does that affect the actual height now that we're putting actual height requirements that may not be waiveable through that process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be part -- actually, that would have to be included in actual. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. In other words, the actual is going to stay the same. If they get the waiver to stick another story in, that does not affect the actual that we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are going to get in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I would like to let everybody know it's 11 after 4:00. We are trying to get out of here by 4:30 to accommodate the BCC. We still have to close this meeting, open another, reschedule the other, and then close it. So I want to recommend to all of us if we can Page 208 "'.'-"'.'~ .-- .~...u,._ .. ,- _","~---,,~,.-._,,_.,.,- September 4, 2008 move forward faster, we need to. If not, we'll have to continue this meeting until tomorrow, as well, or to another day. So with that in mind, are there any more questions of staff at this point? MS. MASON: Excuse me. For the record, Susan Mason, with the Engineering and Environmental Services Department. There are some items I need to clarify in the wording of the document. On Page 4 under preserve tract principal uses, the reviewer had been requesting the redundant language to be removed from this portion, along with some other sections. And if it is to remain, they do -- there are a couple of changes that would be needed. First of all, it would need to include standard kind of comment that we put if they want to put other uses in there, that those uses cannot decrease the amount of required vegetation below what is their minimum of .81 acres. And the kind of concern I would have if they did want to put in nature trails, boardwalks, shelters, or any of these other things that on their master plan they are showing the bare minimum required preserve. So it would be kind of hard to do both with this construction. And as far as number three goes, with any -- and related open space activity, those words would need to be removed because open space is defined in the LDC and it includes things such as atriums, courtyards, lawns, a lot of other uses that wouldn't be compatible with a preserve. So we would ask for that change if those are to be -- if they are to remain in the PUD document at all. And earlier it was discussed on Page 11 under 2-A to remove everything except for the last sentence that described the amount of the preservation area to be required. And staff has no problem with removing that whole introductory paragraph. It's not really necessary. If you have any other questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any questions. Anybody else? Page 209 - .-"'."....-.--." ---,- _._-_..~_._._---~---""-"_.. --------.., ------ September 4, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Ifnot -- Mike, you have something you want to say? MR. GREEN: I do. Mike Green, Transportation. I would like to address the interconnections real quick. I heard it mentioned earlier that you may suggest the removal of the interconnection north to Positano. I would like that to be left in, if at all possible. Because Positano -- we don't know that that's always going to be exactly as it sits. And if they come in for an amendment or it changes ownership or the use changes, I would like the opportunity in the future to get the interconnection made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the people in Positano don't want the interconnection and they don't feel a need for it, why do we want to make them have it? It hurts the security of their facility. Why does it need it? MR. GREEN: We don't make them have it. All we are doing is securing the possibility of having it in the future. We don't actually physically put the connection in. It just stays as a condition of this particular use. So that if they change use, then we make that a requirement of their future use and we have the north and south connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we treating this project different than others in the County that we don't require the same thing? MR. GREEN: We are not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are not what? MR. GREEN: We are not treating them differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why does this -- why the building we sit in, why can't I drive out of here tonight and go past the Sheriffs Office and drive out on that Glades Street, or whatever it is, and take a right or a left? Why is that interconnection shut down? I mean, this is the County doing something different than what Page 210 "" ....~-_......_----~,- ~"~---"" --,-"~~~_,---<,"~'--" '-"".'-~" ..._-_.~.--."..~ ,_,_"".__.._,_u___ September 4, 2008 it's telling people they must do. Why? MR. GREEN: I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. I'm not --I'm trying to understand the fairness of the way things are operating. I don't see the fairness there. Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, though, if} am not mistaken, they have taken that position before and we have agreed with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't recall it, Mr. Murray. But, I mean, in some cases where we have commercial and stuff like that, it may be warranted. But a residential to a potential ACLF for a ball game or a church related outdoor recreational facility, I don't see how that will ever be used. Okay. Any other questions of staff before we go into public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, could you call public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker, Scott Mello. MR. MELLO: For the record, Scott Mello, Positano Place property manager. I was asked today to speak for a Mike Cox, who is the vice-president of our Master Association Board of Positano Place. So we have a few issues just on the multifamily. We are totally for the church and the school and the playgrounds and the senior living. The one thing is that we are very concerned with another developer coming in and selling competitive to Positano to where there is still over 100 units there for sale right now. And that's where everybody is in the foreclosure and bankruptcies and everything else. So we are going to see another developer come in and try to sell something else in our backyard. The other thing that we have concerns about is if they were to be Page 211 M~_,_"_~,.,___,_~,.e,..__"p...~....,,,.~._,__.,_~~.,,_~____,_,__, ---""._..,_..~- September 4,2008 just special needs housing or assisted living houses as 274, rather than and/or 200. We would be totally for that. We are just concerned about the split. If it's going to be one or is it going to be both? And then the traffic is going to get much worse. And we are 330 residents in Positano and the traffic gets pretty heavy going down in our community, as well. And the parking facilities we don't have that much. There was one concern with -- with the board was at the neighborhood meeting that they clearly said it was going to be for assisted living or special needs or helping other people. And they understood that as maybe it was going to be church related residents such as, you know, people that are affiliated with the church that would be purchasing from the church or lengths of leases that were subjected by the church and approved by the church. So they would be approving who is coming in and who is coming out of this multifamily. The other concern that we have is with the school. Our developer is completely out of it and our homeowners are in complete control of who buys and sells -- who buys units in Positano. There is a process where they have to go through. There is a screening process. There is a crime background check, the whole nine yards. And when you're in the beginning of selling these units, as a developer we don't believe that there is that much screening process. So we're concerned with a kindergarten through eighth grade school being there and a multifamily being in the back with no restrictions where you might have criminals living there, drug dealers, predators, whatever the case may be, and you're going to have these kids walking around the property. And I have kids myself in public school where from kindergarten to the fifth grade you can have two kids walking to the bathroom by themselves or walking to the office. Now you're going to have a multifamily facility there and there's not going to be any deputies on Page 212 - ---""-~--_.,._,.__._. ~-,-~--~",._~.,--~~._._<- -~..,_.__."'-'-"'- "--"-- September 4, 2008 staff like there is in public schools. You're going to have these people walking around the property. We have it at Positano and we are a gated community that is completely fenced around. And we are constantly catching trespassers coming into our swimming pools and we're constantly calling the police about drug deals happening in the back if we have to remove these people from there. So right now they're basically concerned with that one unit. The other problem I heard earlier was about the fence there being able to have a landscape barrier, rather than the wall across the Positano and the whole property. The one thing that first comes to mind with me is the safety issue. We have bushes there. We have the chain-link fence. But actually on the other side just with one residential home and a street that's going down that road -- just with that green chain-link fence and those bushes, people actually think they can cut across. And there is going to be a safety issue there with maybe an eighth grader trying to jump the fence to go swimming at Positano. Maybe there is going to be kids trying to run across to try to make it back to their bus after they're walking around. And we don't want the liability of somebody hurting themselves. So I think we would be in favor of the wall going up against our property. And then for any kind of special events that the church might have or the assisted living facility might have, we might -- the lights going through to the property. There is five buildings there with 22 units in each building that is actually going to face this site. The one thing with the inter-loop that I heard discussion on, if they were going to maybe try to bring them back together, the one thing is we are a gated community. And that would be a -- that would be a material alteration to Positano, which that would have to basically go to a membership vote, even if they wanted to propose that to the membership. Page 213 .,..-.---. '. ""'-.-.--- _______.~~._M___~._"'_.___~_..__,._ September 4, 2008 And I can honestly tell you on a material alteration when 85 percent of my homeowners are investors, sometimes I get 16 proxies. So I think that would be very difficult for Positano to actually agree upon for somebody to come in. And that would basically make us a non-gated community where people spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to live in a gated community and now they are forced to have a connection to not only a school, but another family property and other areas of safety. But like I said earlier -- and I'd like to thank you for my time. We are definitely in favor of the assisted living facility and all of the church issues there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is that the last -- only public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, just as a safety precaution, do we have any time tomorrow morning we can get into this room; do you know? I mean, it is 20 after now. We have got -- I have at least eight, maybe nine stipulations. I'm sure we're all not going to agree on all of them, so we're going to have to sit here and chew on that for awhile. And then we're going to have to try to get out of here. And then we still have another meeting we've got to open and close. So rather than wait until 10 minutes to 5:00 and have the BCC upset because we're not out of here, I would rather accommodate them. Obviously, they're the prime. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm not going to be here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to find another day. Maybe the rest of us will. We need five people at least to attend another day. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can make tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't even know if tomorrow is Page 214 .--,. ---- _._~....,,_...._~.._---,... September 4,2008 open. MR. SCHMITT: No. I'll have to find out if it's open. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Recognizing the time constraints and nobody thought this was going to go this long, is it possible to do like we did for the Freestate petition? We'll come back on the 18th. We'll be first up hopefully, work this out. Ifthere are any revisions to the document, we can make them then, you can review them, to avoid the consent -- a second -- the second consent agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good solution. Is everybody else -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as nobody minds that the consent agenda be tied into that next meeting, which means we wouldn't vote on it today. I would read the stipulations. We would do the best we can to ask the applicant what we are -- as clear as we can. You guys have some questions we asked during the meeting that you need to have good answers to, so that way you could come back with better answers, better language, and it might expedite the meeting actually. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. Ifwe could, we would run by some of that language right now. You could tell us if we're on track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be fine. I will read what I have. The rest of the Planning Commission can certainly -- I know we are not all going to agree with this by some of the comments I heard. Number one is the playground requirement would be removed. Number two, you would have either 200 ACLF or 74 multifamily, but not a mix of both. Page 215 - _.~'~-~,"~.__.._-_._.. ~.,,----~._---_...,.__.__...,-~---- -~,.- September 4, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, based on what I heard from -- again, whatever that place is to the north -- do you really need the multifamily? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, this is not today. It's the future, too. Who knows, you know, what's going to be there three years from now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that highlights his point. That could be sold to a multifamily developer who isn't as concerned about how his neighborhood treats other neighborhoods. And whatever he can get away with, this PUD will let him get away with. So we want to make sure there's -- we have to tighten it up more ifthere's going to be multifamily there with the potential of issuing it to someone else. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what we would be getting away with, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the interconnection is one. I don't see the need for the interconnection. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's needed by the residents. And that's who we should be serving. And I don't see where it meets any criteria. That's my thought. The wall between the community facility and the rear parcel should only be required if the facilities are not interrelated somehow. We need language to address that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so you know, I heard what Nancy had to say. But our SDP is in for review right now. And one of the comments is -- although we have not identified anything on that back tract, we have got to put a wall in right now. So there is some inconsistency within the County review. That's why we raised the issue of not having to do the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You need to come back with a Page 216 ~"---.." ___._..__.... .. '_"""'m___.'_,."_~___' _ _.,..__...~ September 4,2008 list of what you consider the outdoor recreation facilities that you're talking about as a principal use. The Exhibit F, 2-A, the last line would be the only one -- only the last sentence would be left. That's the environmental one. And then add to Exhibit A in the preserve tract the following language. It would be A.4: Uses cannot reduce overall required preserve acreage. And number eight, there would be a -- we were talking about the wall along the north property line. The project to the north believe it's needed. I don't know what the Planning Commission's thoughts are on that. We heard the gentleman speak to us. I'm not sure we need to waive it. I certainly think that depending on the use in the rear it's going to be required. So what is the -- what is thought of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, they're not increasing their landscaping in any way. We're getting the minimum of that. I don't see why they should deviate from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you want to comment on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have to orient me a little bit, because you said the north. I'm looking up. North is up, is it not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. So we're talking about that wall. I would agree that that's probably desirable. As with respect to the one separating the two properties, I don't think that is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just the opposite. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm thinking that if we can just lose the multi-unit, that would take care of a lot, in my opinion, regarding the walls. Because it's not a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we should do is you guys come back with a suggestion on the wall. We'll chew on it when you Page 217 ""~'_'_'_'__'__',,"n~.._,._.__._,__,,~.._..._,_...,_..__"_"<_~.__.._;~--.. ,,,,-,--,-",,,,-,"- '.-.._,"".. .~~._"...._~._. .._"-_.~,.,- --.-'.-.-- September 4, 2008 come back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. Can I just see if we're on track on the rec uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We also need a clarification on the actual height. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the cupola. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The actual height. The tippy toppy. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will. We will. We are going to look at that number and we'll probably come back to you with 60 feet, plus 12 feet for a cupola/spire. That's what we're thinking about. If I could read the rec uses real quick to make sure we are on line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It says -- the new language that Wayne came up with, it would be parking, water management and unlighted outdoor recreational uses accessory to the church/school uses permitted on the CF tract. No ball fields, courts or other similar outdoor recreational uses may be constructed. No outdoor recreational uses may occur beyond dusk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It gets us-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we on track? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're getting close, but I would like to see the language ahead of time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will. But the concept is okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to ask you to request a continuance until the 18th on the provision that this isn't going to cost the applicant anything. We don't charge for continuances, do we? We charge for everything around here. MR. BELLOWS: We have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, how about the Planning Commission? MR. BELLOWS: Ifwe're within five weeks there won't be a Page 218 , m_~,'._.....~"_"'~_"_"_'_'''''_'__'______' ---'~-'-- -,-._,,--_..-..- ....--... September 4, 2008 charge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's coming back on the 18th. Is there any fees associated with his coming back? MR. SCHMITT: Not that I'm aware of, other than -- I'm not going to -- hopefully [ will not need to recopy everything in your book. So retain what you have in your book. We'll just hand out the amended -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll hand out the changes and hopefully they are minor enough we can work through those quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like you to get the changes to us ahead of time, if you can. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, Mr. Murray, you wanted to make a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a motion that we continue this until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 18th. First up on the 18th after the consent agenda on the 18th. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 219 -"-',-- '-.... ~ ~,_..--..._--,< - --..,,--....--.---.,-.--...-.- .,-.,' -' ...- September 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries seven to zero. Thank you for the accommodation. We're sorry for today. It got a little longer than we anticipated. Item # 10 OLD BUSINESS Any old business? (No response.) Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? MR. SCHMITT: We just need to note that the LDC hearings-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to get there. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, you sat there all day. MR. FEE: Change the muni-code situation. Item #14 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I need a motion to adjourn Page 220 '-" -,~,-,^~,.,_.",,-~ .-.-.-.-. - ^'------_.~,,- " - - ---.--.- September 4, 2008 and then we have to reopen another meeting. So please sit still. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay. ***** RECONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LDC AMENDMENT 2008 CYCLE 1 Welcome to the Collier County Planning Commission Meeting starting at 4:29 on September 4th as the continuation of the LDC Cycle 1 2008 public hearing for the LDC amendments. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LDC AMENDMENT 2008 CYCLE 1 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to continue this meeting to-- MS. F ABACHER: September 18th, following the regular Page 221 --~.- _..,...~.,-----_. " _._---._---_.-."-,-~_._-----,-~_.~"._..._~...._._...~.,",...-. __' '.a_ September 4, 2008 meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September 18th following the regular meeting, no sooner than -- do we have enough to keep us busy until noon on the 18th, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Do we have what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have enough to keep us busy until noon on the 18th? MR. SCHMITT: I think you're going to have more than enough to keep you busy on the 18th. That's why I was going to say, you're probably not going to get through much from an LDC perspective on the 18th as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. SCHMITT: And then that will be continued until the 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was a motion to continue to the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 18th. Seconded -- by the way, it will be no sooner than 1 :00. Do we need a time certain? MR. KLA TZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to continue on the 18th, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 222 "-._' .. ..,--.--.----.----- - _..._,,--~._.,.._,_._.__...,.....~,_._----_. ---,-.-,^-.",..- September 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are out of here, 4:29. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:29 p.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 KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, FPR. Page 223 ~.,.--..- .-...- -.--,.----- -~-,~ ~---_._-_."..<- -_..,'~-'-