CCPC Minutes 09/18/2008 R
September 18, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
September 18, 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
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J . Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Director
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Director of Real Property, School District
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised
Meeting must end by 4:30 P.M.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,2008, 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
ORGANIZA TION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY ~ERSON 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. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; AUGUST 13,2008, LDC MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. CPSP-2007-7, Creating a new Public School Facilities Element with support document and amending the
Capital Improvement Element; Intergovernmental Coordination Element; Future Land Use Element and
Future Land Use Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and Immokalee Area Master Plan to establish a
public school concurrency program. This is a companion item to the Public School Facility Planning and
School Concurrency Inter-local Agreement between the District School Board of Collier County and Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and the cities of Marco Island, Everglades and Naples.
[Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] HEARING HELD 8/29/2008
B. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-13063, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc.,
represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W 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 i146-
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, AICP)
1
C. Petition: CU-2008-AR-1320 I, VI L TD, Limited Partnership and Collier County Parks and Recreation,
represented by Richard 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.l.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 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
D. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13060, Naples Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Laura DeJohn, AICP, of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., requests a Conditional Use in the Mobile Home Overlay within the Agricultural zoning
district (A-MHO) pursuant to 2.03.0I.A.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 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR- I 0294, Naples Church of Christ, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP,
of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Y ovanovich 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 8th
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 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM 9/4/08
B. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land
Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to
establish the Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial
District, for a 20,000 square foot clubhouse and up to 34,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial
institutions, schools, professional and medical offices, and personal and business services consistent with the
General Office (C-I) Zoning District of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located at
the southwest comer of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and Orange Blossom Drive, in
Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 5:1:: acres. ICoordinator:
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Plannerl CONTINUED FROM 8/29/2008
C. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land
Use Map and Map Series (FLUEIFLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to
establish the Airport/Orange Blossom Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, for up to
40,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, professional and medical offices, adult and
child day care, personal and business services, and senior housing in the form of an assisted living facility
and/or continuing care retirement center, or other similar housing for the elderly, consistent with the General
Office (C-I) Zoning District of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located on the west
side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR31), approximately 330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drive and
immediately south of the Italian American Club, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida consisting of 5:1:: acres. ICoordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
CONTINUED FROM 8/29/2008
2
D. CPSP-2006-13, Comprehensive Planning Department staff petition requesting amendments to the Future
Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), Transportation Element (TE)
and Maps, Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE), Economic Element (EE), and Golden Gate Area
Master Plan Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series
(GGAMP/GGAMP FLUEIFLUM), to change the allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates; to
expand an area excepted from the conditional use locational criteria along Golden Gate Parkway within
Golden Gate Estates; to extend the Transfer of Development Rights early entry bonus in the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District; and, to make corrections of omissions and errors and other revisions so as to harmonize
and update various sections of these elements of the Growth Management Plan. [Coordinator: David
Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] CONTINUED FROM 8/29/2008
E. CPSP-2007-6, A petition requesting an amendment to the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities
Element, to amend Policy 1.7 to add a reference to and incorporate the County's "Ten-year Water Supply
Facilities Work Plan." [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] CONTINUED
INDEFINITEL Y
F. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC Liquors Inc., represented by Heidi K Williams, AICP of Q Grady
Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use of the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning
District with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay to increase the maximum allowable square-footage of
personal services, video rental, or retail uses (excluding drug stores, 5912) from 5,000 square-feet of gross
floor area to 12,000 square-feet of gross floor area in the principal structure. The subject property, consisting
of approximately 1.79.:!: acres of land, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the CR951 and US41
intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-
David Moss, AICP) RE-ADVERTISED FROM 8/7/08
G. Petition: V A-2006-AR-II 064, VI Partners, L TD and Collier County Parks and Recreation, represented
by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson requesting variances for a trellis structure as
specified in Section 2.03.07.L.6. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for a property in the
Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District
(VBRTO), as follows: 1) from the required 45 feet for the trellis to the principal residential structure, to allow
25 feet; and 2) from the required 50 percent of the building height but not less than 30 feet for the trellis to
north property line, to allow 10 feet; and 3) from the required 50 percent of the building height but not less
than 15 feet for the trellis to the public restroom building, to allow 10 feet. The subject property,
consisting of 5.14:1:: acres, is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and
Bluebill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Kay Deselem, AICP) (Companion to CU-2006-AR-II046) RE-ADVERTISED FROM 9/4/08
H. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12357, First Congregational Church of Naples, represented by D. Wayne Arnold of
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use to permit The First Congregational
Church of Naples to construct a 300 seat facility. This site is zoned Estates (E) and is located within the
Estates Designation on the Future Land Use Map of Collier County Growth Management Plan. Pursuant to
Section 2.04.03 of the Land Development Code, churches and places of worship are permitted conditional
uses in the E, Estate zoning district. Currently the property is utilized as a single family residence. The
subject property is 2.6 +/- acres located at 6225 Autumn Oaks Lane, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
I. Petition: PE-2008-AR-13117, Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LCEC), represented by Tim
Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc. is requesting a Parking Exemption for the LCEC lmmokalee
Area Service Center pursuant the Collier County Land Development Section 4.05.02.K.3. The parking
exemption seeks approval of a 20-parking space employee parking area on a residential zoned lot
(Residential Multi-family 6 [RMF-6] Zoning District). The subject property, consisting of 2.46:1:: acres, is
located in Immokalee on ] 5th Street North, approximately 400 feet south of Immokalee Drive, in Section
5, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem,
AICP)
3
J. Petition: NUA-2007-AR-12575, Hitching Post Co-op, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of
Davidson Engineering, is requesting a non-conforming use alteration approval, to enable unit owners to
replace existing non-conforming structures, in conformance with the Fire Code and so as not to increase the
existing non-conformities. The subject 44.46 :I:: acre property is located in the Hitching Post Co-op
subdivision, along the west side of Barefoot Williams Road, approximately 200 feet south of the
intersection of Barefoot Williams Road and Tamiami Trail East, in Section 33, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
K. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane,
AlCP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Longshore Lake
PUD Ordinance No. 93-3, Section 3.2 B. to allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina
PUD) in Longshore Lake Unit 5C, Tract B; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site premise sign to become
an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to reinsert partially omitted Traffic Requirements: Section 5.2,
Stipulations subsection 2; to reinsert omitted Traffic Requirements: Section 5.2, Stipulations subsections 3
and 4; and to add Section 8: Deviations. The subject sign is located on a .5:1:: acre property located on the
southeast corner of the Longshore Lake PUD, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokolee
Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED TO 11120/08
10. OLD BUSINESS
1 I. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
Note: RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR LDC AMENDMENT 2008 CYCLE 1
ADJOURN
9/18/08CCPC Agenda/RB/mk/sp
4
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning everyone. Welcome to
the September 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
Will you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call by the secretary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron
is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman.
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Page 2
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have a lot of agenda
issues this morning. First of all, this is probably the longest agenda
I've seen in the many years I've been on this board. I can certainly tell
you we'll be here all day for a number of reasons.
But at 4:30 today we will be leaving. We have a budget hearing
we have to clear the room for the BCC. They need time to prepare the
room. So at 4: 3 0 this meeting will be suspended if need be or
continued or hopefully adjourned by then.
With that in mind, there are some other issues on the agenda that
we need to take into consideration. Today's meeting, when it does
adjourn, is supposed to go right into the LDC hearing that was
continued from last week.
Regardless of when we adjourn this meeting today or continue it,
we will have to open that meeting up. And if it's late in the day, we'll
open it, continue it and close it.
But for those people who are interested in that meeting, if we
were to get through today's agenda by 3:00, then we would move into
the LDC issues that would start with the preserves and stormwater in
preserves first.
We would start where we left off on the agenda we were handed
out last week, not the agenda that was passed out to the planning
commission by e-mail last night. That was in error. I had told staff not
to use that agenda. Somehow they used it instead.
The way we're going to work this is, at 3 :00, as long as we have
an hour and a half left in the day, we will go into one of those major
subjects, which is preserves or stormwater in preserves. If it's past
3 :00 when we finish with our regular meeting, then we'll skip those
two and we'll go into some of the shorter ones that won't necessarily
take an hour or two to get through.
That's how we'll handle the LDC issue when we get to it, if we
get to it today.
Page 3
September 18, 2008
There also is another issue I'd like to bring up in regards to the
LDC, and that's the shape factor ratio.
Mr. Schmitt, you had suggested to me that staff still wanted to
debate that further. Is that a true statement?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I would not use the word debate. What
I'd like to do is get with the stakeholders. I've directed my Engineering
and Environmental Services Director, Bill Lorenz, to get with some of
the stakeholders, primarily those who are here who addressed
concerns, and to discuss the best way to create some -- or to at least
put into the code some definitive specifications or specificity to allow
-- to facilitate interpretation of that what is called the largest and most
contiguous. At least to try and to help define that.
And so Bill is working with the stakeholders. Weare looking to
bring something back to you for consideration. But you all would have
to ask to have that come back to you. You've already voted for denial,
and it would have to be a recommendation to reconsider that item.
We'd bring it back for your discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the goal of this board is
always to do what's most productive for the community and for the
Board of County Commissioners.
F or us not to consider something that you're going to want to
discuss with the BCC, it would only be frustrating, because they
would really want our -- I would assume they would want our input on
it.
So rather than have the whole thing go around the circle and
then come back to us by them, if this is going to happen, then why
don't we just reconsider it at a point you have the language redrawn,
the stakeholders involved, and a proper notice provided. As long as
there's no legal problem with that issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
And Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but the compo plan requires
that there be LDC rules to implement this.
Page 4
September 18, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's not going to be reconsideration,
because it's not going to be the same exact LDC provision. My
understanding, Joe, is that there's going to be some tweaks to it at
least?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Well, they voted denial. We would bring
that on back with changes. I guess whatever you determine that as.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it's not a reconsideration, it would be in
essence a new amendment for you to consider.
MR. SCHMITT: A new amendment.
And Bill's already been in touch with Tim Hancock, probably
get in touch with Doug Lewis and some of the others. And the effort
here certainly is to -- we're attempting to create the code to define the
parameters for the industry. Right now there's just -- it's too subjective.
And that's -- one of the problem areas is largest most contiguous
definition, what does it mean and how do you apply it. And we'll see if
we can narrow that down a bit. I think the industry has a great interest
in trying to do that. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for the benefit of going to
the board above us receiving something with our input, it's much more
productive for us to then reconsider -- to have it come back or have it
come to us as it normally would and we'll have to chew it up again, so
MR. SCHMITT: And Mr. Strain, at the -- my guidance as well is
if it doesn't make it into this cycle, we'll continue to work that. I mean,
that's how important this is. And we need to get it right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it's a new amendment, does it
have to be advertised?
MR. SCHMITT: It's advertised already. We just advertise the
section of the code. So the advertising is not the problem here, it's just
the process in going through it and then creating the language.
Page 5
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the reason I asked is
because we denied it.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're coming back with
something that we perceive as --
MR. SCHMITT: Right, it would be a reconsideration for all
intent and purposes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item would be our items that
are going to be continued on today's agenda.
And let's see, we have Item 9(E), which is the potable water
sub-element. That's continued indefinitely.
And we have Item 9(K), Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. That's
continued to 11/20/08. So if any members of the public are here for
those two issues, they won't be heard today.
Other items on our agenda that are of interest, on 9(F), we're
rehearing ABC Liquors. It isn't actually a rehearing, it's a whole new
hearing. But the issue there is ones of our stipulations is something
that the applicant, although they thought at the time they could live
with is not apparently working for them.
(Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they went back and had another NIM
and came back here before us all over again.
And by the way, let the record show Mr. Midney just showed
up.
Now, the reason I'm bringing this up is you did not receive new
packages on this information. That's why you didn't. It was really no
different than the previous one.
Staff I guess has since created an executive summary which will
be passed out today, but the effect of that will be basically what I've
just mentioned.
Also, on Item 8( C), a consent agenda item, which is the Moraya
Bay bathrooms, for lack of better definition, there was no really
Page 6
September 18,2008
stipulations on that except that a request to clarify the -- where the
bathroom went into the R T zoning district and make sure something
was worked out so that could happen. So therefore, we're going to get
a verbal presentation on that today for the consent agenda.
And the last thing is the 4:30 ending. As I said earlier, we'll have
to make sure we're out of here by 4:30 for the BCC.
Other than that, I have no other changes or suggestions to the
agenda. Does anybody else?
(No response.)
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, planning commission absences.
Our next meeting will be the 26th of this month, assuming today's
regular meeting does not get continued. If we get continued, it most
likely will be the 25th. But we'll deal with that later.
Let's start with the 26th. How many people on this panel know
they will not be able to be here next Friday?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, okay. So that means we
have a quorum. So we're good to go for that date.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 2008 REGULAR
MEETING~ AUGUST 13~ 2008 LDC MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. There's two sets
of minutes for approval. The first one I'll be seeking a motion for
recommendation of approval is August 2nd, 2008 regular meeting.
Page 7
September 18,2008
Is --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there a motion to approve?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made the motion. Seconded
by?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The next set of minutes is August 13th, 2008, the LDC meeting.
Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Caron,
seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 8
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we don't have any BCC report?
Although they did have an interesting meeting last week.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we do have some recaps, if you want.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. It says not available on my thing,
that's why --
MR. BELLOWS: I think the paper copy's not available, but I
have a verbal one, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great.
MR. BELLOWS: On September 9th, the Board of County
Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Shadowwood. That
was approved on the summary agenda. As well as the conditional use
for the Avis Budget Truck Rental on the summary agenda.
The board also approved on its regular agenda the PUD rezone
for Tamiami Crossings and its companion item, the -- and that was
approved 4-1, with Commissioner Coyle opposed.
And the PUD amendment for Artesa Pointe was approved 5-0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Page 9
September 18, 2008
Item #8A
CPSP-2007-7
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that we'll go into our -- well,
the Chairman's report, I spoke enough on the agenda. So we'll move
right into the consent agenda items.
And we have four of them. So let's start with the first one, 8(A),
wich is CPSP-2007, which is the Public School Facilities Element.
Are there any corrections, clarifications or questions concerning
that consent agenda item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have one. Is Michelle here?
Hi, Michelle.
MS. MOSCA: Hi. For the record, Michelle Mosca,
Comprehensive Planning staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've called you many times to give you a
heads up but I kept getting your voice mail and I really hate voice
mails, because that means you've got to try to find me afterwards and
that's nearly impossible.
On Page 3, we have an underlined area that talks about the
expiration of the SBR interlocal agreement between the county and
the school district.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About two-thirds of the way down
there's a line that starts with the parenthetical two. Until the county, in
coordination with the school district, is able to establish a new process
for the development of siting criteria.
Now, if you look where that paren. two is, just above it, it talks
about number one, which says, such time as the new or amended SBR
is adopted to address site development of the existing map sites and
future sites approved.
Page 10
September 18, 2008
I understand the issue on future sites. But the existing map sites,
if you turn to Page 8 under Policy 5.14 and you go to B, the fourth line
said, these sites are consistent with the locational criteria established
by the SBR interlocal agreement as contained in the FLUE.
Now, my issue is if we have something in three that seems to say
that if this thing expires, they may not be consistent anymore, but in
Page 8 under B we have a document that says they already are deemed
consistent. Is that a conflict?
MS. MOSCA: I don't believe it's a conflict. What we're trying to
achieve here is to try to apply the SBP ILA, the School Board Review
ILA provisions to those existing map sites and any additional sites that
are approved under that ILA.
Now, in the future what we will try to do is work with the school
district in order to come up with new locational criteria that's
consistent with the statute.
Right now the specifics regarding off-site infrastructure and so
forth is deferred until a later time until the site plan comes in.
What we'd like to do is look at all of the future plans for water,
sewer, transportation and so forth, and look at school types,
elementary, middle and high, and try to locate or site those schools
where best appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we currently have a map that
shows where the future sites and existing future sites -- existing future
is contradictory, but that's kind of what they are. Schools aren't built
but the sites for them are planned, or at least they've been
acknowledged on this map.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will any of this documentation remove
the approval of those sites for those locations shown on the map?
MS. MOSCA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was my concern. Because
right now we've acknowledged them, they're there, I want to make
Page 11
September 18,2008
sure they stay there and no one gets made less because of this
language.
MS. MOSCA: Right.
If I can just clarify. In the Future Land Use Element, as well as
the other master plans, it's sort of like a contingency. The locational
criteria is contingent upon compliance with that school board review
interlocal agreement. But yet we found that those sites that have been
approved under that agreement are consistent with the locational
criteria within the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By being consistent, you're only talking
in regards to the establishment of level of service criteria, right? I
mean, they can -- the sites are okay as long as the roads and
infrastructure have some way of getting to those sites.
MS. MOSCA: And we do need that mechanism to address that
when -- address those items when in fact the school district comes in
for their site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed cleared up.
Any other questions on the consent item for the school facilities
only?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend
approval of Item 8(A), CPSP-2007-7 on the consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Wolfley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 12
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
MS. MOSCA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #8B
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13063. SILVER LAKES PUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is the Silver Lakes. That's a
petition we heard last time. It's in our consent agenda for finalization.
Okay, I didn't have any markups in mine. Does anybody have
any objections to Silver Lakes?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve the consent
agenda item for Silver Lakes --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- PUDA-2008-AR-13063?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, Mr.
Wolfley seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 13
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #8C
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-1320L MORAY A BAY BEACH CLUB
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition I understand, Kay, you're
going to tell us verbally where we're at --
MS. DESELEM: Yes, good morning. For the record, Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner in Zoning.
For Item 8(C), what was discussed as a stipulation in actuality
can't be a stipulation, so there's no other ordinance or resolution to
bring to you.
It was basically a direction to the petitioner, asking them to
make sure that the board had an agreement drafted and approved prior
to action on the actual petition that was being considered in 8(C).
And I understand in speaking with the petitioner that they do
have an agreement they're working on. They don't have it to the board
yet, but they are working on it.
The actual language was, according to the minutes, prior to the
time this went forward to the board, 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.
So since it has to be done prior to board action, we couldn't put it
Page 14
September 18, 2008
as stipulation, so there's nothing to bring to you, other than an update
that they are working on something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. And I certainly agree with
your reasonIng.
Will you make sure the board is informed of this condition so
that they know to be looking for that?
MS. DESELEM: Indeed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that piece of property that goes
over onto private property, if we don't get an agreement on that, we
could be approving something that is in jeopardy and subj ect to that
agreement. I'd hate to have the tables turned so someone has more
negotiating power than less.
MS. DESELEM: Indeed, there will be something in the
executive summary that goes to the board explaining the situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, did you have a
comment?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I should clarify for you the timing, if that
will help. There already is an agreement that was on the last board's
agenda. It was continued to address some contractual issues regarding
the actual design and permitting costs related to the restrooms.
But that same agreement deals with the actual conveyance of the
sliver necessary. So it's already been to the board. It was continued to
address a few last minute items that came up. So the board's well
aware of it, if that helps any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Thank you, Kay.
Any other questions on consent agenda Item Petition
CU-2008-AR-13201 ?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation for approval?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
Page 15
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by Mr.
Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #8D
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13060, NAPLES BAPTIST CHURCH,
INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last item on our consent agenda is
Petition CU-2008-AR-13060, the Naples Baptist Church.
And we received a memo from county staff. It was a little bit
confusing. I think we have a clarification from Nancy this morning.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm
Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
And I do have a handout for you. It is the resolution in its
entirety. And I'm going to ask that you turn to the very last page,
which is Exhibit D, and it's the conditions for approval.
Page 16
September 18, 2008
Commissioners, if you turn to the very last page, item two, we
have our final language regarding the construction of the road to the
Naples Baptist Church.
And it says, prior to vertical construction, and that is agreed to
by transportation, Naples Baptist Church or its successors and assigns
shall construct to county standards a 20- foot wide roadway and a
four-foot wide paved shoulder from Immokalee Road to the subject
property .
And that is the agreed upon language between transportation,
county attorney and in accordance with your motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, we had stipulated, based on the
memo you provided, which I'm assuming is accurate because I haven't
had time to go back and check the record, that we're looking at a
24- foot rural paved roadway.
Transportation says they want a 20- foot rural paved roadway
with a four-foot wide paved shoulder. Now that's still 24 feet.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's rural. Is there a huge difference
between the two?
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't think so. But it's probably best to ask
transportation if they think there's a difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm asking this
was if it was a stipulation and we're changing it on the consent agenda,
I want to make sure if it's not substantive to a point where it would
require us to have another action. So thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning.
It is the same thing. The change is in striping. If you asked for a
24- foot roadway, the outer edge of pavement striping would be
allowing two 12-foot lanes. And asking a 20-foot road, you'd have two
10- foot lanes with the four-foot paved shoulder that's outside of the
edge of pavement striping.
Page 17
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I remember the issue, and I
believe we actually used the width because we wanted to have that
additional four feet.
Ms. Ashton?
MS. ASHTON: Good morning, Planning Commission. For the
record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney.
The item number two that's on your visualizer, that is the
language that I read into the record at the last meeting. And the
representative for the owner agreed to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm a little confused by the
staff memo then, because the memo says our stipulation said
something different. So apparently one of you is right.
Regardless, the applicant has no problems with number two?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no sense of beating a dead
horse. We'll just be done with it.
Anybody else have any issues?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to recommend
approval --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as handout dictates?
Mr. Murray made the motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 18
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Cherie', am I going too fast? I saw that smile. Usually you're
being polite. I'll try to be a little more careful.
Item #9A (Continued discussion to later in the meeting)
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294, NAPLES CHURCH OF
CHRIST. INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we'll go into our regular
advertised public hearings. First one is 9(A), Petition
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294, Naples Church of Christ, Inc., being
presented by Wayne Arnold. It's on the east side of Livingston Road,
approximately .6 miles south of Pine Ridge.
This was one we had started at our last meeting. The applicant
agreed to a continuation to today because we were at the 4:30 hour of
our last meeting date.
With that in mind, if there's anybody wishing to participate in
this, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the
planning commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a conversation
Page 19
September 18,2008
yesterday with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe I did, but I've completely
forgotten what we talked about. There's been so much going on this
past week with this agenda, I'm getting them mixed up.
But anyway, I'm sure I had a conversation. I'm think Mr. Arnold
was in that one of them as well.
With that, I'll ask anything I may have asked then hopefully
again today.
Mr. Y ovanovich, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. I think where we left off is
there were eight items that needed to be addressed. I don't think you
took a vote on any of those.
But we have addressed them basically all in the documents that I
think you've received but for the removal of the interconnection,
which we know we need to take off. But since there wasn't the formal
vote yet on the interconnection, we did not yet revise that exhibit to
remove the interconnection between us and Positano Place.
If we can, we could just check off through the staff report. The
first one was that we removed the staff recommended playground --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me get this straight, though.
When we left last time, we listed these but we had not debated
amongst ourselves --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whether we each agreed to them or
wanted them that way. So what you're reading off is what the list was
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not what was agreed to.
Page 20
September 18, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we -- I think the major one was the
-- how are we going to define the recreational uses that could occur on
the CF residential piece. And they were the outdoor. And that's on
Page 2 of the revised document. I'll put a strikethrough and underlined
on the visualizer.
Up higher, Ray.
And that number four is how we were addressing what can occur
on that site. We can have water management facilities, parking and
recreational uses accessory to the church and school. That will be
occurring on the other parcel designated in the PUD.
And then we make it very clear that no ballfields, courts or other
similar recreational uses may be constructed.
And then we put hours of limitations that no outdoor recreational
use may occur beyond 9:00 p.m.
So that was our way of identifying what can occur on the
property and limit the hours when it can occur.
I think that was really the only issue that we were to come back
to you with proposed language on. And the rest of the items were -- I
think you were getting ready to debate when we left off.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we start with the
changes you made in the outdoor recreation. I know I have some
comments, but I'll defer to my other board members.
Anybody?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're referring just to the
playground thing or the whole?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought we ought to start with
the outdoor recreation, since Richard just went into that. Do you have
any questions on the outdoor recreation, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I do. You're making it a
Page 21
September 18,2008
principal use, and you're taking it out of the -- it's still remaining in the
accessory use category as well.
My concern with it being a principal use is you could open that
property up independently for a recreational use without any other use
on the property. It could be freestanding.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, but it has to be in support of the
church facility that will be constructed on the other piece, okay. It
can't be a standalone. We could not -- we could not do anything that
was unrelated to the church that happens on the other piece. Church
and school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason you have it in as an
accessory use is if you develope the site, you want to be able to have
those as accessory to the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe develop the site as any of the other
uses, residential, ALF, whatever, we wanted to have those types of
accessory uses related to the residential ALF uses that could develop
on that piece.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you have -- the reading that
I have, and it's the same here, no outdoor recreational use may occur
beyond 9:00 p.m.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Beyond 9:00 p.m. but before
what time in the morning? Why don't we use sunrise to sunset.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the sunset issue is there are some
structures that exist on the property, I think that you're probably aware
of those structures. I belive there's a barn and there's some other
houses --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I built them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah.
And they have withstood the test of time, so you did a nice job.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No sucking up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I try not to be so obvious, but
Page 22
September 18,2008
sometimes you can't help it.
They do now -- they have church activities out there now.
They'll have dinners out there and it -- that will extend past sunset.
And honestly, we wanted to make sure that, you know, sunset
happens, we can continue on with the dinners and make sure that by
9:00 p.m. we thought was a reasonable period of time to make sure we
were all off that property and wouldn't be interfering with any
neighbors' enjoyment of their homes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you say before -- beyond 9:00
p.m., before what time then? I mean, it's got to have another--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. I mean, if you want to put
sunrise -- is that fine? Sunrise to no later than 9:00 p.m? No earlier
than sunrise and no later than 9:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll certainly discuss the timing.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean that if they're
having a sunrise service that they can't gather until the sunrise? I'm not
being cute either. I'm trying to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I mean, we're hoping at
some -- you know, you cannot cover everything in the PUD
document. We would hope that something like that would not --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it should be understood that
sunrise in that sense is -- that's the actual ceremony.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, remember Cocohatchee? On
that particular one we had uses that you brought a long 20- item list or
22- item list in that qualified as I guess passive recreational uses on the
east side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, something to that effect. But I
remember how that came about. We asked you for a list of what you
intended to do there and you provided it.
My notes last time, we asked you to provide a list of principal
outdoor recreational facilities. I went through, I couldn't find the list.
Page 23
September 18, 2008
What I found was what you think are excluded, but I haven't found
what you thought you're including.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, at the end of the meeting I believe
what I said is we were going to define this as, and I wrote -- I read
some language that would say no -- it would be no formal courts and
no lighted facilities would occur. And I asked if we were on the right
track and we got nods, so we thought we were supposed to define it by
what couldn't happen instead of what could happen on the site.
Because frankly, you know, recreational uses, how long could
that list be? It could be forever. And I thought the concerns were these
formal courts, formalized activities. And we tried to define it better by
what can't happen to protect the community than what could happen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the primary concern we
were having with the residential community to the north, we wanted to
make sure that whatever you did there wasn't too distracting to that
community.
Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Yovanovich, you realize that everything
you can use can only be in conjunction with church and church
facilities.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So that will limit you quite a
bit right there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, they won't be able to do
a school without the church or other --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A school-- no, let's say a recreational
facility. What recreational facility couldn't they tie to that church
activity?
They could say riding horses, they have church members who
want to do that. They have ball parks because they want to play ball.
Those are not religious activities, those are what they'll claim are
Page 24
September 18, 2008
accessory to the church --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why we said no ball fields and
we said, you know, so that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it you're trying to include in
here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we're trying to do is provide
the flexibility to come out there and if they want to have an
impromptu either barbeque or an impromptu, not an -- you know, an
impromptu softball game, an impromptu dodge ball game, have kids
out there actually exercising in relation to the school, yes, we want to
be able to have that happen.
But we didn't want to take it to the next level where we would
actually construct the soccer field or a softball field, or a -- so it
became more of a, you know, repeat, you're going to have this all the
time type of activity. We didn't want to discourage things that happen
at church outings typically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Vigliotti's comment is
relative to what we most would assume, that it would have to be
related to the church, as it says.
I'm just wondering what isn't then considered related in the eyes
of how someone would want to argue it.
Mr. Midney?
MR. MIDNEY: Well, my comment is similar. I remember when
I was growing up in churches, we used to have softball games and
stuff afterwards. I don't see why they can't have courts or some things
to encourage some recreation, as long as it ends before 9:00 in the
evening.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, are there any comments
about the whole questions of the applicant at whole at this time?
Mr. Wolfley?
Page 25
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mine sort of involves the
interconnection that was discussed, and along with the 200-unit ACLF
or the 75 multi-family units, and with the fence or wall that was to go
two-thirds from Livingston Road down the property that was
discussed last time.
I don't think that the 74-unit multi-family unit is compatible. I
think that if that's put in, then there's a case to be struck for having an
interconnection between Positano Place and also then to wall off
between the church facility and the multi-family unit.
All that could be done away with if we just kept it to a 200-unit
ACLF. No interconnection would be needed. I don't believe a wall
would be needed between the two units. And then the only wall and
the buffer that would be needed would be between Positano Place and
this land, this property.
I am just totally not in favor of the 74 multi-unit -- multi-family
unit. And I think the property and the surrounding area would be much
better served by the 200-unit ACLF only.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public,
Ray, wishing to speak that you know of? We did talk to people last
time. Are there any people this time?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Someone wishes to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's wait and see if we have
registered speakers first.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. Scott Mello and
Michael R. Cox.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'd like to come up and use
either speaker. You have five minutes. Or hopefully you can try
limiting it to that.
MR. COX: I am Michael R. Cox. I am a resident of Po sita no and
Page 26
September 18, 2008
the Vice-President of the master board of directors.
I was the -- one of the people at the neighborhood meeting. And
I thought that it went very well. We were kind of specific on no
interchange with Positano; we are a gated community.
Weare no different than anybody else right now that has a new
development. We have lots of our own problems because of the state
of the economy.
We're hoping that you will -- and we're for this church-related,
school-related, 100 percent. My past history is building YMCA's and
Hospice facilities. I have told them I would volunteer my time as
much as it's needed to help them meet this end, which I think would be
a great service on this land.
Only concern we have is we don't want traffic through Positano.
We have enough problems. We'd like a wall on that north side to
eliminate lights in people's units, et cetera, because we have plenty to
sell and plenty of our own problems, and we don't want them to
encourage any more than we already have.
Other than that, I think the basic use of the property, I agree with
Mr. Wolfley that on the back side we'd like to see no residents back in
-- I can't imagine that can help anything right now. And I think it's
going to be a long time in the future before it's going to help anything.
But we are certainly 100 percent supportive of the church school
type things. And I would personally volunteer lots of time and they
know that.
So we just want to make sure that you could do anything to help
us be able to secure what we set out to do in Positano from the
beginning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the ALF, are you in
favor of that use on the back portion of the property? The assisted
living?
MR. COX: I talked to Mr. Murrell, who's on their board of
Page 27
September 18,2008
directors, I believe, and also an attorney. I would like to see the church
school go so well that they didn't have to use that. I know these times
are difficult. And doing a lot of fundraising for Ave Maria, I know it's
difficult. The stock market hasn't been too kind to us lately and looks
like it's going to be a while before that rebounds.
But we would prefer them to be school and church on the entire
piece of property. But I understand that if the church and school
couldn't go without some additional funding from the back side, as
long as it serves the needs, what we call community needs, which I
think this would be, as opposed to an apartment complex or something
like that, we would go along with that, if that's what they had to do.
But we would certainly prefer it to be 100 percent school/church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have one.
You've heard our discussion on the outdoor recreational uses. Do
you have any issues or concerns there?
MR. COX: If what he says is correct -- I'd like to have them
define it just a little bit better. Because building YMCA's, it's
relatively easy to define.
If they're not going to build anything and are told you can never
build any permanent fields, I think it would likely never become a
problem. But once you talk about fields, you usually talk about lights,
and then you have all those related problems.
So if they prohibit the building of any field in the future, where
it's just going to be we're going to mow the grass and use whatsever
there, I think that would be -- and we would trust that because of the
mission they have at hand that they would be conscious of the
neighborhood next to them on the north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll discuss that with the
applicant. Thank you.
MR. COX: Thank you.
Page 28
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Any other speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Michael Cox -- that was --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Scott Mello.
MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Scott Mello.
MR. MELLO: Good morning, Commissioners. Scott Mello,
Positano Place.
I just -- without going into everything I said at the last meeting, I
just wanted to reiterate the safety of the wall that's going to be going
on the north side between the church and Positano.
And I'd also -- like Mr. Wolfley had said, the 74 units, I mean,
the Positano people are definitely in favor of helping other people in
assisted living. The one thing that we are totally against is the 74 units,
the commercial that could probably bring more traffic into Livingston
and then probably more foreclosures and bankruptcies into our county.
But we're also definitely against the interconnection there
because we are a gated community and we pay a lot of money to keep
us gated, and with the repairs and everything else.
Now, if we're going to go gated in the back, then that's definitely
a whole lot of money that would have to be brought to Positano to see
if there was a way that traffic could get a road back there. But I don't
see how it's possible unless they came down the side of the north wall
that would be built.
But I know our members are definitely -- they purchased units in
there for 200, $300,000, and they purchased into a gated, private
community. So that's one thing that we would definitely not want to
see.
And as far as the wall, with the activities going on till 9:00 and
the parking areas that the church is going to need, we do have four
buildings that face that property directly, so the parking issue of
Page 29
September 18,2008
people coming in and out with trucks and cars, those lights are
definitely going to affect our residents. We're only a three-story
mid-rise condominium.
So that's one thing that that's going to affect about 88 units out of
330. So that may be a big issue for them.
But like I said earlier, we are in favor. And it shows on the
minutes as far as the safety of the wall. If we just put up a chainlink or
a bush, we're going to have kids from the church or from the school, if
they ever come in, walking back and forth. We do have a small
playground so there might be kids that want to use our playground
while they're trying to -- their parents are at church or anything else.
So without blocking up the difference between those two
properties, we're definitely going to have trespass issues and things
like that. And we also don't want our people to have to trespass on
their property either. So we just want to keep them separated.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, are there any other public speakers on this matter?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have a moment? I
know you do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you know something I don't know?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You heard some of the comments. What
do you think about dropping the 74 multi-family units?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'd like to address them collectively
instead of individually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will address them
individually, also --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but I mean, I'd like to -- what I'd
like to -- first of all, that's obviously our master plan imposed on an
aerial of what exists today.
As you -- there's already a fence on Positano Place's property. I
Page 30
September 18, 2008
believe the gentleman who just spoke confirmed that at our last
meeting.
If the issue really is light from the cars that will be utilizing the
church facilities, we are required to do the buffer, a hedge that's got to
get to five or six feet tall, I believe, with 80 percent opacity in the first
year.
We would be willing to enhance the county's required buffer by
doubling the number of trees from what's required so that would
provide also an additional site line buffer related to the two uses.
Honestly, if you go throughout the county, including the city
boundaries, I think you rarely will see churches walling themselves
away from single-family residential communities.
I'm just a little surprised that we've gotten to this level of
concern about people going to church will somehow negatively impact
property values, when you kind of rarely find that.
Growing up, we had churches in our neighborhood and we
frankly did use the church facilities to play basketball and other
things. So we don't really see the security issue as the issue, but that's
already being addressed by their own chain link fence. We can address
through enhanced landscaping, you know, the concern that they'll see
car lights.
But if you look at the layout, they've got their buffer, it would be
our buffer with the additional trees, and they have their own cars that
are driving by the entrances to those buildings. So we would like to
rather, instead of doing a wall, we would rather do the enhanced extra
trees that I discussed.
Now, regarding the single -- the residential, I would propose a
compromise. Instead of listing it is a permitted use, we list it as a
conditional use, which would mean we have to come back through the
process when we have specific plans as to what will be on that site.
The zoning level decision, yes, it would be appropriate under
certain circumstances would be addressed today. We'll come back
Page 3 1
September 18, 2008
with those specifics later through the conditional use process. It will
come not only to the planning commission but also have to go to the
Board of County Commissioners with the same public input process
we go through now.
So shift that from a permitted use to a conditional use. And I
think that serves two purposes. I don't want -- we want to have the
flexibility under appropriate circumstances to have residential back
there. And if we can convince this commission to recommend to the
Board of County Commissioners that the specific layout that we'd
bring to you with the conditional use is appropriate, then we hope we
can have that approved. Leave the ALF in as a permitted use.
We're just looking for -- you know, who can predict down the
road what can happen? We think probably the ALF is the better
alternative, but you just never know.
If it's giving people a heartache to permit residential right now,
make us go through another hearing process with a specific site plan
related to that, and hopefully that will address not only the neighbors'
concerns but any concerns of anybody on the planning commission
that that mayor may not be an appropriate use.
So I hope globally that addresses both of those concerns that we
heard from the residential users to the north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So how does that affect your
development standards table and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll have to make the necessary
adjustments to take out the reference to residential. And I understand
we'll make those changes and come back hopefully later on in this
meeting so we can keep our schedule for the board.
But we would do that, and then we would put in writing the
enhanced trees obviously would be needed to be added to the
development commitments.
But we hope that that appropriately addresses both concerns
Page 32
September 18, 2008
raised by the previous speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, it doesn't. I don't think it's a
compatible use in the area. That's all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You don't think residential under any
circumstances is compatible with residential?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not a townhome situation, no.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it says up to. We could come back
with something very different than that. We're asking for the ability to
come to you later on with a specific plan.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just think that should the
ACLF be put in ultimately, I feel not only is it a great benefit to the
church, but for volunteerism standpoints, it's a great opportunity for
the ACLF, from the church parishion -- the people who attend the
church.
It's just too big of an opportunity for the community. An ACLF
is certainly needed. It's an aging community.
And then, you know, I don't know where you grew up, about the
lights and everything. I grew up in a smaller community too, but it
wasn't N ap1es. Naples seems to be a little bit different in its
restrictions.
But my opinion still stays, and I'm just negatively impacted by
the 74-unit multi-family on the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question's going to relate to
mechanism more than anything else, because I want to be absolutely
sure I understand.
I heard what you said and I understood what you said in terms of
what you'd like to do.
What would we be voting on now? We don't have a mechanism,
words that describe how it would be subject to a conditional use.
If you go forward with a permitted use of the ALF, where would
Page 33
September 18, 2008
you insert -- how would you demonstrate that later on you'd be subject
to conditional use? What means would you use?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would add a third category in the list
of uses. Right now we have permitted and accessory uses. We would
add a third category called conditional uses, and it would be the
residential. And the Land Development Code already describes what
the process is, is to get an approved -- to get a conditional use
approved, we'd follow the LDC provisions on how to get the
conditional use approved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that qualify? Does that --
Ray, does that -- we don't have any implications for change on that as
a result of it coming forward under a certain way?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Well, unusual to have a conditional use listed in a PUD. It has
been done before.
Basically what we're saying is just like a standard zoning
district, there are uses permitted by right and those uses that can be
deemed appropriate subject to review and approval in certain
conditions of approval through the conditional use process.
I think what the petitioner is trying to do is get to a point where
the overall concept is approved through the approval of the PUD. But
the specifics concerning any of those conditional uses would come
back separately and go through the public hearing process.
I think one of the reasons this is an attractive for the applicant is
they don't have to amend the PUD to address market changes in the
future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, isn't the process of conditional use
to determine compatibility?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what the objections are that are being
expressed by some people is that this may not be compatible. And
what they're saying is okay, we're going to prove to you it is through a
Page 34
September 18, 2008
conditional use process. And if we can't, then obviously they won't be
given the right to go forward with a conditional use.
And that process they would have to go through is designing a
project with appropriate buffers, with appropriate restrictions, showing
anything that has to apply to prove compatibility. They have to take it
to a neighborhood informational meeting, to the people next door and
everybody around, come back through the planning commission and
come back through the BCC.
So they're going back through the whole process, almost like
they are right now --
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for a conditional use.
Mr. Midney then Ms. Caron. Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
MR. MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to have them have the option to be
able to develop the housing. The ACLF is, you know, housing for
older people. The multi-family would be housing for young couples
with children. And it's hard for me to make a case that, you know, one
type of housing is more needed than the other.
I mean, people -- that's a very vulnerable age, you know, people
trying to start out. I don't see how it would necessarily be inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think the conditional use is
actually a terrific idea, because right now the way this project is set
up, it's sort of church as speculator. And that we don't want.
If you bring back the residential as a conditional use, then A,
we'll see something other than a blank piece of ground. You would
have to have an actual plan that would show you what their -- they
want to put there. And I think we'd be a lot further along in the process
as to whether it was a compatible thing or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, we are going to walk
Page 35
September 18, 2008
through the various stipulations one at a time, so we probably need
your input on those. But I have another question to ask you.
This church, do you have any objection to limiting the use of the
church to their congregation for services?
We have an issue that's come up especially in Golden Gate
Estates, especially with the Jehovah's Witnesses that just got --
unfortunately went through the courts and they got some right to go
forward there, negotiated.
And they use their church continuously for outside
congregations who drive in, and it becomes a more or less commercial
meeting place.
I'm sure that with the TIS I've seen attached to this document,
that isn't anticipated by the traffic generation shown on that TIS. So
I'm assuming then that you have no problem with a restriction limiting
it to their congregation for services.
Do you have any issues with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, honestly, I've not even given that
any thought. And I don't know that we have.
The issue, Mr. Strain, is -- I mean, I -- I think that's government
going frankly a little bit too far in regulating church. I mean, we're
asking for a church use.
Are you saying that if the Church of Christ decides to move to
another location in Collier County a Presbyterian church couldn't
come in at that point? Are you saying that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think you're saying that, but are
you -- so what you're saying is that if they have church services at "X"
hour on a Sunday, let's say 10:00 a.m. and at noon they want to allow
another church to have a church service on a Sunday at noon, they
would no longer be allowed to do that?
Let me give you an example --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying a lot of questions but not
Page 36
September 18, 2008
allowing an answer in between. You can keep rambling, but
eventually I got to have an opportunity to respond to your question --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. Let me just give you an
example, okay, and I'm asking you if this is what you're trying to get
to.
My church, Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, we have three
services during the season, and then we also allow another church,
smaller church, to use our facilities to have their worship service.
Are you trying to prohibit that situation? That's what I'm trying
to understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A church is in my eyes not a
commercial enterprise. Now, they may act that way, but I don't
believe they are. I don't believe they put themselves forth as being a
commercial enterprise.
They want a church so their parishioners can enjoy a place of
worship. I'm all in favor of that, I think that's great. And if they want
to do that as often as they want to go to church, that's fine.
What I have a problem is where they see a need to let other
groups come in. I don't mean -- I mean groups like other churches
come in and use the facility that generate more use of the facility that
wasn't anticipated, either by the neighborhood or by the traffic TIS
that you submitted.
Now, if -- I can get transportation to comment on that, but when
I see a TIS that shows a peak hour on a Sunday for a particular use in
a church, it doesn't mean that it's going to go beyond that point to
other continuous operation like some other churches have gotten into.
Either they're a church for their parishioners or they're a commercial
enterprise on more of like an establishment that wants to open their
doors on a fee basis or however they do it for others to use.
I'm not sure what this is, and I'm asking for it to be defined.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't -- I don't think that a church
-- first of all, this is not an easy process to go through, and it's not an
Page 37
September 18, 2008
inexpensive process to go through to get a church approved.
If there are other smaller churches out there that can serve the
community differently than this particular church does in how they
worship or how they -- whatever, why would we not want to give that
church an opportunity to use an existing church facility to further the
overall mission? Because there are a lot of different denominations out
there, there are a lot of different faiths out there.
This is a house of worship, okay. It doesn't -- why can't another
group -- why couldn't Presbyterians and Baptists share the same
building is what I'm suggesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have -- and I'm not saying they
can't. But I'm saying if that's what your intention is, I want it clearly
known. I want the neighborhood to know that you're not going to be
just there on Sundays, you could be there to whatever hours now
you're opening it up to. And I want transportation to acknowledge it
doesn't change the TIS.
Because in looking at the TIS, it seems it's only Sunday that you
show an activity that's going to generate a peak hour. Now, if that's
going to happen at other times during the week, I certainly think this
community needs to know it and I think the neighbors would like to
know it too.
And that also then falls into other things like a wall. And maybe
there is a wall more needed now if you're going beyond the normal
Sunday services where you're going to have people driving in, in the
evenings for additional congregational meetings of any kind.
So it opens up a lot of questions. And if that's what your
intentions are, we just need to know it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we ever contemplated not
allowing other churches to use the facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you have to use the mic.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. My client is telling me they
presently have a Spanish speaking church using their facilities as --
Page 38
September 18,2008
without rent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, yeah, I was going to -- I
can't remember, I failed to bring my old paperwork. Was there an
hours of operation that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- that was listed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I didn't think so. Now didn't we
get into that with the church off Immokalee Road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've gotten into it many times with
many churches. We've gotten into the same subject many times with
many churches.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. I mean, why do we
have to keep going over it and we don't see it listed on the new ones?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we didn't ask we wouldn't be
going over it. That's why I'm bringing it up. I think it needs to be
fleshed out and we need to talk about it.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's exactly where I want
to go with it.
The question is, and I tend to favor your -- and I also understand
what Mark is doing.
The complaint that was about that one particular organization
was they had many congregations and they would come and they
would be there till 9:00, 10:00, 11 :00 at night --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Seven days a week.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and the whole bit with noise,
cars, lights, the whole thing.
We may be able to settle this matter. What's the latest in the
evening at any given day that this church will operate officially in its
Page 39
September 18,2008
services? And maybe we can put a time on it that makes sense.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we leave -- I don't think I can get
that answered for you by standing at the podium. Can we give me a
few minutes to discuss that issue and any other issues that may come
up?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. I'd like to have transportation
come up anyway. So whoever wants to address this issue from
transportation, I'd certainly appreciate comments.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, with Transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, have you seen the TIS for this
project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on the TIS, when did you
anticipate traffic being utilized on this site to the maximum extent that
the site is being designed for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the purposes of the church, it's
Sunday morning traffic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the traffic were to change and go
beyond that by the use of other congregations in different hours of the
days of the week or whatever, would that have any change to your
concerns over traffic?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they were to provide impacts
between the peak hours, we count traffic where those impacts would
be, you know, reviewed to get background traffic, it would.
So if they did church service between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. during
the week day where we have concurrency, we have not reviewed that
for impacts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they did it any other hour, it doesn't
bother you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not the way our concurrency
system in Policy 5.1 reviews traffic impacts.
Page 40
September 18, 2008
The only other issue would be I guess is that even without seeing
the traffic impact statement with the submittal that was submitted the
first time, there's still sufficient capacity on Livingston Road through
the review of GMP 5.1 to accommodate the church in the p.m. peak
hour. That section of roadway does have capacity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And mark, I'm not really having
that much trouble with the mixed use of it. One of the green concepts
we look at in buildings is multi use of buildings, better use of
resources.
The last growth management bill by the state asked us to look at
efficiency as one of our parameters, and I think this is a good example
of it.
If this would prevent another church from being built essentially,
it would be good on the green side of the line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would you like me to read what
we stipulated for the Naples Baptist Church, just to refresh
everybody's memory?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It says, the uses shall be limited to
church services in a parsonage. In this case -- in that case day care was
prohibited. We're talking something different here.
The church services shall be limited to Sunday, Wednesday
evenings, religious holidays and a maximum of 20 special events per
year.
Bible study shall be excluded from this limitation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm uncomfortable with getting
too restrictive. I think the church needs some flexibility. And as Brad
Page 41
September 18, 2008
said, we want to try and maximize each piece of property we have.
And I don't think the church is going to cause a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Wolfley, then
Ms. Caron.
MR. MIDNEY: I'd kind of like to echo that. I know in
Immokalee we have a problem with churches not able to find
buildings. And it's, you know, fairly common for one church to use
another church just because it is expensive, you know, to get a church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly, I feel the same way.
But gosh darn it, disclose it, you know, to traffic and to everybody
else what the intentions are.
If you're going to use it seven days a week, then say it. That's all.
Or if you're going to use it four days a week or three days a week. If
you're going to have operations between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., just
disclose it so that we can make sure that everybody's on board. That's
all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, we're not hiding anything. I
mean, I think the implication that we didn't disclose. Churches, I
would bet you that quite a number of churches do allow other faiths to
use their facilities and that churches don't only operate Sunday
mornIng.
You know, churches do have sometimes evening services. Do
you have -- you know, the problem is what do you call a service? If
we have a church dinner and we open it up with prayer, and the
minister decides to talk 10 minutes about whatever the topic, do I now
have a worship service that occurred on a Tuesday night and have I
now violated the PUD law?
It becomes very complicated to define what is or is not a
worship service. I don't know what the North Baptist Church agreed to
and I don't think it's relevant. If they wanted to agree to it, that's fine.
Are you now telling me that the Boy Scouts can't have troop meetings
Page 42
September 18, 2008
except on certain days of the week? We can't have Girl Scout
meetings there? You know, we can't have other things--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before you go off, I said
outside congregations. Boy Scouts aren't a religious congregation. Girl
Scouts aren't a religious congregation. My comment was outside
congregations.
Now, I don't know if anybody else is questioning any different
than that, but that's all I questioned. So if you still want to talk about
Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, go right ahead, but that's not an issue --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Other outside congregations is common.
It happens. I don't think it's a problem. I'm sorry if there's a church that
has created a problem in the past, but I don't think that we should start
regulating everybody for the worst case scenario.
There are noise ordinances, and if they are creating problems,
we need to address it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a 1,000-page LDC that's
changed multiple times a year to regulate to the worst case scenario,
just so you know.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to comment
that there is no limitation on Sunday. I mean, they can run a service
every hour on Sunday, according to what we approved for the Naples
Baptist Church. There's absolutely no limitation. And it doesn't limit
who can be in that congregation either. So I don't think it's quite as
restrictive as you like to make it out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm just asking how restrictive do
you want to make it be.
And don't forget, there has been a traffic analysis done for a
school and day care during the week.
So that analysis -- there has been an impact analysis of what will
happen during the week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman from Positano Place,
Page 43
September 18, 2008
would you mind coming up to the microphone and letting me ask you
one question?
Since you represent the project next door that would be most
affected by this, I know you went through neighborhood information
meetings where you asked a lot of questions, and you heard this
meeting, and I know you and your representative at least were at the
last meeting.
This additional use that could go on here, this unlimited use, if
they wanted to bring in other congregations, does that pose any
concern to your organization?
MR. COX: Well, having built YMCA's all around the country,
one of the things we would always have to face is we might do Red
Cross training on a given night. We always had to make sure that we
protected the neighborhood.
We want a wall across the north side and we want them to say
they're going to do it and we want you to make them do it. That's what
we think ought to happen.
And then we think we can live -- if they do it normally, it's not
uncommon for a church to get $50 a week for the Scouts to meet to
help pay for the cleanup of the church and things. We were not
opposed to that, as long as they'll be willing to say, you know, maybe
give us some -- I think what you're trying to do is to say you've left it
kind of wide, could you narrow it down just a little bit for us. And we
would feel the same thing.
But the biggest concern we have other than the wall is we don't
want anybody coming through Positano. And I want them to say, I
would like them to take out any single family, and I'd like them to say
that we're never going to ever try to get into Positano.
We have our own problems. We've talked about that at the
neighborhood meeting. We want that specifically. And I'd like him to
stand up here and say we're going to take our traffic in and out on our
own and we're going to put a wall up on the north side.
Page 44
September 18, 2008
And I believe that if they follow the Lord's blessing, that they
will in fact use the church in the right ways. And I am for them with
other not-for-profits, especially not-for-profits. I would be opposed to
for-profits coming in here for them to do anything that helps them pay
for their building. But when it comes to the Red Cross, the YMCA,
Hospice meetings, anything like that, we would be 100 percent for
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate
it.
Anybody else?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Richard, did you want
to have any rebuttal or do you consider what you just did enough?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I just wanted to make it clear,
because this gentleman wasn't here at the last meeting. We have never
asked for that interconnection. We did specifically say at the last
meeting we don't want that interconnection. I believe the planning
commission probably -- I think the planning commission agrees with
that. It was always a staff generated item.
If the planning commission agrees with us, it would come off.
So that's never been something we've been asking for. And I did at the
last meeting, but you weren't here. I just want to make sure you knew
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just one final question. You
and I talked, Mr. Y ovanovich, about the word cumulative in your
PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I did, I forgot to ask the question.
When we say cumulative, we meant 150 students cumulative in all
students, and not each grade.
So it's total students who are pre- K. It's not -- it couldn't get to
the 1,500 number we talked about, yes.
Page 45
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's get specific on what's being
changed on Page 2 --
COMMISSIONER CARON: 150 student total enrollment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up on the third line on the top.
Instead of the word cumulative, it would be 150 student total
enrollment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: For all those grades.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, is that all you need to
say?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that all I need to say?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you'd like to say more, but have
you said enough?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you want to know
what he'd like to say.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I -- this is the family hour.
Let me put -- we would like to have a unanimous
recommendation out of the planning commission for obvious reasons.
It saves money on the next level of hearings, hopefully.
If the residential as a conditional use is not going to get us the
unanimous vote, then we'll drop the residential. We'll keep the ALF.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And you're referring to other
than the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you want to speak, sir?
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I apologize.
And in my comments, I only meant the 74 units. If the two
single- family homes would be used by the pastor or something or staff
of the church, I don't have a problem with that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what I meant. Because that's
where I -- I thought that -- it would be number one as the --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd hate --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- principal use would go away.
Page 46
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- seeing those two homes get
tom down. That would just be a travesty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They should be lifted up and moved and
resold or something like that, yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can't tear them down. They're built
too well.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Gotta be moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aren't they historical
monuments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They probably are. They probably are.
So that would eliminate number one.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So just need to be clear here.
You are saying the ACLF only, if you decide to go that way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir, the ALF would stay in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But David, let me say something to you.
This property was originally I understand going to be part of a
residential community. It's surrounded by residential. There's no
reason residential couldn't work here.
The only concern is, is how would it affect the neighboring
property. They actually could benefit from a well done residential
project. The proof in that would be the process of a conditional use
that the applicant's offering.
The neighboring property owners would have a huge say in what
happens there simply by their attendance of these meetings, the
neighborhood information meeting. And they may find out that it
actually benefits them to have something other than a non-residential
here because it may increase property values, depending if the need in
time forward is there.
I'm not saying we should give it to them today, but I think the
reasonableness of a conditional use really provides the opportunity to
scrutinize it and make sure if it is something workable to the people to
the north, they have an absolute say in it, they will be attending -- they
Page 47
September 18, 2008
could attend all the meetings, they would have neighborhood
informational meetings to be involved with.
So to me, under those conditions I think that's a way to go. But
I'm just one.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And they're at a hearing, and
what would the other hearing -- the next hearing, the conditional use
hearing could go the same as this. It was meant to be residential, so
just -- matter of fact, double the size of the townhome. I mean, you
know, so, anyway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I'm sorry, I didn't
understand -- what are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I would think that the
conditional use would go the same way as this is going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand. This is a use for a
church.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. And that's the
way I was trying to leave it, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a PUD, though. I mean, a
conditional use is a three-step process for public hearings but -- okay.
Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I can't see them actually coming back for a
conditional use. I think this will wind up being an ALF.
But if you do want the possibility of some day doing residential,
then leave it as a conditional use. You have to come back through the
process, we have another bite at the apple, and you have to start this
whole process again. So I think the conditional use is a great idea and
I can't see restricting the hours of the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the school became very
successful, you could blend it into this site, correct? You could use
Page 48
September 18, 2008
this site to build a better school?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually, we -- no, we could only
use it for parking, water management and recreational uses in support
of the school.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you could never move
the school over around to it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not the way it's currently structured.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before we close the
public hearing?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you finish?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
With that we'll close the public hearing. Oh, well, before we do
that, I just remembered a couple of things.
Number one, there are some changes here. Depending on how
this comes out most likely, you'll need to come back this afternoon
with some new language so you haven't got to go on consent. So we
need to establish that.
Nancy, I don't remember from last time, did you do a
presentation last time?
MS. GUNDLACH: I did, but I have some -- excuse me.
I'm Nancy Gundlach, for the record, Principal Planner with
Zoning and Land Development Review.
And I do have some comments based on the revised PUD
document that was submitted last week that's before you. There are
some changes that I'd like to bring to your attention.
One is that, if we turn over to the deviation page, it's the second
to last page, Exhibit E. There's a change in the deviation. We had a
25-foot wide Type B buffer. It's now down to a IO-foot wide Type A
buffer. And staff is not in support of that. It's a far less buffer, it's
Page 49
September 18, 2008
basically IO feet wide with trees 30 feet on center.
And the issue is buffering incompatible land uses, not who owns
the property.
Also, I'd like to invite environmental to come up and speak to
you regarding -- there's some language under Exhibit A, under the
preserves, which is not consistent with the GMP. So I wanted to bring
that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nancy, let's go one at a time.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This language that is -- that you're
bringing up, let's talk about it first. You're saying the red language in
here -- we have something that was given to us. What you're
proposing is different than what was given to us or part of -- it looks
about the same.
MS. GUNDLACH: What was given to you is the same. That just
shows -- the red language shows where the change took place between
the document that you reviewed at the first CCPC meeting on
September 4th and the document that we are -- that's before us today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're objecting to that language.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What it said last time was that it
would be an alternative Type B buffer to allow a 25- foot Type B
buffer. And now it is saying Type B buffer to allow a 10-foot.
So somewhere along the line they've managed to -- we've
managed to lose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but could you put the site plan
back on. Because isn't this the piece between the --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between the CFR and the CF?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as long as they own and
Page 50
September 18, 2008
control the CFR and the CF, why do we even need a buffer for to
begin with?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, if they develop the -- if they own the
back tract, if they develop it with residential, the purpose of the
minimum landscape buffering is to buffer between incompatible uses
such as an ACLF, a multi-family residential project, and a church and
school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they own it and they've got to
develop it and they got to sell it and utilize it as an ACLF that's viable
and a -- or if they were to get a conditional use, if that's the way this
board goes for the multi-family, wouldn't they have to do whatever
they got to do to make it compatible so that people would buy there?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, they're asking for permission not to
meet the minimum code requirement, which makes it compatible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What makes it compatible, the
minimum code requirement?
MS. GUNDLACH: Those are some graphics from a minimum
code presentation that I did a couple of years ago.
Can you show both images, Ray.
The image at the bottom is a I 0- foot wide buffer. And what we'd
be receiving between the church and the back tract would just be a
10-foot wide buffer with trees 30 feet on center. That's the current
language that's proposed.
The minimum code requirement is a 25-foot-wide buffer, and it
looks more similar to the image at the top which shows a double row
of trees and a hedge. That's the difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the language that's proposed
would only happen if the church owned and developed both
properties, right? Based on the language that they've inserted?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. And they could be different uses.
Page 51
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But they own them both, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Are you saying you want this buffer no
matter what they do with that piece next door, or only if they do
develop the piece?
MS. GUNDLACH: It only -- the buffer would only come in if
they develop the piece.
MR. BELLOWS: As residential.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: As residential?
MR. BELLOWS: We don't care if it's another CF use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then wouldn't that be an issue
we would discuss then during -- if any conditional use, if that's how
this --
MR. BELLOWS: That's true, if you go that route. This was prior
to that CU discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So deviation number two is not needed
unless we put the alternative conditional use -- unless they proceed
with the alternative conditional use.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for all intents and purposes, we're
probably going to do one of either two things: We're either going to
eliminate the multi-family or we're going to put it through a
conditional use. In either regard, deviation number two then is
irrelevant.
Is that a fair statement?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's fair.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's just eliminate deviation
number two.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me ask this question first,
because you may be right.
Page 52
September 18, 2008
We kept the ability to do an assisted living facility, okay? Is an
assisted living facility considered residential for purposes of buffering
between uses?
Because what we want -- I want to make sure it's clear, because
if we own the -- everything and we decide to build a church-related
assisted living facility, we say we shouldn't have to have the buffer
between us, it's related to the church, we think they're compatible uses,
we're owning it, we're operating it, or one of our affiliates is owning
and operating it. That's when our deviation would apply.
If we sold it to a third-party developer of an assisted living
facility, the language says the code-required buffer would apply.
So 'what we were trying to say is if we decided as a church to do
an assisted living facility, we think this minimum buffer is all we
really need, it's integrated into the church, we don't see them as
incompatible uses. And it all comes down to how do you define an
assisted living facility.
And I think it kind of goes both ways, and I think that's
appropriate, because it is, it's kind of quasi-institutional,
quasi-residential under the code. So I just want to -- that's why I don't
necessarily want to get rid of that language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron, then Mr.
Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Yovanovich is right, I
think we need to keep two in there so that if it's not part of a church
facility, whatever gets developed back there, then they are required to
meet the code.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I just don't have a problem with that. The ALF is basically a
community facility use.
I think our concern was if it's developed residential, we would
like that. As long as it's clear in that regard, and we can address that if
we go through the conditional use route at that time.
Page 53
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Yovanovich, question
having to do with the development overall where that boundary line
would be. Will the surface area be -- once developed, will the surface
area be pervious or impervious along that line where the buffer is
being questioned? Abutting on either side.
In other words, would one be able to distinguish a buffer,
obviously through the trees, but you would have grass surrounding the
area, or do you have -- Nancy put up there an illustration of
impervious on both sides and a buffer. Is that the way that it's going to
look when you folks finish?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I doubt on the ALF side that they'll be
immediately adjacent. I don't think you'll have that situation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so either.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we do have some parking on the
rear of the CF piece --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would have parking --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and there would be grass and then you
would go into the assisted living facility parcel.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the church side. And using
Nancy's illustration that's on here, let's make believe the one on the
left is where the church side is. Is that what you perceive, you would
have that type of parking, impervious parking all the way up to that
point?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might jump in, I'm Wayne Arnold, trying to
address that.
I think what we're -- part of the issue, and Rich addressed this
last meeting, the question was whether or not we needed a buffer
today. We're in for site plan approval for the church. Staff had
requested a landscape buffer between the church and the vacant CF
and R tract.
And the question was, did we really need it? We didn't think we
Page 54
September 18,2008
did. We came back and adjusted the deviation to try to address that
situation that we heard the planning commission discuss. That was
really that of ownership.
I can't tell you today, Mr. Murray, what that will look like. I just
know in our site plan right now that we've designed that's in for
review, we have along the back of the church building a drive isle and
some parking. It terminates at roughly the boundary you see there
between the two tracts. And what's there and remaining are the two
single- family homes, lawn area and vegetation.
So there's not a discernible planted 10-foot-wide buffer that we
would necessarily need under today's scenario.
If we came back in with an assisted living facility, I think there
would be some complementary landscaping. I just don't know that it
needs to necessarily be 25 feet wide or any, depending on how we
rearrange the site and how we make it function with the church.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. I guess what I
was hearing ultimately boiling down to is a question of whether or not
it's a third-party ALF versus the church. Perhaps that can be a
stipulation in here.
Because I agree, I don't know that the issue of a boundary
immediately --
MR. ARNOLD: And I think one of the things that I was just
mentioning to Rich, maybe that deviation needs to be restructured so
that there is no buffer required between the tracts unless it's developed
by a third party, if that's the direction we're headed. And I can come
back, and we've got the computer, we can address some language with
you as we come back.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to get this one moved to a
point where we can leave it by break so the applicant can start
working on a rewrite for this afternoon.
Page 55
September 18,2008
Nancy, did you have any more you wanted to --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I just wanted to remind you that staff is
not supporting deviation number three, which has to do with the walls.
And the deviation basically eliminates all the walls that are
required on this property to buffer it from the adjacent residential
properties.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but is there a concern in the
wall being eliminated from the eastern and southern boundary?
MS. GUNDLACH: There is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By who?
MS. GUNDLACH: As I described last time when I was out at
the Balmoral site, which is the development to the south, all the
houses along the south property line are built. And you can see right
through from their front yards all the way to Positano Place. So
certainly there is going to be a view of the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the representatives of
Balmoral please come up to the speaker.
Nancy, were they given public notification of to day's meeting?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else you have?
MS. GUNDLACH: Just I'd like to invite environmental up. They
need to clarify some language about open space that is not consistent
with the Growth Management Plan.
MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason,
with Engineering and Environmental Services Review.
I did just briefly speak also with Wayne Arnold on this, and I
believe what you can confirm with him, that when I explained our
concerns that they could agree with them.
It's what I had mentioned at the last meeting, that even with the
changes it just needs to be clear that any of the uses that they're
proposing in the preserves shall not impact the minimum required
vegetation. That's required by both Growth Management Plan
Page 56
September 18, 2008
language and the LDC.
And also, requested that they remove open space activity, since
that's not consistent with preserve uses. It can include things like
lawns, courtyards, atriums, things like that. And I believe they don't
have a problem with taking out open space activity and clarifying that
the -- any uses won't impact the minimum required vegetation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us where the open
space activity language is, please?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if I might -- Wayne Arnold -- jump
In.
It appears under revised -- under the preserve tract language on
Page 4, under item now number two, was previously number three.
And then again under accessory uses under number three.
Those are both set up so that it refers back to some standard
language as approved by the BZA.
And I think that Susan's concern was the reference to related
open space activity, rather than just any other conservation use,
because of concern that we might try to turn this into yards or
something.
I don't think that's an issue for us. If that addresses her concerns,
I think we can delete that language. We're only getting any of this if
we go back to the board anyway, so it could very well be a moot
point. But nonetheless, if that's the issue.
And then her second point was if you look at the accessory use
language that was revised, under the first one that mentions
boardwalks there's a phrase at the end that says, as long as any
clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum
required native vegetation.
I think in my discussion with Susan, she would like that
language moved so that it applies to all principal and accessory uses,
so that it's not just under that one. And I don't have a problem with
that.
Page 57
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, did you bring your
computer with you --
MR. ARNOLD: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or somehow you're going to be doing
all this?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because as you do it, could you do a--
MR. ARNOLD: Strikethrough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, strikethrough version so we can
see the changes. And that way it will certainly help out.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, I just have one more piece
of information that I need to share with you.
I did receive a phone call from a resident of Positano Place, and
they left a voice mail message that they were opposed to this project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the name of that person?
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't recall the name of that person.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We've heard public speakers, so now
we'll close the public hearing and we'll talk about the motion first and
then take a vote on it.
I'll read my list and I certainly would appreciate the planning
commission members to discuss, and we'll take a consensus before we
go to vote.
Number one is the staff recommendation that the playground be
removed -- yeah, the staff recommendation for the playground, that
that be removed. Does anybody have a problem with that?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: No, it should be out.
Page 58
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, remove the
interconnection. Does anybody have a problem with that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, we don't want it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, here's the fun one. This is
the one where there shall be a 200 ACLF unit or 74 multi-family units.
There will not be a mixture of the two. The issue of course is whether
the 74 multi-family units should be listed as a CU or struck altogether.
Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I believe we should do it as a conditional use.
This gives us all the preventative we need. And as I said, we get
another bite at the apple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I echo Mr. Vigliotti's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my point was when I first
saw this, this would be a good site for affordable housing, but I do
think the conditional use process should be involved with that, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
MR. MIDNEY: Agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'd just like to ask one thing, I don't know if
it's appropriate now. But the wall that we're talking about, if we decide
we need it at the conditional use, we can require it then, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Require it any time you want, yeah.
We're going to discuss the wall specifically when we -- yeah,
certainly.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm going to remain the
contrarian then regarding the 74-unit multi-family.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly don't see the need to
strike it. I think a conditional use is more than adequate. It's
unfortunate, Mr. Wolfley, if you're going to force us into --
Page 59
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm not forcing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, you are, because the
applicant's going to want to do it that way.
I don't understand your reasoning. This is a residentially zoned
area in the first place. It's in the urban area. It was residential at one
time in the past. And the conditional use provides everybody with
equal protection that they have here today. But obviously you've got
your mind made up and we'll just move forward.
Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Wolfley, after today they have no rights
to build it. When they leave here today, if we do a conditional use they
have no rights, they can't build it.
If they so decide down the road they might want it, well, they've
got to start all over again. And by all means they have to come before
us.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree that -- and I'm totally in
favor of the property without 74 units. That's all.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, they're not getting them.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Huh?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: They're not getting the 74 units.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The wall between the CF tract
and the CFR tract shall only be required if there's a non-related land
use. And we've just talked about the language that would kick in if it
was sold to another entity.
Does anybody have any problem with that issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number five, provide a list of
principal outdoor recreational facilities. I think that's been vetted.
Does anybody have any more concerns?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should it be as they wanted it, as
what's not going to be applicable?
Page 60
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we've discussed, you know,
what they provided, right --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the way --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you want to suggest something
else, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I wanted to be clear. I just
want to be clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, Exhibit F, list of developer
commitments, Item 2(A), environmental. Remove first two sentences
and keep the last sentence.
I'm not sure what that is, so let's try to find out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we did that on the draft you saw.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's been done in that prior one?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number seven, Exhibit A,
permitted uses, preserve tract. Add a sentence that the land use cannot
be reduced to overall acreage. We've heard that agreed to.
And remove the open space activity. We heard that agreed to.
Anybody have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number eight, a wall is required along
the north property line. Staffs deviation, or the requested deviation by
the applicant removes the wall from the north, eastern and southern
boundaries. This would put it back in on the north property line.
Does anybody have any issues with that?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'm not so sure they need
it unless they do either an ALF or the 74 units. I don't -- can't see why
they would do it now. There's no activity there at all.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, they're removing it from
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have a comment?
Page 61
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just saying, didn't they
say that it was not necessary on the south, east and -- east, I think you
said?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the deviation's requesting that
there not be a wall on the north, east and southern boundaries.
The discussion last time was to leave it omitted from the east and
southern but require it on the northern because the people from
Positano Place have come in and expressed a concern.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a problem with
leaving it in on the north?
Mr. Vigliotti just expressed a concern about the area involving
the multi-family and ACLF potential.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Right. In other words, where I'm going is if
they do the ALF or if they do the multi-family, of course, then they
would probably require -- definitely require a wall. I don't see the need
for a wall at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not where they're talking
about the wall.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm talking the north wall.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but they're talking about a
wall from Livingston to where that pink area or orange area. It's along
the church and school portion, not the back portion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I thought staff supported, I'm
sorry, the deviation basically from here all the way around. It was just
from this point west that staff was -- because of the width of the
preserve here in combination of their preserve, they felt a wall was not
necessary. I think that's what staff said in their staff report.
MS. GUNDLACH: No, that's not what we said in our staff
report. The only place where we're not requiring a wall is where
there's one currently existing at Balmoral Place.
Page 62
September 18, 2008
And I can show you -- the wall currently exists -- I'll show you
on this graphic -- from here to here, if you can see that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think what we're trying to
say -- first of all, I understand, Mr. Vigliotti, your concern about if this
goes with a development in the back.
The problem is what they're going to put back there probably is
more of a reason to have a wall than the development. Because what
they're going to put back there are outdoor activities that could have a
wide range of actions. And for Positano to have protection from that
additional noise and meeting, whatever else would occur, ball fields,
whatever they are, for that remaining piece of the property, that would
solidify the northern boundary as a solid wall. And personally, I don't
see a problem with that.
The eastern side I see no need for it, and the southern side
absolutely not because of that long Florida Power and Light easement.
Plus there's a partial wall already there where the residential are, so --
MR. VIGLIOTTI: So then I'll not make an issue over it because
I'm really concerned about getting a unanimous vote and I don't want
to make that a deal breaker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just gave Mr. Wolfley what he
needed. You're not a good negotiator, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since Bob folded, I mean, I
didn't really from a design standpoint see the benefit of the wall, what
they're going to get. It's a six-foot-high wall, correct?
It's a six-foot-high wall. The Balmoral are multi-story buildings,
correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Positano to the north --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Positano, I mean. They're
three-story. I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think they're three.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So, I mean, I'm from a--
I don't know what protection you're getting other than to keep
Page 63
September 18,2008
somebody from walking from one side to the other. And a masonry
wall is an expensive way to do that.
So, I mean, I'll go along with everybody for the same logic of --
but I don't see what we're gaining out of this thing other than the
expense of a masonry wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Positano stated that they are a
gated community. Does that mean there is a wall or a fence along that
boundary?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's my understanding that they have a
chain link fence along their southern boundary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All the way from the front to the
back?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I think he just nodded yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And they have their own
landscaping.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you have offered an enhanced
landscape on your side --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is that correct?
All the way to where your preserve kicks in?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
And if I could just call your attention to Page 12 of 14 of the
initial staff report. I think that's where they said as long as the preserve
was 100 feet wide there would be no need for a wall. And that's on the
Arlington -- which is Positano, to the north, Arlington to the east,
which is -- and then Balmoral to the south.
Because there is already a wall, as Nancy pointed out. And then
you have their big preserve where their wall ends. That's how I read
Page 12 of 14.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you need a wall.
Page 64
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, if you don't build the
wall -- or if you do have to build the wall, you won't build the
enhanced landscape.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I don't -- there's so much
money we can spend. No, there's no reason--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point I'm making is that I
think that the development to the north, especially three-story, would
be much more benefitted by trees up in the air blocking the view to the
ground than they would be by a wall that really protects a limited
VIew.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you all remember the Jehovah's
Witness case and the neighbors there, the whole issue was involving
that wall between the Jehovah's site and the neighbors to the west.
The wall was needed not because of a view from above or
anything else but because of the headlights, the car alarms, the noise
and everything else that was happening.
They appealed our decision and the decision of the Board of
County Commissioners and took it to court.
I read the outcome of the court case, and I hope the county
attorney's office has got some recollection of it, but it's my
understanding that the judge instituted the wall as a requirement in
their settlement of that case.
We have a same situation here. We have neighbors to the north
who are not going to -- I agree, the chain link fence and the higher
trees give you some visual buffer, but I think the headlights lower to
the ground and the noise from the car alarms and everything else, and
especially with a facility that's not going to regulate how often it's to
be used now, provide a protection to the north that enhances
compatibility .
So I personally think the wall's a good thing to have on the
Page 65
September 18,2008
northern boundary.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: These are multi-story buildings
to the north, Positano? How -- three-story? A lot of people live there?
They have cars? They have car alarms? They come, they go, their
lights shine. I think we're talking about -- I'll let the court then require
it. I can't support a wall there. Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any -- what do we have with the
wall then?
Mr. Wolfley, what's your thought on the wall? Just yes or no.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't have a real hang-up
about a wall, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean no, no wall required
or --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No wall required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I made my point, no
wall on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I don't -- okay, Mr. Murray, I
was trying to be -- go down the -- Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I don't see a need for the wall either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I don't see the need for the
wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
MR. MIDNEY: No wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No wall. Enhanced landscape.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Wall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, two walls --
Page 66
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair? I'm sorry, I'm ill for
a week here, I'm surprised I'm here. But no, I am in favor of the wall
along where the church -- where the road is that turns in. I'm sorry, I'm
weak -- yes, I'm in favor of the wall there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's five that don't see the need
for the wall and three that do.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, go ahead. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings us to a split vote on
that issue. We have apparently a 7 -I vote that would occur on the
multi-family issue.
Richard, do you have a suggestion that you -- as a solution, or
obviously you would rather leave a -- have the one person on the
multi-family go along with the majority and the three in the minority
on the wall go along with the majority there too. But do you have any
compromise you want to try?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that there -- we understand
your -- you're not taking a vote right now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're just trying to get to a vote.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to come at some point --
there'll be a break, right, and we're supposed to craft language based
upon what we hear is the discussion. And that will come back, and at
that point we hear what the majority is saying and we hear what the
minority is saying, and we'll bring you language that we are going to
request that you vote on. If that works --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works fine.
The next couple of things I want to clean up. The limit on the
recreation activities to the parcel to the west -- or to the east, I'm sorry,
was from 9:00 p.m. but not before sunrise.
There was to be no formal recreation facilities and no outdoor
lighting. No formal ball fields with back stops and no outdoor -- all
that stuff that building permits are required for kind of thing.t
Page 67
September 18, 2008
There was discussion about limiting the church to their
congregation. That seemed to be in negated by the fact that we would
have a wall. But if we're not going to have a wall, we ought to really
discuss whether or not we should limit them to their uses then.
Because that was where the -- where I thought we had at least touched
on it. Is that -- anybody else have any issue with that?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You indicated that you read the
court case and didn't the judge then find in favor of the congregations
having their multi-congregation use?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With a wall.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but I thought you were
about to embark on a discussion about congregations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the wall I thought was a
separate issue. Now you're bringing the wall back into it because of
the congregations; am I correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
I -- when we first talked about the congregations, if -- part of that
discussion was that during the issue with the wall there might be a
way to determine compatibility by allowing the multiple
congregations as long as there was more protection to the property to
the north.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I had indicated earlier that
I thought that the wall was not needed because of the reasons I made.
To tie it now to the congregations I think is a circular argument. I hope
not, but maybe it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I can't see what the wall is going to do
if we're allowing them for only church-related services. Does it make
a difference what denomination of service is there? By allowing them
to bring another denomination, is that forcing them to put a wall up?
Page 68
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the additional use to the property.
The property right now is slated to be used on Sundays. If they want
to utilize the property seven days a week, multiple hours a day, that's
going to have a greater impact on the neighbors to the north.
That impact should be treated with some compatibility
measurement, from my perspective. That compatibility measurement
would have been the wall. If the wall's not there then the limitation for
congregations may need to be kicked back in.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I disagree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine. I mean, I just --
that's what we're here to do is find out who agrees and who disagrees.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I really have a
problem putting restrictions on a house of worship in any way, so --
and I don't see how a wall -- I know you're relating to the other
project. The geometry, the scale of the other project, the concept of an
existing neighborhood there too is totally different than this to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Well, my vote as far as the
wall was predicated on the fact that I thought we had established
relative to uses. Now, if we're going to open it up to uses, then I think
that the wall is absolutely necessary because of the impact on the
neighbors to the north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're back to the wall. I
guess the congregation viewpoint from everybody here, the consensus
is there should be no limitations on the congregations. I don't agree
with that personally because I thought the wall was going to protect it.
But if the wall's not there, I have a problem with the openness to that
issue. So that actually brings the wall into a stronger argument now.
The other item -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think, Commissioner Strain, that
you have a point in a couple of respects, not only with uses for the
Page 69
September 18, 2008
church, but then we seem to be losing sight of the fact that they're also
going to have a school there. And a wall, while I had said that I didn't
think it was necessary, a wall may protect during the day noise from
that school as well.
So I don't know, I'm tom on this issue of wall or no wall. I'm
thinking that the language that comes back to us may make all the
difference here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're going to certainly
have to -- we'll get the language back and discuss it at that time.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make it clear from staffs
perspective, we're still going to go forward to the BCC requiring the
wall. It's incompatible uses and it's a deviation we don't support.
We'll certainly take your recommendation to the board, but from
our perspective, and Nancy I thought made that clear, we don't support
the deviation and we believe that the wall is required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't support the deviation,
regardless of what position this board takes, does that still stay on the
consent agenda then?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, it will go on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think the applicant needs to know
that before they go into --
MR. SCHMITT: That's why I brought it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, I think we've had plenty of discussion. I think the
applicant, you have direction.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I can better advise my client during
the interim break on this item, can we talk about the materials for this
wall? Because the way it currently reads, it says masonry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you come back with
suggestions, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't want to waste time talking
Page 70
September 18, 2008
about -- can I talk about, you know -- can we talk about a solid wood
fence as a possible, or, you know, as one alternative, and then you
have these -- you have the fences where you put the posts in, then you
slide in the panel versus -- I just want to know are either two -- are
both of those alternatives potentially viable from your perspective and
staffs perspective would be helpful during the break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue that you just mentioned about
the slide-in, that's made of concrete. Those are solid walls, those are
good walls.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're cheaper than masonry--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but the code says masonry. The code
says masonry, which is a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's some flexibility there. I
would suggest that if you were to get together with the gentleman
from Positano Place to see if they have any concerns, that certainly
would -- their position would weigh heavily with me. So maybe that
would be a help to you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the other issue I need to know is I
pointed you out to Page 12 of 14 in the staff discussion on the
deviation. I want to know if they're not supporting the deviation for
the entire boundary or are we just talking about what I thought we
were talking about was the pink area to the west, or are we talking
about the entire property now? Because I wasn't sure what Nancy said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: I can clarify that. The original staff report
says that where there is an existing wall at Balmoral, no additional
wall is required.
And where there are cumulative preserve areas, in other words,
there's some preserve area proposed for the Naples Church of Christ
and there's preserve adjacent to it on Positano and Balmoral. If that
preserve area is a minimum of 100 feet wide and opaque to a height of
Page 71
September 18, 2008
25 feet, no wall is required.
And I'm thinking of -- think back on Pebblebrook when their
preserve didn't offer any sort of opacity. So that's why I wrote that
language in, to protect the adjacent neighbors from the impact of this
development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Is this -- are we going back to -- are the
people from Balmoral here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I think what we've done is
provide enough direction so the applicant can address the issues and
come back to us and we can just simply take a vote when he comes
back with the revised language.
And if that's satisfactory at this point, I think we beat this one to
death enough. We need to take a break for 15 minutes. Let's come
back at 10:35 and we'll resume.
This one will come back to us. Let's start a time around 3:00 this
afternoon, as close to that time as we can, so that hopefully we can
have time before 4:30 to finish up with it.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back everyone from our
break.
And now that we've had all that enlightening discussion this
morning, we're going to go change gears and move into GMP
amendments.
Item #9B and #9C (Continued discussion to later in the meeting)
CP-2006-7, ITALIAN AMERICAN PLAZA AND CLUBHOUSE
COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT
CP-2006-8, AIRPORT/ORANGE BLOSSOM COMMERCIAL
SUBDISTRICT
Page 72
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the first one today is 9(B). It's
CP-2006-7. It's the Future Land Use Element for adoption involving
the Italian-American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict at
Orange Blossom and Airport Road.
County Attorney, do I need to swear in for GMP adoption?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Oh, let's just do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those wishing--
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I've got to tell you, if they're going to
lie to you, let them pay, you know.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, exactly.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Although no one's ever followed that up
in the past, so let's go -- 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: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commission?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich
yesterday about this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know I might have spoke to
somebody about it. I honestly can't remember. There's just been too
many meetings this week. And so I'll assume I spoke to Richard about
something and hopefully I'll ask the question again today.
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I also spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move to the
presentation by the applicant.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we left off at the -- you wanted us
Page 73
September 18, 2008
to get to Mr. Casalanguida the proposed transportation improvements,
together with a projection of probable costs for those improvements,
which we did.
I believe Mr. Casalanguida is comfortable with the proposed fix,
the conceptual fix, as well as the costs.
The next step -- and we wrote a letter addressing the impacts to
1-75. That was also provided to Mr. Casalanguida.
There is -- you have some, I believe some revised language in
front of you to address some revisions that have occurred since the last
meeting. What we talked to -- regarding the Italian-American club
parcel, we had talked to transportation staff and transportation staff
didn't have any objections to the clubhouse itself being allowed to go
forward at this time without the need for the improvements, because
it's an already allowed use and an existing use on the property and
would be serving the existing membership.
It would be the new 34,000 square feet of office and bank
facility that would -- as we drafted it would be not allowed to get a
building permit until the improvements started, the construction
started on the improvements. It would not be allowed to get a C.O.
until the improvements were substantially complete.
You have some language in front of you from staff that I think
they were trying to get there on that. But the -- it's on -- and I hope
we're reading from the same thing. This is what Mr. Schmidt just gave
to me, Corby just gave to me. It's small Roman Numeral v. And I
think it should end in: Clubhouse facility may be excepted from --
shall be excepted from Subsection B, period. Above, period, sorry.
The rest of this language, if it can be demonstrated with absolute
certainty -- I don't know how you demonstrate anything to absolute
certainty .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before you go too far, and I
don't mean to distract you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you reading from something
Page 74
September 18, 2008
different?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we've have to find -- everybody's
got to be on the same page. And there's so much paper up here. Put it
on the overhead what page you're using for a moment, and then we'll
just try to match up to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 3, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's Page 3 in the staff report that
was handed out to us, but apparently he's got something that's -- what
page of what is that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 2 of Exhibit A -- 2 of Exhibit A. I
guess it's the combined language that -- do you have this document?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far I haven't been able to find it. Do
you have one?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's the one with the red that
Corby gave out earlier.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's what Corby gave us
earlier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, geez.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what we're proposing is when you
look at that B, I think we should end it at the clubhouse facility, and it
should be shall be excepted from Subsection B. And that's the
requirement that you -- we have to do the transportation-related
improvements. Period.
The rest of that language is I don't know how you prove
anything to an absolute certainty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that too when it was passed out. I
don't know either, but--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I was -- I'm a little -- you know, I
don't know that that exists in life. So I'm hoping that we can stop that
at that point, since it's -- the Italian-American Club's been around for a
long time and it's to serve its members and -- this compo plan
Page 75
September 18, 2008
amendment frankly isn't even related to that use, since it's an already
allowed conditional use under the current Comprehensive Plan
designation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you were to drop the words
absolute certainty, wouldn't that still serve the purpose? Demonstrated
with. So just say demonstrated that the transportation impacts of the
facility do not require.
Mr. Schmidt, do you agree with that? Mr. Corby? Corby
Schmidt.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just deleting those three
words: With absolute certainty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem with--
MR. SCHMIDT: Corby Schmidt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem with the word shall in use
of -- in lieu of may?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the first line, the clubhouse facility
shall be excepted instead of may be excepted. That's what he's asking.
MR. SCHMIDT: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Richard, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that was it from my property
owner's perspective.
I know you had some questions that you raised regarding the
study to support the other parcel, as far as the market study.
But I don't think from the Italian-American Club's perspective
that it was a -- oh, I'm sorry, there's one more page.
It's -- do they have this page as well, Corby?
MR. SCHMIDT: They do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want to put that up there?
The last page of the handout there's a provision that's added to
allow an individual property owner to go forth and build all of the
Page 76
September 18, 2008
improvements.
We want a provision that says, for instance, if the
Italian-American Club builds all the improvements, the remaining
property owners that need those improvements will be required to
reimburse us. And that's what that paragraph's intended to say.
So we're just asking for that assurance to be -- we would like the
option to be -- instead of having the county build them, we would like
the ability to do it if we need to and then get reimbursed as people
come through the development process to the County.
If they go through a rezone or they come with an SDP or a plat,
the county will say okay, your proportionate share of that is "X"
dollars, it's a condition of getting your plat that you pay that money
back to whoever built the facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So just to the County Attorney,
that it is okay for us to stipulate something like that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, I'd assume that if we
were, we'd have to put some caveat in there that it would be to the
extent collected by the county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't be on the hook for
something that we didn't --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not asking you to pay it, we're
just asking you to say to the person who comes in with their SDP, you
don't pass go unless you pay your fair share.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood the intent--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that government enforcing a private
debt?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a lot of other things to
discuss, so maybe you could take a look at that while we move on
with the rest of the issues, and then go from there.
Page 77
September 18, 2008
Mr. Murray? Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Caron wasn't finished.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say, I think the
intent is obviously correct. I'm just not sure we can do that. So I'm
happy that the attorney's going to look at it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And after you pass go on that
one, you're talking about the dollars, today's dollars or the dollars
applicable at that point in time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe build the improvements, and I think
it's estimated right around a million-two, if we spend a million-two on
the actual construction and our share is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- whatever it is, they pay for what they
should have paid.
We just don't think that it's fair to someone else to get a free ride.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm going to let it sit, never
mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the changes that have
been given to us today, and they're in red.
We also had a package that was sent out to us by staff, and it's
several pages. Actually, there's another couple of pages attached to it
from applicant's representatives.
We may want to turn to that, if everybody can find the right one.
It's titled Supplemental Staff Report. And this one was a combination
supplemental report for 2006-7 and 2006-8. It was in a packet sent out
by compo planning early last week.
So if we're all on the same page, what I'd like to do is take a look
at that package and see if there's any questions from the planning
commission from within that supplemental report, or for that matter
the prior report, if there's still something not answered.
Page 78
September 18,2008
And as a housekeeping matter, David, on Page 2 of that report,
paren. six, there's an italicized note at the bottom that says, as it now
appears as part of the supplemental materials provided to you for your
September 8th adoption hearing.
I'm not -- can you identify what -- where it is, because -- I'm on
Page 2, parenthetical six, the italicized part towards the last line. It
appears there should have been a supplemental material outlining the
staff and transportation staff analysis. And I may be looking for more
than what we got, and we may have gotten just a paragraph to
supplement it, but--
MR. SCHMIDT: Actually, you may have received more than
you had been looking for. But it is everything, including the plastic
pouches with additional site platted map, the traffic study that was
done since your last hearing and provided as part of that intersection
improvement plan to the transportation director and accepted by him
during the last days.
And again working backward from those plastic pouches to the
point where we reach the new Exhibit A maps, that is the
documentation being referred to in paragraph six.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did transportation
department sign off on it then basically? Is that what Nick's going to
come up and tell us for the record? Because that was one of the
remaining items that we had discussed from last time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
I'd like to walk you through it and explain it to you, if I could, if
you don't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- mind. Okay.
What we had done is work with them with the limitations of
right-of-way. They can't acquire right to do a project. The
Italian- American Club at the southwest comer has offered to donate
right-of-way to accommodate that project.
Page 79
September 18, 2008
So we said what can we do with the right-of-way that we have?
Let's do the traffic analysis, provide it as an exhibit in costs. They've
done that.
They've agreed to modify the southbound turn lane on Airport
Road and provide a turn lane pocket U-turn prior to that. That will
eliminate a lot of the traffic issues southbound.
East -- thanks, Rich. I know that, thanks.
It's good to have a coach behind you.
Eastbound we added an additional left turn lane, but we didn't
close that median to that entrance that's over there because this project
hasn't been publicly vetted. And that's been an issue how we've
received through e-mails, that this should be a public project, the
neighbors should have the opportunity to talk about what's going to be
constructed and how it impacts them as well too.
Westbound they add an additional left turn lane as well.
The problem on the west side of the intersection is you're limited
by right-of-way and you have to merge the traffic coming eastbound
soon, sooner than you'd want to. So that movement gets penalized a
little bit.
So what we asked Mr. Price to do, as their consultant, is to do
the intersection analysis as if nothing happens, and existing projects
would move forward. And it's a mess. You know, it's a county issue,
background traffic, something we'd have to put in our capital plan at
some point in time.
Then we had them analyze it with all the projects potentially
come in and with these improvements. And there was a vast
improvement.
Now, the overall intersection level of service is E. It's
acceptable. You do have those failing left turn movements because
they're restricted by right-of-way.
So if we publicly vet this, one of the comments that may come
up is make it a county project, buy a little bit of right-of-way that you
Page 80
September 18,2008
need on the north side and expand that merge lane to the east. And that
may be the right thing to do.
But they've done the max they can do with the existing
right-of-way and the right-of-way that they control. And it's a vast
improvement from what was there before.
So the issue about collecting money, I'm not comfortable with
that, because we've ran through this before a little bit with Naples
Nissan. And I suggested some language yesterday and we were trying
to get it coordinated in time for the meeting.
I don't care who builds it, whether it's the county or them.
Someone has to build it before they get their final C.O. If they want to
build it in advance of the county, there needs to be a private agreement
between them and the people around them to do that, because I don't
think we're in a position that we collect that money, similar to what
we've done with Naples Nissan.
And the proj ect needs to be publicly bid and publicly vetted.
And that's to cover for the people in the area.
So I'm satisfied that what they provided is an overall vast
improvement to what's there and, you know, greatly accommodates
their project traffic, but it has to go through public process. So what
you see on these plans could change and the dollars could change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the objective was to meet the
intention of what they told us they would do before --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They did --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which was to provide. And that's -- if
you're satisfied with that, that meets that intent during the transmittal
phase, or at least it should.
The other thing you brought up is you're not satisfied with the
language that's been presented to us that's on the board right now.
Is there language that works?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that last paragraph that we
talked about is. In prior they talked about that they wouldn't get any
Page 81
September 18, 2008
Certificates of Occupancy prior to construction.
As far as who builds it, I think we can say the county can build it
or they can build it, but in no case will C.O.'s be issued until the
project's substantially complete.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need language. If we're going
to move something forward from this board, it's got to have to have
language that's been more or less reviewed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you could take out that last
paragraph, because in the prior paragraphs it says that they don't get to
move forward until the project's done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the project being done, meaning
they can start -- they have to start construction before the first building
permit and complete before C.O.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Naples Nissan. I keep bringing it
up because that was a real bad deal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can that happen here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. In the sense that with Naples
Nissan, the issue was it wasn't publicly vetted or publicly bid. But we
can require that as part of this. I think that was the big issue with
Naples Nissan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the language to require that
public vetting is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can add a paragraph that
this project will be put through the public involvement process. The
intersection improvement will be put through the public involvement
process, whether it's done privately or publicly, and that project will
be openly bid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, again, we're here today to move
this out of here. We've been -- this is the second or third meeting on
the same scheduled GMP amendment. And I know everybody's got
Page 82
September 18, 2008
their problems about the amount of review. We've got to get this done
today. So someone needs to write the language, put it on the screen for
approval and the board can take action on it when we get to that point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, what this says, and maybe
you need to say -- maybe we need to add the following. I think it
should say, in addition a property owner may construct intersection
improvements in accordance with the approved intersection plans and
pursuant to an agreement -- and pursuant to a developer contribution
agreement with Collier County.
Nick will then, when we come forward with a developer
contribution agreement, insert all the specifics regarding the bidding
process. I don't think you want to get all those specifics into the
Comprehensive Plan. I don't think we need that.
But I think if we were to just say, you know, pursuant to -- you
know, we'll do this pursuant to a developer contribution agreement
between the property owner and the county, then that would cover it.
And then --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue is about the plans. The plans
have been reviewed by us but they haven't been publicly vetted. So
when you say pursuant to the plans that have been provided, subj ect to
public comment and approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, let me try it again: In
addition, the property owner may construct intersection improvements
in accordance with the approved intersection improvements plan and
per a DCA with Collier County that is reviewed by both the Board of
County Commissioners and the Collier County Planning Commission.
Now, does that get you your public process by coming to us for
the DCA?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that from a board's
perspective, if we had a chance to make sure it matches up, it would
help the BCC move it forward as well.
Page 83
September 18, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine. That would work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work with everybody
here?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Corby, you understand the
language?
MR. SCHMIDT: I do. But the language requiring the DCA is
already in place, so I have another suggestion, and I'll put it up on
screen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Mr. Klatzkow, this will probably eliminate the need for you to
comment on this whole process, so just to give --
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know about that.
MR. SCHMIDT: You'll see on screen staffs handwriting. We've
already removed a clause or a phrase from the middle of this provision
so it doesn't imply a partial job or partial work being done. And that is,
and contribute a proportionate share of the cost of the remaining
improvements. Already agreed to strike that between staff and the
petitioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Corby, leaving that last portion
in provides an ambiguity for the county in order to monitor in how it's
reimbursed and collected, to the extent it's reimbursed and collected.
And then when you say proper public involvement process, it could be
a lot of people would assume that maybe by just going to one public
meeting it's not as proper as if it went to multiple public meetings for
reVIew.
So I don't -- I think that language is more flexible than what the
applicant already acknowledged wouldn't be a problem from their
particular viewpoint.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right, we'll work on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the reason that I'm asking
is I'd like to get -- we need to get these things resolved. Otherwise
Page 84
September 18, 2008
we're just going to keep beating it around for no reason, so -- well,
let's move on to the next thing while you're looking at that, Corby.
On Page 3 of this staff report, the supplemental report, the
second paragraph, fourth line from the bottom starts with the word,
compatibility. Then the sentence that starts on that line says, any
senior housing facility is not subject to the square footage limitation
but must meet all other provisions of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
What are those other provisions that it would meet as far as
square footage limitation? Does anybody know?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think as you -- senior housing is based
on a floor area ratio, not square footage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it in the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in the Land Development Code.
There's the floor area ratio for -- right now it's at .45 in the Land
Development Code. There's not a square footage associated with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm fine with the FAR. I know that
we are very limited in the amount of references we have on our LDC
to FAR. But if you're confirmed and that's on record that we have a
limitation in the LDC for an FAR for the senior housing facility,
which I assume then would be considered a congregate living facility
or an ACLF -type facility that's comparable?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is. They are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'm not sure how we
describe it in the LDC. And if we describe it as an ACLF, as long as
this falls under that umbrella, then I think the problem is resolved.
MR. SCHMIDT: It does, and I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Anybody have any other questions with the supplemental staff
report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have some writing that was received
Page 85
September 18, 2008
from Hole-Montes in regards to this proj ect. It was also in our packet.
It was -- followed the supplemental staff report.
The only part of it that -- there was a subsection that was added
to the back of the very last page of that, the second page of the
applicant's information. It said: However, the construction of 20,000
square- foot clubhouse does not require the construction or the
initiation of Orange Blossom Drive/Airport Road intersection
improvements.
Now, Corby, that issue you took up in the prior language that we
just reviewed and modified; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: That is correct. And you'll see that as part of
Parcel One, Subsection "v".
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The supplemental staff report is
reviewing both Petition CP-2006-7 and CP-2006-8. When we opened
the meeting up, we only did so for 7.
I know you want us to look at this jointly, so in that regard why
don't we clean it up and we'll open up 2006-8 as well for concurrent
discussion.
Is anybody -- those wishing to testify on behalf of 2006-8, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures different for 8
than there were for 7 from the planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so now with that, the
supplemental staff report was written for both, so I'm assuming the
questions anyone may have had with that would have been discussed.
And we also got a separate response from Fishkind and
Associates to our request last time in trying to explain why they used a
2.0 as a basis for their commercial analysis.
Are there any questions involving 2006-8 from the planning
commission?
Page 86
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mean we're talking about
the Fishkind document yet or what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about 2006-8, and the
Fishkind document was written in response to 2006-8. So yeah, you
can ask about that one, certainly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I don't want to jump the
gun, but I just want to -- maybe I'll make a comment and maybe it will
generate some conversation.
But I've read this over and I just don't think that it properly
answers the questions that were posed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your microphone, could you pull
it a little closer to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.
What I was -- I'll make a comment that I think that the -- well
intended though it may be, I don't think that it really helps -- I think
it's the intent just to clarify, I don't think it completely does what we
expected.
And my point, I made a question to myself, how valid is this
explanation in the current implosion that we're going through? There
are too many variables, as I understood this.
Now, I'm not trying to be critical of it. I understand it's intending
to help us. But I just don't feel comfortable that it does the job that we
intended that it should.
I hope that Russell will be able to come up and qualify it further.
General comment.
MR. WEYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Russ Weyer from Fishkind and Associates.
Mr. Murray, I kind of don't understand what your --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. I was too vague and I
apologize, but this is rather lengthy --
MR. WEYER: I understand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and you don't have it
Page 87
September 18, 2008
paginated, so I can't call your attention to a page.
But for instance, there's a lot of variables in here. We then use a
variety of models for retail demand. Then you say, it is at this point in
the analysis that caused an anomaly. And then you finally top it off by
indicating that the staff have required you to do such and such and so
and so.
So while it's a whole lot of information, and I know that you --
it's not mathematics, I understand that. Mathematics are applicable,
but it's not mathematics. But I'm not sure that we can -- I don't get out
of it the 2.0. I know you can arrive at that number, but I don't get at it.
MR. WEYER: Let me give you a little bit of an explanation
because --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize.
MR. WEYER: No, no, no, no problem.
And I know Commissioner Strain had mentioned, you know, in
that last meeting where we talked about New York and Atlanta and
those kind of places, understanding when we're looking out long-term
to 2030, we're looking out 20 years.
In a case like that when we're required to do the analysis, we
also have to take into account all those lands which are (sic) not at the
moment have any designation or zoning on them in terms of
commercial. But they do have commercial overlay. Weare required to
count them in terms of potential supply.
So when you do that, what happens -- you'll never approve
anything, if you will, because we have to take a look at that. Let's say
we do -- under commercial we have different uses. And let's say we're
looking specifically at an office. All those lands have to be considered
office. Well, that in reality is not going to happen when we build out,
right?
Retail the same way.
So what happens is, when we do the analysis and that land hasn't
been zoned yet and still has the overlay on it, when we do a
Page 88
September 18, 2008
commercial office, it would have to be considered office. If we do
commercial retail, it would have to be considered commercial retail.
Consequently, as you get closer to 2030, your allocations are
going to get closer to one, as in the case here of this office. If you
looked at the Karate (phonetic) Airport piece, it was .99, which is
close to one. And that's because you're closer to build-out, if you will,
because those parcels are taken down.
And let's assume, for instance, if we were looking -- in this case
there were II 7 parcels that have the potential of being office, retail,
whatever. As you go forward and those become -- and the supply -- or
the demand comes along and we turn it to -- it turns into supply and
people are coming forward to you to get that approved, ultimately we
will get down to near the end in 2030, let's say for instance, and your
allocations, the demand is going to force those to be certain types of
supply in terms of office or retail. So then they're defined at that point.
That's why you're going to get closer to an allocation of one.
But when you're looking out that far right now, it's really not
determinable.
Let me give you another good example. We had to do a needs
analysis also for a place out in Golden Gate, the City of Golden Gate.
And the City of Golden Gate has an overlay on it for commercial uses.
And right along Golden Gate Parkway there right now are residential
units, which in turn have to be considered commercial when we do our
analysis.
Well, who knows if -- are they going to stay residential? Are
they going to be tom down and become commercial? When they get
tom down and become commercial, what types of commercial are
they going to be? Consequently, that's why we like to keep that
allocation ratio at two.
And as I had mentioned, we've submitted this around the state
for other needs or compo plan changes, and the DCA has accepted
between 1.8 and 2.4 going forward.
Page 89
September 18, 2008
But as you get closer that build-out, it's going to get closer to
one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand all of the
components. The thing that I guess tripped me up in this regard was
the one statement that you made is that staff was requiring you to treat
lands a certain way. And I wondered if that in some respect changed
the way your analysis might have come out had you not been
restricted.
MR. WEYER: In that case it probably would, because then you
wouldn't have to worry about an allocation ratio at that point. If you
kept those lands out of it and actually looked at the true supply
demand and what's been zoned and you look at the population going
forward from that point of view, that is correct.
And not just here in Collier County, but in other jurisdictions the
same thing happens.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A commercial project is --
what's the useful life on a commercial project, 30, 50 years? Do we
know?
MR. WEYER: It all varies with location, it all varies with its
actual use. You know, we've seen -- a lot of them when you say
commercial life, you mean are they going to change? They do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I mean their improvement.
The improvement's life. The useful life of the --
MR. WEYER: Yeah, before they really do any changes to it?
Probably 15, 20 years before they do a makeover or tear it down and
do something different.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 15 to 20?
MR. WEYER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow, I thought it was longer.
MR. WEYER: All depends again on the use, and how often it is
used.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 2007 and 2008 as a joint
Page 90
September 18, 2008
application. Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, when I brought this up as a
question, I simply asked, show me where the 2.0 is in a textual
reference from a documented source. You haven't provided that.
Why?
I mean, I read your analysis, I heard your answer to Mr. Murray.
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, from what I read in your
analysis, and it says Fishkind believes that to ensure proper flexibility
in a Comprehensive Plan a commercial allocation ratio in the range of
2.0 is necessary.
It doesn't show me the ULI or any other known growth patterned
facility recommends 2.0 for a municipality such as ours. That's the
documentation I was looking for. I wasn't looking for what a paid
expert for the applicant wants to tell us, because they're going to tell
us what gets their success. And I don't really believe that's what I need
for my analysis of this.
Do you have anything that gives me something other than what
your firm believes?
MR. WEYER: Mr. Strain, I don't have that with me, but I will
get you information for that. That is correct. And I apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, this one had come before
us in transmittal. Was this the one that had a different amount of
square footage than currently being requested?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the other square footage; do
you recall?
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners, for
the record, Dwight Nadeau, R W A.
The original application request came in for 50,000 square feet
of commercial and retail. It was subsequently dropped to 12,000
Page 91
September 18,2008
square feet of professional medical offices in combination with a fairly
certain assisted living developer purchasing four acres of the property.
Subsequently that contract was not maintained, and so we then
reapproached the petition such that there would be 40,000 square feet
of limited professional and commercial offices, no retail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you originally came in with
50,000, modified that to 12,000 with an ACLF, or whatever the
acronym wants to be used today, and that fell apart between
transmittal and adoption. You've come back on adoption for 40,000
square feet.
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Oh, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But ALF is still in there.
MR. NADEAU: The opportunity for the ALF is still in there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That would be 40,000 plus ALF,
the way it reads now.
MR. NADEAU: It could be, yes. But we also have the
transportation concurrency limitations as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
I have a question of staff.
Corby, it takes a long time to process a GMP amendment. And
I'm not saying that's wrong, because it has to go through a lot of
review by your department. And from my reading of your department,
you guys have been pretty strict in the way you review these things.
We're now into a third rendition of this project from the time it
was originally put through for you. I'd like to know why it's still
retained in its current body, since it's changed so much from the
original submittal, and how you have maintained your position on it
over those different courses of action.
Because right now the basis that I thought was coming forward
was this 2.0 factor. That seemed to be a big issue as a basis for the
Page 92
September 18,2008
analysis that was provided to you. But now we're finding out there's
no basis for the 2.0, at least one hasn't been presented to date, other
than the applicant's expert feels that way, as I assume many experts
feel.
So now I'm concerned as to what your basis was and how you
got to where you are today.
MR. SCHMIDT: It may take some time to explain that.
During the transmittal hearings and with that initial application,
staff looked at two very different market studies. Upon the
recommendation from yourselves and from the county board, new
studies were prepared for the new mixture of land uses that omitted
the commercial uses. And they also included, those market studies,
new formulas or new methods.
One of them, and that's the Fishkind method, included the one
you've been questioning, the one you've asked for more information
and explanation from.
The opportunity that staff had post-transmittal to look at two
new studies together, simply because the two sub-districts were
neighboring and being proposed at the same time, allowed us to use
information from both market studies to come to and draw our
conclusions.
The results may not have been the same if we were looking at
only one or only the other at different times, or if they were in
different places.
So we took that combination of market studies to come up with
our conclusions and our recommendations to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if an applicant under a
particular piece of property doesn't make his case as clearly as he
needs to from your department's perspective, if you have files full of
related information from somewhere else nearby, you can utilize that
at the times you want to utilize it to then use that to apply to an
analysis to his property to give him a favorable reading?
Page 93
September 18,2008
MR. SCHMIDT: I would not characterize it that way. I have not
been around long enough to have that opportunity, nor do I know that
that has been staff practice at all.
Where we've drawn from previous studies, we may have drawn
from previous experiences and knowing what to look for in market
studies. And there are some staff and administrative standards along
that line.
But here because they were companion items, we did take that
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm still not convinced that the
40,000 with the ACLF is the right mix, and that's where my concern
is. So I wanted to make sure I understood where your process was
coming from in order to get there.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like to go back to that a
little bit as well.
Originally when this first came to us, it came with a
recommendation from your office to deny, based on a market needs
analysis that you all had done for us in the county.
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it was staffs or our review of those
materials, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So now that you're looking
at these two paid studies, what makes you think that they're the right
answer and your answer initially was the wrong answer?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, a number of factors came into play
to come up with a different recommendation, including the intensity of
the uses and the impact on the transportation system, how that market
study, along with the transportation studies, worked at that location.
The demand could not be shown for more commercial space at
this -- or at these locations in those first studies. But the study areas
and the demand for more office and services uses completely -- truly a
different kind of study, could be shown by the more recent studies.
Page 94
September 18, 2008
And I think that was a prime difference between the two.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions involving
the 2007 -- I mean, the 2006-7 or 2006-8 GMP adoption amendments?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, did you finish the language in
that last paragraph that we previously talked about?
MR. SCHMIDT: Nick was unavailable and we'll still be working
on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only reason is, that's got to get resolved
in order to move forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I spoke to the County Attorney, and
here's what we're suggesting.
Do you have a clean version?
Ignore my chicken -- ignore the chicken scratch, because I didn't
realize that it was covered later.
What we're suggesting is this provision would read as follows:
An Orange Blossom Drivel Airport Road intersection improvements
plan sufficient to accommodate the project traffic and overall levels of
service through intersection design must be approved prior to any
development order approval. Period.
Delete the other language that dealt with the DCA, because that
required -- in a DCA that would require a pro rata share from
everybody in the area.
And then have the condition that says, construction per the
approved Orange Blossom Drivel Airport Road Intersection
improvements plan must commence prior to issuance of a building
permit for improvements on a parcel and be completed prior to the
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
So the plans have got to be -- either the county's going to build
them or we'll enter an agreement with the county to where we build
them, the details of which don't need to be in the compo plan. The
Page 95
September 18, 2008
condition that they be there is in the compo plan, but how we don't
think needs to be in the compo plan.
And then the other revision I made regarding the clubhouse
being exempted from this Section B, with the revisions that we made
prior that everybody agreed to would stay in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then you wouldn't need that last
page that we talked about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I recall correctly, though, I
think David Weeks indicated that there was something in the ORC
report where because it's a subdistrict, a unique thing that they wanted
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They wanted us to say how we were
going to address, and that's how we would be addressing it. We would
prohibit any building permits prior to the plans being under
construction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with the
language you just cited, I'm just -- I have a recollection of that. So
maybe I'm asking David really what -- am I accurate in that
statement?
First of all, that the ORC report that related that, that they want it
because it was a subdistrict special, that they wanted it more clearly
defined in the compo plan -- in the compo amendment?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've done that through the
reference to having this construction plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you may very well be right.
All I'm just looking to do is be sure so that we don't have a second
guess later.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning
Department.
The specific objection from the Department of Community
Affairs was indicating that there needed to be data and analysis to
Page 96
September 18, 2008
demonstrate that the -- that with these amendments the adopted level
of service standard for the transportation concurrency management
area that these proj ects were located within would be achieved and
maintained. So their objection was -- had to do with the data and
analysis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I was in error then. Okay,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so where we're at with the -- and
by the way, Corby, are we -- when we're discussing this language, we
have it broken down to parcels one and two on the second page. The
first page is general to both if it's looked at jointly; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So under the joint page, the
changes would be striking of that language as indicated on the
overhead right now. Is that in agreement with your department?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Where we leave off with development
order approval and pick up again with construction per the approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then in conjunction with the
general statement, is that last page now dropping -- that Subsection B
red area that we questioned earlier, is that now sufficient to be
dropped? Is the language in the first part sufficient to cause the last
part to be dropped?
MR. SCHMIDT: Fully removed, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you protecting the full public
vetting that Nick was so wanting to make sure the public had that right
in regards to these intersection and road improvements?
MR. SCHMIDT: That discussion took place with Mr.
Y ovanovich --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The way you would be protecting, Mr.
Strain, is if the county builds the road. They obviously have their
requirements for going through the design and permitting process,
which is a public process.
Page 97
September 18, 2008
If we build the road, we'll have to go through the development
agreement process with the county where Nick will require that we go
through their -- basically their same process for the design and the
construction. And you will find that in the developer contribution
agreement if we go forward to build the road.
But the public's protected because we can't go forward without
the improvements being under construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but Nick, when he came up here,
was very pointed stating that the public -- and he repeated it many
times, the public is protected through the public process afforded by
what I thought was the DCA. But that seems not to be the issue here.
You're taking the DCA off the table. It can be done more
administrati vel y.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it would be -- remember, a DCA
always has to go to the Board of County Commissioners. So it will
either be done by the county through their normal public process of --
if they build it -- if they design and build it, there's a public process the
county follows, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a voting process in front of a
board, it's strictly the staff says here's what we're going to do, do you
like it or not. There's no way really to override it if the public doesn't
dislike it.
Is there a voting process where the public has input? The
outcome can be decided upon by a board other than transportation
administration. Because the DCA provides that process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, so does the -- the Board of County
Commissioners has got to select a design professional and then they
got to approve the construction plans to bid it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's almost after the fact though.
Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a challenge. When you go through
a 30, 60, 90 process for a public roadway project, if, you know, a
Page 98
September 18, 2008
person has a complaint, they vet it to their local commissioner. It goes
up the food chain and we document it, there's a process that goes
through. But it's not a voting process where one side of the street says
I want a turn lane, one side says I don't.
Concerns are brought up, they're documented and recorded. If it
wants to go up the chain, it goes to the county manager, it goes to the
commissioners and it's brought back through us to say, why are you
building this and what are you doing, and we explain ourselves. And if
they want, they can make it a public petition to the board.
But the idea is that you present the improvement plans to the
community. They come out and say, what about this, we think this is
an issue. And our designers go, well let's look at that. We have to
respond to them in writing. So it's not just the private side doing a set
of plans going out to build it without anybody having a chance to look
at it. That's my only concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process that you were espousing to
us earlier about public vetting of it so the neighborhoods could
participate, is that process protected in the strikethroughs and language
we're looking at here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If, if -- this is the one right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
You guys need to talk on the record. She's going to have to write
down your --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if they can't get a
permit to submit this project, get a C.O., my only concerns is that--
there's nothing that clarifies who does the project on this.
I'm just saying, if there's no language that who'd do this project,
then they would have to present something to the county. So there
would be some follow up at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, can you come up with some
language that works for your department?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I suggested last time would be
Page 99
September 18, 2008
that this capital project, this intersection improvement will be publicly
vetted and publicly bid, period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean publicly vetted and
publicly bid?
Let's go -- what's publicly vetted in your mind?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There'll be a public involvement plan
that goes with this. We'd have a public meeting that's advertised, a
publicly advertised meeting for the intersection improvement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that needs to be added to here
then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it should be added to there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I'm trying to go, is
to get to a point where we can find out what needs to be added to get
to the conclusion you --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There will be a publicly advertised
meeting prior to the commencement of the -- prior to the approval of
the design plans.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Public comment as well? That's
the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- 30, 60, 90 --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you wouldn't 30,60, 90--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the microphone.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, sorry.
That's the 30, 60 -- whatever the number is, the percentage is,
that's the design phase.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For an intersection plan you typically
wouldn't do a 30, 60, 90. You'd have one public meeting for an
intersection --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only one. Okay, I didn't realize
that.
But you still accomplish essentially the same thing.
Page 100
September 18,2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Same thing. Because it's a smaller
project, you wouldn't go through that many machinations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there would be a publicly
advertised meeting prior to design stage. And that gets your
department the input you need through the public process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that would be added to that
paragraph.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the next sentence would be the
proj ect would be publicly bid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, doesn't it have to be?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if they do it, if they decide to
take on the proj ect, I want to make sure it goes through the public
bidding process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the compo plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you don't want it there, that's--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, that's the kind of minutia that,
you know, who knows what can be in the future as far as the bidding
laws that mayor may not require public bidding if the private sector
builds it. I'd hate to hamstring the private sector.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's got a good point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're backing off then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, that's fine. As long as it's a
public involvement process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby are you clear now on the
language that needs to be changed in that paragraph?
MR. SCHMIDT: We believe so. And if you'd like us to go over
them individually through the five pages, or four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can do it. Let me just run
through it then.
On B, we're going to accept the strikethrough and add the
publicly advertised meeting prior to design stage, a sentence in there
Page 101
September 18,2008
indicating that.
On parcel one, you're going to change the word may to shall in
the red in the middle of the page and take with absolute certainty out.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the strikethroughs would be
assumably accepted. The last page would be dropped, which is all the
red addition to Subsection B above.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's how I have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with those changes in
mind, we have two applications. We're being asked to combine those
into one for adoption. Would that mean we vote on them together with
our recommendations to corrections for both as were presented here,
or we vote on them separately? Is there a preference by the legal
department?
MR. KLATZKOW: If they want to combine them, combine
them. If they want them separate, then vote separate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what we discussed is you would
vote separately, and if both passed, the combined language would be
adopted. Otherwise, we would have to deal with them separately -- the
revisions would then be applied to the separate language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because they're two distinctly
different processes here. So let's go with the first one.
After this discussion and with the changes recommended to this
document pertaining to 2006-7, is there a motion from this board, or
discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait. You have public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. Do we have--
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, maybe they can help us resolve
this.
Page 102
September 18, 2008
MR. WEEKS: First is John Caffery, followed by John Garbo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I apologize for forgetting about you.
MR. WEEKS: And your third speaker and last would be Tyler
Day.
MR. CAFFERY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
John Caffery.
And I want to thank Commissioner Strain for stressing the need
for public participation.
I'm a resident of Kay Lagoon Condominium, which is located on
Orange Blossom Road, and president of the Condominium
Association.
With this proposed development, I'd like to recommend a right
turn only exit on Orange Blossom Road.
Across from the proposed, as far as I understand, exitlentrance is
for this exitl entrance -- for this development is the Collier County
exitlentrance, which is both right and left turns.
Right now cars are nudging out into the road just to get out of
the library. So to have two leftlright exitl entrances opposite each other
or in the similar area at this section of Orange Blossom Road I think
will create a major traffic bottleneck. And it will pose, therefore, a
serious traffic safety and congestion problem.
And that's my comment, and thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And let's follow up with that
with Nick.
Nick, the concern is about the right -- having a right turn only at
Orange Blossom that's preferred. Is that an issue that -- at what stage
would you be addressing that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would be at the design and public
comment stage. Because a concern, when you start closing access
points, that vehicle that makes a right who wants to go west has to go
to the intersection and make aU-turn.
So if it's not a four or six-lane facility. That's the kind of stuff
Page 103
September 18,2008
that they provide a comment and then we go back and we do the
research and we say if you do this, this is what happens, this is our
recommendation.
And that's why one comment shouldn't decide what intersection
or access points should be like, it should go through the whole public
process and design stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the weight of this gentleman's
concern, would it -- I mean, you would be able -- he would be able to
provide his concerns at a public meeting and you all would take that
into consideration and weigh it accordingly and then provide a
response.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. And we'd provide a
response and we'd document why that was either meant to stay or why
it should go away and we agree with him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And his reaction to that, if it was
negative, he then -- his next process would be to take it to his local
commissioner?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And say I've, you know, got
comments from transportation, I disagree with them, I'd like to get this
thing looked at further. And then we'd further look at it, if that was the
desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. GARBO: Good morning. John Garbo. I'm the president of
the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community Alliance. Really
speaking on the same issue.
First, I'd like to say that our organization has no objections with
both of the parcels being proposed. You know, growth is going to
continue to happen and there's no issues there.
The same issue that the previous speaker brought up is, is that
right turn in and out. And understanding, having listened to this last
Page 104
September 18,2008
time and this morning, maybe we're in afternoon now, that it will be a
separate meeting, but I at least want to be on the record at this point
saying that it is a real safety hazard there.
And when we look at the most recent one that I've seen is the
intersection of 41 and Vanderbilt, where they just closed off a very
similar situation where you used to be able to come out of the
financial institutions that are just south of Vanderbilt on the east side
of the road, cross over, go north on 41, however you want to do it.
Well now they've closed that off I'm sure because transportation
assumed that it was a safety hazard. Because you had cars in the
middle of the intersection, myself included. And many times, you
know, with the drivers we have from different states, they don't
always understand the best way to make those turns.
I think here my biggest concern is, we have the public library.
And who uses the public library? Lots of school children, moms in
their vans with young children, our senior citizens. And then I look at
the proposed usage for these two parcels. We could be having
medical. Again, we'll probably have our senior citizens in there and
again maybe, you know, moms with childrens (sic). And all of a
sudden you have those two cars in that intersection with cars going
east and west. I think we have a real safety hazard.
And I understand, even talking to the folks from the
Italian-American Club, and fully agree that we're going to have to go
up maybe to Airport and Orange Blossom and make a U-turn. Because
that's what we have to do at all these intersections now.
I don't necessarily agree with those either, but that's probably the
easiest way, because at least we're doing it at a light when people are a
little more cautious about who's making the turn left or right versus
being in that intersection, if left turns are allowed to go out of this
parcel.
So I appreciate everybody's diligence and hard work on all of
these projects. Thank you.
Page 105
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. WEEKS: Final speaker is Tyler Day.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to bring to your attention that I
distributed prior to the discussion commencing on these petitions an
e-mail that staff received from Mr. Ed Kant. He did speak at your
August 29th hearing.
He's a resident down to the west of this project. He's also a
professional engineer. And his one-page e-mail is dated September the
15th of this year. It was sent to Corby Schmidt in our office. And
copied on that were a few people, including Nick Casalanguida at the
county and Bob Duane, who's the agent for the petition. I just wanted
to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, sir, go ahead.
MR. DAY: Thank you. My name is Tyler Day. I'm the former
president of the master association at the Villages of Monterrey. I'm
also a vice-president of the Orange Blossom Pine Ridge Community
Alliance.
And again, I'm reflecting the same concerns with regards to what
John Garbo has said and the other gentleman, and also in the letter on
Ed Kant.
A right-in/right-out form of exit and entrance on the exit behind
the Italian-American Club is greatly recommended. Not only would
we have a major hazard trying to cross and go west meeting traffic
that's coming out of the library, but as John said, you have elderly
people coming out there, perhaps not the best drivers, the mothers
with children, a number of people coming out in there.
And if you look to Page 3 on the Exhibit A that you have here,
the section that says -- it's Roman Numeral II. It says, vehicle
interconnection with parcel one is required, particularly to provide
eastbound traffic direct egress onto Orange Blossom Drive.
Page 106
September 18, 2008
I'm not telling you what the language to put in there or the place
where to make a comment, but that could be easily adjusted to
particularly provide eastbound traffic a direct egress right in and right
out only onto Orange Blossom Drive.
Now, that's one way that this copy can be adjusted to address
that. And I agree with Mr. Strain, you're trying to get through this
whole thing with the proper amount of copy and the proper
corrections, but as those of us who have been here a second time to
express our concerns regarding this, we are the public and we are the
ones who are expressing a very deep concern.
Part of the mission statement of the Orange Blossom
Community Alliance is with the safety of Orange Blossom for not
only our residents but anyone who travels east and west on that drive.
So we would strongly urge you to find a way to include that in
the language to help prevent major accidents at this intersection.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Nick, I have a -- I'm sorry to bother you again, but I've got
another question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, it's never a bother.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope your mother hears that. She's
always watching these shows. He tells me she's picking on me because
I pick on him. But I don't think I am.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: She'll pull you by your beard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That paragraph this gentleman just
commented about, would it be inappropriate or difficult at this time to
suggest the following: Vehicular interconnection on parcel one is
required, particularly to only provide eastbound traffic direct egress
onto Orange Blossom Drive.
Now, what that does is in essence limits it to right out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't want to limit anything until
we have a public meeting.
Page 107
September 18, 2008
And one of the comments they mentioned was through traffic. I
can put a directional pork chop in there so that no through traffic or
left turns can come out, only left turns in can happen over there. So
there's a bunch of different things you can do.
So that until you have a public meeting, because there's going to
be concerns from the library, concerns from the other neighbors. I
guarantee you we will look at that. And if it's a safety concern,
documented accidents or if a directional is required, we will do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to ask -- I want to
understand, but I also have another question. But thank you for that.
David, I guess, or Mr. Schmitt. This goes into a compo plan
process. Assuming it's successful, that means the property then has the
opportunity to be rezoned for the elements that are approved in the
compo plan process.
The rezoning process is another public process, most likely,
because it would have to be a PUD. Straight zoning on these
properties is probably impossible.
If they go into a rezone process of any type, that's multiple
public hearings. Then after that they have to go through SDP review,
in which time the traffic issues kick in and there's multiple times there
to review this. Is that a fair statement?
MR. SCHMITT: All correct.
MR. WEEKS: All correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in the past, the
comprehensive stage has really been conceptual. And we've basically
looked at parcels of property for conceptual zoning ability, but then
minutia, the detail, the nuts and bolts that are most important and that
the people are concerned about, usually we see in the subsequent
public hearings where those detailed plans are provided with the
traffic counts and the actual uses on the property. Is that the process
that we're looking at?
MR. WEEKS: Also correct.
Page 108
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I wanted to clear
that for the record is this is a conceptual hearing on a zoning, and I've
heard you all say that generally the zoning isn't what you're obj ecting
to, you're obj ecting to the road issue.
The road issue is appropriate. But the timing of that may be
when they come in with more definitive plans and what they're going
to do with these parcels, how they're going to lay them out, and how
those intersections intersect with the roadways coming into them.
So while your complaints are noted and are good to have on the
record, may not be appropriate to be able to put the language as
distinctly as you want in here. It's more of a nuts and bolts language.
And that's the only reason I'm pointing all this out is to get that
discussion out so you know why -- how we proceed.
Okay, are there any -- now that's all the public speakers?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else would like to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments from the
planning admission?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we will--Iet's take these
separately, and we'll entertain a motion. Let's start with the first one,
CP-2006-7. And if you make a motion, please make it pursuant to
whatever changes you believe are appropriate.
Anybody have a motion?
Mr. Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve, but I don't have
all the details as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with parcel one,
which is 2006-7. There were two changes, a series of changes
submitted by staff in a handout titled Exhibit A.
Under B there were some strikeouts and red indications of
Page 109
September 18,2008
additions.
And then there was a large strike through that was just discussed.
And then finally there was a sentence suggested be added that
publicly advertised meeting prior to design stage of the road work
would be implemented as added to that sentence.
Then also part of parcel one, the clubhouse language in red
where the may would be changed to shall and the words with absolute
certainty in the second line would be dropped.
Those I believe, plus the red strike through up above and the
blue changes that were more or less clean-up. That gets us through
parcel one.
Mr. Vigliotti, would your motion include those changes as
provided and as described?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded.
Is there discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was in the minority at
transmittal and I'm sure that I will be in the minority here in adoption
as well. But I will not be voting for this. I don't think that it's
appropriate to use the GMP as a funding mechanism for development.
I don't -- I think we are relying too heavily on market analyses
that have been bought and paid for by invested parties in order to
make changes to our GMP.
I think that these projects all lay within a traffic congestion area,
and we are significantly increasing the traffic through this intersection
by allowing this GMP amendment to go through.
The intersection improvements that have been talked about
provide only a Band Aid, not a solution to the eventual failure of
Orange Blossom.
Page 110
September 18, 2008
And for those reasons, I will be voting against it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments on
the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those
in favor of the motion as stipulated to recommend approval, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1.
Now, let's go on to parcel two. On parcel two we have the--
some red strike-throughs on the -- on that page and some blue
additions. But not as extensive as the last one. Although the general
categories from the last one involving the intersection, the restrictions
on the improvements to the intersection, the timing and the publicly
advertised meeting for design I believe would all be applicable to
parcel two on a standalone basis as well.
And Corby is nodding his head affirmatively; is that right?
MR. SCHMIDT: That is right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion on this one? Does
anybody have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one comment, and that is this
thing has seen three changes. The last change was 12,000 square feet
plus an ACLF. The first one I believe was 50,000 square feet. And
Page 111
September 18, 2008
now this one is 40,000 square feet plus an ACLF.
I don't believe that both items are warranted. If they want an
ACLF with 12,000 square feet, that worked the first time. As far as
I'm concerned, it wouldn't work this time.
If they want to drop this ACLF and stick to 40,000 square feet,
in my opinion, that works.
But without those changes, I would certainly not support this
particular petition. I don't know what the rest of you think, but I
thought I'd throw that out for discussion.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I did vote for this the last
time around, but the only reason that I voted for it the last time around
was because it was a very small amount of commercial space and the
focus was on ALF.
I will not support it this time around because of that and because
of reasons that I stated in the prior one. I question our use of these
market analyses, I have problems with the traffic and the intersection
improvements that are --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for CP-2006-8, or is
there further discussion?
(No response.)
MR. VIGLIOTTI: I will make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve.
Subject to the corrections made on the sheet that's attached by staff?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray.
Further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Page 112
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed to the motion, same
sIgn.
Opposed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two three. Who's opposed? Mr.
Wolfley's opposed, Mr. Strain's opposed, Ms. Caron's opposed, and
Mr. Kolflat's opposed. So the motion is tied 4-4.
Mr. Klatzkow, is that a --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we have.
MR. KLATZKOW: Four of you are in favor, four of you are
against. Staff report to the board will signify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will not be saving the BCC any
time on this one.
Okay. With that, we will take a one-hour lunch and come back
here and resume on the GMP's --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Before you break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we break?
MR. WEEKS: One question, and that's for these two petitions.
Do you want these coming back under consent agenda?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: And -- you do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything comes back under consent.
The rare occasion we have to accommodate a tight schedule, and
Page 113
September 18, 2008
we've done that when asked in advance. But there's no reason these
can't come back.
MR. WEEKS: I was going to ask, would you allow staff to bring
these back to you this afternoon?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's fine. They're minor
changes.
Does anybody have any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do that this afternoon. And we'll
break untiI12:45. We'll come back and resume on 2006-13 at that
time.
(Lunch break.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from
lunch. It's 12:45.
And before we left, we had mentioned we were going to resume
with 2006-13, the CPSP adoption item.
Before we go into that, the record needs to be made clear in
regards to the last item we voted on. There were members that voted
in denial of number 2006-8, and not all of us necessarily made our
reasons for denial clear on the record.
Ms. Caron did, I know. Mr. Kolflat was another member, as well
as myself, and Mr. Wolfley.
And by the way, for the record, Mr. Wolfley was not feeling
well, so he's left for the day. But at least we'll get the benefit of Mr.
Kolflat and myself.
Mr. Kolflat, could you state your reasons for not
recommending?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I question the validity of that
Fishkind report and the data that was used and the basis on which it
was had.
Page 114
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my reasons were exactly the
same. I don't believe there was sufficient data provided that showed
that both the 40,000 square feet and the ACLF were justified. So that's
why I voted no on that recommendation.
Item #9D
CPSP-2006-13, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that we'll go to
CPSP-2006-13. This was a multifaceted adoption amendment. A lot of
different issues, clean-up issues on a lot of it.
But there was one issue there had a question from our prior
meeting. That was concerning the model homes in Golden Gate
Estates.
And David, I'll let you take it from there.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, at the Comprehensive Planning
Department.
And Mr. Chairman, as you noted, the only issue that I'm aware
of from your August 29th hearing was the issue that you raised, and it
was a good one. Certainly staff appreciates you catching that, the fact
that the language being removed as the board had transmitted results
in a hole in the regulations, if you will, in that the Golden Gate master
plan would then be silent to how model homes are treated beyond the
three years for a temporary use permit.
Staff had incorrectly advised the board back at transmittal that
by simply deferring to the LDC that these model homes in Golden
Gate Estates, which are zoned E, Estates, would be subj ect to the
model home provisions and the Land Development Code and would
be then subject to a conditional use after the three years of a temporary
use.
That is not true, based on the plain reading of the model home
Page 115
September 18,2008
provision in the LDC.
So staff has proposed language which was sent to you in your
supplemental staff report for today's hearing that addresses that hole, if
you will.
I will go on and say that we believe this adequately addresses the
situation. I'll go on to say though, that an LDC amendment needs to
occur subsequent to this plan amendment. And once that occurs, we
could come back and modify, if not completely remove this language
that we're adding today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've sure looked it over and it
does work.
Does anybody else have any concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This may be the shortest issue we have
today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, before I
forget? Hopefully not.
MR. WEEKS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, did you make a
motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- seconded by Ms. Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 116
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
And that wraps up the adoption hearing issues, with the
exception of the consent language coming back for items seven and
eight, which we will do after we review the consent items for the
church we started with this morning. So that will still happen yet
today.
Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Just quickly, as always, we'd appreciate if, for
those of you that do not wish to keep your binders, if you'll leave them
there where you're sitting, staff will collect those at the end of the
hearing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Now, it's near I :00 and we haven't even got through half our
agenda. We have one, two, three, four, five -- five items to go, plus
three consent items to go.
And I thought rather than have people have to sit here all day,
including staff, waiting for the possibility of us discussing an LDC
amendment, since we would have to cut off at 4:30 anyway, I'd
certainly like to suggest to this board that we're not going to do the
LDC today. We'll simply open and close the meeting and defer all the
LDC to the 26th. Is that okay with everyone here?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's logical.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, since you're talking about LDC, we
handed out revisions from our last meeting. You have a packet. Page
numbers correspond to your page numbers in your existing book.
Those are changes and revisions.
Page 117
September 18, 2008
Just -- if you would, just simply substitute those pages for what's
in your book. And eventually we'll get to those at some date, time in
the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now it's the 26th. So we'll still try.
But we'll open the meeting for the LDC when we finish this afternoon,
quickly open it, continue it and then we'll resume on the 26th.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, on the 26th, being that we have the
whole day, do you want to start right from where we left off?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: And I can't even remember, we'll have to look
at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off on preserves and then
stormwater management and then into the rest of the issues. And then
the ones that we've sent back for rewrite, we'll just continue on down
the list until we get them all done. We've got the whole day to do it.
MR. SCHMITT: There were those four that you had never heard
yet. Were those the ones that we start with or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we start where we left off, the
preserves. I'll give you the section number and everything. It's exactly
the list that you all gave us last time.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll continue in that order. It
would be 3.05.07(H)(I)(h)(i), starting on Page 197. Then we go to
201, Page 20 I, which is stormwater. And then groundwater. Then
SRA. Then EAC powers and duties and so forth until we work
through the rest of the agenda.
MR. SCHMITT: Great.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, why don't we just make
that motion now to continue the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have to close this hearing I
believe and open another one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right.
Page 118
September 18, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: And then we would essentially start over with
those new -- the four ones you haven't heard yet, and then eventually
we'll get to all the environmental ones.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The list that--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was passed out, that's just what we're
going to follow, Joe.
Item #9F (Continued discussed to later in the meeting)
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC LIQUORS INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will now go into
our next regular hearing item, Petition CU-2007-AR-12419, ABC
Liquors, Inc. It says to increase the maximum allowable square
footage of personal services, video rental or retail uses. However, this
is another hearing on the same one we had previously discussed. It
never made it to our consent agenda and we did not get any new
paperwork on this, although I was told staff would have a new staff
report of at least a short nature --
MR. SCHMITT: We do, but I don't even see my staff here yet.
John-David had a supplemental staff report that we were to hand out.
And you did announce it, 12:45.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
Well, without that report we can still move forward, can't we?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We know what it's all about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those wishing to testify on
behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Richard, are you going to testify on this one?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 119
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, before we go too far, we
may have to -- we might want to continue this to later in the day --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd prefer if staff was here, just so the issue
couldn't be raised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we wouldn't continue it until very
long. We'd probably go into the next one, then after then next one.
Joe, is there's some way if you can find out if John David's even
in today?
MR. SCHMITT: He's in. I will find out where they're at. I don't
even see Ray back here yet. Ray was sitting in the back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't have cell phones?
MR. SCHMITT: I will call back there, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want us to hold up or you want to
go into the next one? What's your--
MR. SCHMITT: Next one would be Moraya Bay, if you want to
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just go into the Moraya Bay trellis
then.
Heidi, sorry. We'll just have to come back. We'll end up
deferring this one until after. We'll just rearrange the schedule by one
item.
Item #9G
PETITION: V A-2006-AR-II064, VI PARTNERS, LTD AND
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go into Petition No. G, Petition
V A-2006-AR-II064, VI Partners, Limited, Collier County Parks and
Recreation. It's for the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay
District, and it's for a trellis adjacent to the building and the public
restroom.
Page 120
September 18,2008
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I'm assuming since my staff reviewer
is not here for this one either -- I mean, I'd be happy to present.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Joe, we don't have the staff
person here for this one either. Or for that one, the next one. Or for
that one the one after that. Or for that one the one after that. So we've
got six cases we don't have any staff here for. Is there a reason why we
-- are they still working for the county?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. All I can say is that they lost track of the
agenda because we were doing compo plan amendments. But they
should be here and they should have been ready.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agenda was published a week ago,
it hasn't changed.
MR. SCHMITT: I got John Kelly calling back there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a 10-minute break. At five
after I :00 we'll reassess, and we'll keep taking breaks till someone gets
here. And if we can't finish, we'll have to deal with that when it
happens. Nothing much I can do with it now. So five after I :00 we'll
resume.
(Short recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Schmitt, is John-David going to bother to attend this
meeting today?
MR. SCHMITT: He is en route, the best that I could tell. All I
get is his voice mail back there. His voice mail. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Nancy --
MR. SCHMITT: -- we will proceed with the next item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you need to watch these meetings a
little more closely. The GMP amendment that was remaining only was
a five-minute clean-up of a model site in Golden Gate Estates. You
Page 121
September 18, 2008
had 22 people waiting for your return. So I know none of us
appreciate that.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, and the one
we're going to go into because Mr. Moss is not here, we'll go into
Petition 9(G), V A-2006-AR-II064, VI Partners, Limited. And it's for
the trellis at the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District
by the Moraya Bay Club.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this, please rise to be
sworn in again by the court reporter.
Richard's going to be doubly truthful today.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commISSIon.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich
about this situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry, I belive I did, too. I think
so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I did also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Walking in this morning Rich
and I discussed this slightly about the fact -- the need for a variance
for a trellis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would bet he brought it up to me
at the meeting we had, but I honestly don't remember.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Pretty much an unremarkable meeting,
huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Richard, you have so much
coming in front of us all the time, I can't remember them all.
So with that we'll go into your presentation. Go ahead.
Page 122
September 18, 2008
Oh, one thing I would like to clarify for the record. Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department has nothing to do with this;
is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Only to the extent that they're our
immediate neighbor and some of the land actually at some point will
be theirs because of the sliver. But other than that, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like certainly to
understand what that means. But go ahead --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, other than as you can
see on the visualizer is a summary of what we're requesting. The
shaded building is the public restrooms that we discussed earlier in the
hearing.
So we are requesting three variances. And it's because the trellis
is considered a structure more than I guess a decorative feature, for
which it really is. So we have to have a setback from the trellis and the
residential tower equal to one-half the sum of the heights of the
residential tower and the trellis, which would have meant we needed I
believe 50 feet, four inches between the trellis and the tower.
Weare asking for a variance of 25 feet, four inches, because we
only have 25 feet between the trellis and the tower.
We would also need a variance from the front yard setback. This
is, as you know, a comer lot, based upon previous discussions. So
there's a required setback of 30 feet from a front yard. We have 10
feet, so we're asking for a 20- foot setback for the trellis -- I mean, a
variance for 20 feet to allow a I 0- foot setback for the trellis there.
And then again, the building separation issue applies for
buildings one-half the sum of the building height, which will be this
building, and the trellis. The required distance would be required to be
12 and a half -- I don't know how you have 12 and a half feet, four
inches. I think it's probably 12 feet, probably 10 inches. But we want
to reduce that down to a I 0- foot separation between those two
structures.
Page 123
September 18, 2008
It's basically a decorative trellis to cover a walkway from the
public drop-off, if that ever gets built, as we discussed at the last
hearing, for people to walk who are coming to this property, to walk
under that trellis ultimately to the swimming pool.
That's it. And that's the nuts and bolts of the request. If you have
any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. And staff I believe is
recommending approval of the requested variance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had -- in response to my question,
you said that the County Parks and Recreation Department was part of
this because the building was going to be on their property. Are you
giving that property to the county?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only -- the only -- well, yes. The
plan is, remember we had this discussion on the public restrooms.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't tell us the process by which
you're -- I didn't know if it was going to be an easement, a dedica -- a
deed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The agreement that I mentioned earlier
on in the meeting provides for a fee simple conveyance ultimately to
the county of a sliver of land.
That would -- I guess at this point they don't technically need to
be on the application because they don't own that land yet. But as you
know, there were three petitions winding their way through at the
same time. And whether you want them to list it as an applicant, I
don't know that they need to be. I'm just -- they are related, I guess,
versus necessarily being an applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, if you change the
property line to go around that building, you've done no more than the
property line that currently exists up against where the building is. So
to say that you have to have an adjoining neighbor on your report -- I
mean, in your application, I can't see the sense of that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying that they need to be an
applicant, Mr. Strain, I just want to say there was a relationship there
Page 124
September 18,2008
because of the building and ultimate conveyance of some land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a relationship then between any
variance and any neighbor. And I would suggest that we strike--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the reference to Collier County Parks
and Recreation Department.
MR. SCHMITT: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, based on the
way these applications first came in, and just to reiterate the history of
this for the record, the private beach club and the restroom facility at
one time was going to be a separate building and a shared building.
So all three: The variance, the conditional use for the private
beach club and the conditional use for the restroom where the two
applicants, Mr. Y ovanovich's clients and the Parks and Rec, we've
already removed Parks and Rec from the private beach club
conditional use that will be coming back. Parks and Rec has no need
to be part of this.
And then for the record, as I made clear when we talked about
the public restroom facilities, in order to issue a building permit, it
would have to be a building on a single piece of property. I cannot by
state statute have a building cross over a property line.
So regardless, there has to be an instrument that passes this
property from Rich's client to the county, if the county is going to
build this restroom.
So that will be done, regardless of what -- the mechanism to do
it, I leave that up to the attorneys. But as far as a site plan and a
building permit, it has to be one piece of property. It cannot cross over
a property line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions--
MR. SCHMITT: Or I guess -- again, for clarification, for the
record, we are removing Parks and Rec from this application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
Page 125
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, number three, which is a
variance to a building on an adjoining property, is that necessary?
Because normally setbacks control buildings. I've never seen a
requirement to go across the property line.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've been told we needed that variance
as well, so we applied for that. I don't want there to be any question
about that, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What part of the code are you
required to have a distance separation to a building on another
property?
I can wait for staff, if you want.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that.
The other thing, Rich, because some of these things -- you know,
a trellis, and I think they're right, I guess it's a structure. Would you
mind in the resolution actually put the word open trellis? I wouldn't
want anybody in the future to interpret this that you can enclose this
trellis. Because we're essentially getting building setbacks allowed and
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we'll have an issue with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because that's the intent,
right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the resolution where it
says trellis, add the word open in front of it to never confuse the future
that we're allowing a building enclosed.
All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You agree that the trellis is
Page 126
September 18, 2008
classified as a structure in the LDC, do you not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, would you mind putting on
that overlay that I gave you this morning.
You might back it up a little so you get it all in. Thank you.
On this overlay I've tried to show the three variances that are in
the petition. And if you look at the number one there, that's the trellis
to the principal residential structure. And the required setback is 50
feet, four inches. The requested setback is 25 feet. That means a
difference of 25 feet, four inches, or what we might call an
encroachment in the case of setbacks.
That encroachment and difference there is almost twice one-half
the amount that the required setback was.
Item two is a trellis to the north property line, and that required
setback is 30 feet, according to the LDC. You're requesting 10 feet,
which means an encroachment or a difference of 20 feet between what
is required and what is requested.
Under three, which is a trellis to public restrooms, you show
required setbacks as 12.5; requested setbacks, 10 feet, or a difference
of two and a half feet.
Do you agree basically with these setbacks as being part of your
petition?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's consistent with what our
application said.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, seems like an awful lot of
variance requests for something that's going to be there. In fact, you
look at this, you wonder why do we even have setbacks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you wonder why a trellis would be
considered a structure for purposes of needing to have these
separations.
This is really a decorative feature. I don't really think that the
setbacks were really intended to talk about these type of structures. I
Page 127
September 18,2008
think they were talking about if you were to have some other building
that was either a principal use on the property or an accessory use on
the property, a real building, not an open-aired trellis like this.
I mean, I just think, you know, this is one of those examples
where the code's not perfect, so we're going through a variance
process for an opened air trellis. Because it does technically meet the
definition of structure, but we don't think that that's really what the
setbacks were intended to protect against.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the code does say that it
shall be considered a structure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I wouldn't be here if it wasn't
considered a structure. I wouldn't be asking for the variance.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the
applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, Richard. Number two of the
variance, which laid out in this page says 30 foot to the north property
line. And you're looking for 10 feet. And the picture that you had up
there previously of the trellis, could you show that again?
I just want to make sure you're getting -- you're asking for
everything you need.
See that little piece of trellis to the left up on the top?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
That trellis, that line that it sits on appears to be 10 feet from the
north -- from that next double line. And the double line is the edge of
the easement, which is 20 feet from the north property line. So that
trellis may be less than 30 feet as well. Has that been looked at to see
if there's a problem with it at all?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I need to see where the road right-of-way
ends, because that may -- I don't know that the road --
Page 128
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it ends where the restroom is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I don't think I'm tech -- I think that
becomes a side yard instead of a front yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but what's the side yard to the
north property line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you know, Kay?
I need to look at that number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I want to -- I want to make
sure you're getting -- I mean, I don't think anybody's going to have a
lot of heartburn over this one, but I want to make sure that you're
getting everything you're asking for so we don't have to have another
meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I didn't bring the RT zoning
district with me. We need to look at it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While Kay's doing her thing, maybe
Ray can check on the side setback to the north property line for an
accessory structure.
If it's SPS, that could pose a little problem.
MR. SCHMITT: There's the property line shown.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The distance between the
property line and that double line I believe is the easement. And the
distance between the double line and the single line that the trellis sits
on I believe is the landscape buffer.
And if that's the case, that totals about 30 feet, although it's out
of scale. I'm just checking to be sure, Joe.
MR. SCHMITT: I believe that double line is the wall, is it not?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that would help then.
MR. SCHMITT: The double line is the wall, the decorative wall.
And in fact, it's unfortunate --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: -- with this application we don't have the
detailed drawings.
Page 129
September 18, 2008
But Rich, is not that double line the wall?
MS. DESELEM: If I could for the record, Kay Deselem--
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's 29 point --
MS. DESELEM: In working with the petitioner's agents, we did
look at that. We were measuring from the trellis to the property line.
And the property line is actually shown, and it meets setback for that
line. Because we did look at that.
Because when it originally was submitted, we had like five or
six different variances. In trying to whittle it down, we determined that
that did meet the setbacks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 29 feet, two and a quarter inches
meets the setback.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Kay, you want to do your presentation?
MS. DESELEM: Sure, if you're ready.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we finished with questions of
Richard.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Collier County
Zoning, Principal Planner.
First, let me apologize for my tardiness. I am sorry. I did think
that the compo planning things would go longer. And for that, that was
my fault and not watching closer, and I apologize.
As we've already discussed, part of what I was going to tell you
was that we are removing the county as a co-applicant. We've already
addressed that issue now.
And we do have the staff report on record. It's dated September
18th at the bottom. It is an eight-page document. It explains the
purpose and description of the request. And in light of the fact that
you've seen the companion request to this, you're probably fairly
familiar with it.
And it does show graphically in pictures where the trellis is and
Page 130
September 18, 2008
where the restroom facility is, trying to explain what the relationship
IS.
Basically the trellis is being requested on this site to help soften
the effects of the proposed restroom facility from those persons living
in the residential tower for Moraya Bay Beach.
That's why in the analysis that staff provided to you, beginning
on Page 5 of the staff report, there are various references to the
restroom facility. Because that's an integral part of what this request is
about. If it weren't for the restroom facility, there would be no need or
probably any request for variances to provide a trellis.
But we have provided the recommendations and the analyses in
support of our recommendation.
We do have one condition, and that one condition just identifies
the site plan so it's clear in the record what site plan is being evaluated
for this request.
And we don't believe that it's addressed particularly as a variance
in the Growth Management Plan, but we don't believe there's any
compatibility issues presented by the trellis or the variances proposed.
And we are recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Kay, could you point on this
overhead where the pathway is going down to the beach.
MS. DESELEM: The pathway to the beach on this? I can
probably show you on the settlement agreement easier than I could
show you here. If I may use the settlement agreement, this is --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I was looking physically where
it is from this drawing, the access to the beach.
MS. DESELEM: It's truly not labeled on here as such. It's
basically the part that's in -- let me show you. You're right, it's easier
to show you.
The portion that is the -- this appears to be what's going to
Page 131
September 18, 2008
function as the beach accessway.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
MR. SCHMITT: Outside that wall.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bad guess.
MS. DESELEM: Outside the -- oh, you're saying on this side?
MR. SCHMITT: Somewhere in here will be access.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it's that portion up in the
upper left-hand comer of the illustration?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Sorry for that.
Yeah, we have it on a larger map, but we don't have it on that
smaller exhibit.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That shows up all right. Thank
you.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Kolflat, actually, you'll go around that
restroom, but then there will be -- there will be brick pavers, and it's
outside of that drawing. But it will be behind the restroom, and then it
will head directly in that westerly direction towards the beach.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the people using this
accessway will not go through the trellis; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: The trellis is just for the beach club members
and the private residents of the hotel, as far as I understand.
There's a better picture of the access. The beach access will be
there. It will be pavers. It will be a paver walkway.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And where will the trellis show
up on that?
MR. SCHMITT: It will not. The trellis, Mr. Y ovanovich, is only
into the actual private beach club. Private property, yeah. And then to
the pool. That was -- it's nothing more than a decorative feature to
somewhat separate the private entrance from the public access.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So no one on the public access
Page 132
September 18,2008
will traverse under the trellis.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, is there a requirement for
setback from buildings on other properties in the code?
MS. DESELEM: It's -- this is a little bit unusual, because we
were going to be having the actual restroom facilities right on the
property line. So it's a matter of it's on the property line, but it is a
building.
And normally you wouldn't have a building right on the property
line. That's why we have the request for the variance from the setback
between the two buildings. Normally they would be separated by
much more distance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we have a lot of
buildings in the world or property lines, party walls and stuff like that.
So there really isn't any need, is there, because the building is on a
separate site. So why are we determining the distance between that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A sliver, don't forget.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, isn't that gone? Didn't you
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the sliver will actually appear in the
comer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was going to go
away.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to convey a piece of it. But
right now a sliver of it is actually within our boundary right here.
So technically I think that would create the need for the
variance. It may go away in the future once the conveyance happens.
But, you know, Mr. Schiffer, if we could just leave it in here to
play safe. I don't want any problems in the future where there could be
a chance of people interpreting the code.
Page 133
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to correct
something that Mr. Schmitt had said. And that is this trellis has
nothing to do with the beach club. It has to do with separating the
tower residents from the restroom facilities, and that is all this trellis --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that's --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is there for.
MR. SCHMITT: -- what I thought I said. And I apologize if I
didn't. But it is not public access. The trellis was the private access to
somewhat create this separation between where the public goes and
where the private entrance goes into the private beach club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't have any questions, but
in looking at this, I think there are certain provisions of the criteria that
are not met. And since I probably would be voting against approval of
this, I'd like to state what those are at this time for reason -- my
reasonIng.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, before you go too far,
we've got to first check with public speakers, then close the public
hearing. And then that will be more appropriate to hold it for then.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any public speakers,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any comments,
rebuttal? Nothing to rebut?
Page 134
September 18,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nothing additional. I mean, obviously, I
think this is an oddball circumstance. I'm not even sure that this is
what the code intended to require separations for.
So, you know, it's one of those things that I hope that almost a
commonsense approach can be applied to it and you all can support
recommending to the Board of County Commissioners the variances
we're requesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, we'll close the
public hearing.
And Mr. Kolflat, it would be a good time to proceed now if
you'd like, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
Well, looking at the code and the criteria relative to special
conditions, a provision of the settlement agreement required the
property owner to grant a 20- foot wide public beach access along the
property north boundary. Which is true, and that has been done.
This trellis has no special conditions or circumstances that are
peculiar to the land or other structures. Structures pertaining to the
beach club and public restroom were all addressed in two other
conditional use petitions.
On another criteria, a literal interpretation of the zoning code
will not work an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The beach
club and public restroom conditions have already been addressed on
two other conditional use petitions and are not dependent on the
installation of the trellis.
Another criteria, the variance is not the minimum variance for,
quote, reasonable use of the land, closed quote, because the subject of
the variance is a trellis, which is not a required structure. The trellis is
an aesthetic feature that the petitioner wishes to construct. But the
trellis is not a crucial element to allow, quote, reasonable use of the
land, building or structure, closed quote. It is an amenity that is
proposed to enhance the project.
Page 135
September 18,2008
Without the trellis no variances would be required. Yes, a
variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the
zoning regulations specific to a site.
I do not believe these four criteria have been met and I do not
believe this petition should be approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments
concerning this variance request?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion for the matter?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve.
My reasoning is I don't believe the law was written for this kind of
situation. If they were asking to put a structure up where the trellis is,
that would make some kind of sense.
But this is actually a see-through type situation. It's an
enhancement, it's not a building. And I don't believe that the law -- the
intent of the law was written for this particular item.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded
by Mr. Murray.
Is there discussion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think the problem, and I
kind of share the opinion of Rich, is we've let our Land Development
Code -- the concept of setbacks and the concept of yards have all
blended together, which is why we have these kind of problems. This
is definitely something I think was always intended to be in a yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wish to point out, Mr. Kolflat's
reasoning is well done. The saving grace on this one and the reason I
would support the motion is it's actually an improvement for the
neighborhood, it's not a detriment. It doesn't have any negative, I can
only see positive.
So from that basis I'm willing to vote in favor of the motion.
Page 136
September 18, 2008
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would just like to say to
Mr. Kolflat too, I'm usually right there with you. I'm probably the
hardest line on most of these variances on this board. But I do see this
as a benefit to the overall community and definitely to the people who
buy in the tower.
So I'll support the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- we're down to 6-1,
yeah. Can't remember how many people we have left here. Thank you.
Item #9F (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12419. ABC LIQUORS. INC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to go back -- and
John-David is here, I'd like to go back to Petition
CU-2007-AR-12419. And that is ABC Liquors. It's a return ofa
previous heard element.
We did finalize our review of that element, but in the process
there was an error discovered by the applicant. They're coming back in
Page 137
September 18, 2008
to correct the error, much to their credit, because they've gone through
the entire system again to get here. And it was based on one of our
stipulations.
So with that in mind, all those wishing to testify on behalf of this
item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
And Richard, here you go again. When this day's over you will
be the most honest man in Collier County.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part
of the planning commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Yovanovich covered several
items and this was included, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe I also spoke to Mr.
Y ovanovich on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe I spoke to both Mr.
Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold on this particular one.
So with that in mind, we'll proceed. Go ahead.
MR. MOSS: For the record, John-David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
I just wanted to draw attention to the supplemental staff report
that I just distributed.
It basically reiterates what the conditions were that you approved
the last time this came before you and discloses the new condition,
which is on the second page, the one that's going to be amended.
I also wanted to draw your attention to the last page, which is a
Page 138
September 18, 2008
letter that I received from the community following the second NIM
that was held.
MR. SCHMITT: And for staff, we apologize for handing this
out, but it was the -- it's the dates that we had and the timing, and in
order to keep this scheduled for the Board of County Commissioners.
But this was a rather simple change, as you well know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
MR. SCHMITT: If you want to take a few moments to read it or
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the concerns we had is
the time in which trucks could go there. And the way you've written
this, it says trucks having more than two axles.
The concern is trucks having -- well, I guess there's no thing as a
one-axle truck, never mind.
Where's the delivery going to be though? Do you have a site
plan showing --
MS. WILLIAMS: I do. And for the record, my name is Heidi
Williams. I'm a Certified Planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates
in Bonita Springs.
And before I get to your question, I'll just explain how we are
back here today. Because as you know, we did have your unanimous
support about a month ago for this same petition.
The site is located at 951 and 41 on the northeast comer adjacent
to an existing CVS pharmacy.
I'll go ahead and place the conceptual plan.
We followed the appropriate conditional use petition format. We
had our neighborhood meeting and came to you with all the
information for our request.
We revised our commitments during that hearing and they are,
as John-David pointed out, contained in the supplemental staff report.
Subsequent to that hearing, we learned additional information
Page 139
September 18, 2008
regarding the method of deliveries by our clients, and needed to
clarify that for the public and for this petition.
In order to do that, in an abundance of caution, we held an
advertised -- appropriately advertised neighborhood information
meeting and are here to explain what we explained to the public.
We anticipate that some deliveries made to this site will be
delivered by semi trucks or box trucks that have more than two axles,
three-axle trucks. And the only concern we had was the time of
delivery and the access to the site.
So we crafted a condition that limits the hours to non rush hour
times and non late night, early morning times. Basically from 9:00 in
the morning until 6:00 p.m. -- actually, I'm sorry, that's incorrect.
From 9:00 in the morning to 4:00 p.m. And then after 6:00 p.m. until
close, which we expect would be no later than 10:00 p.m. on week
days.
And because the concern was the interaction of a semi truck with
the traffic that goes past the site at the entrances, we didn't feel that
that interaction would occur on a weekend day, so we didn't limit the
hours to non rush hour times on weekends.
We hope all that is captured as written on Page 2 of the
supplemental staff report.
We did have one attendee at that meeting, and his concern was
the interaction with the rush hour traffic, but also how the trucks
would turn from 951.
And our response was that trucks currently deliver to the existing
pharmacy site. They've been able to make that work. We expect that
the trucks delivering to this site would also be able to make that work.
We also know that when we come in for a site development
plan, we'll have to ensure that turning radiuses are all appropriate and
according to code. So we expect that that concern can be addressed
through that proper process.
And I can trace on the site plan the way trucks are traveling the
Page 140
September 18,2008
site now and how we expect them to travel after development of this
store.
Currently, deliveries to the CVS Pharmacy, we expect that
trucks enter from 41, pull behind the CVS, this is their loading area
here, pull past the existing drive-through and then out to 951. They
obviously make a right in from 41 and a right out on onto 951.
Currently there's no way to take a left on 951. That roadway is
blocked from making any left turns.
Similarly, the concern expressed was a truck coming up 951
would have a very hard time making basically a 180-degree
turnaround to go back into the site. We think it's really unlikely that
any trucks would try and attempt that turn. We expect they would
follow the path that trucks are taking now, which is in from 41, out
from 951.
I think it would be hard to regulate something like that and in a
condition. I think it's a matter of practicality that that's what trucks
will be doing. And again, we expect that that's an unfriendly turn as it
is today, plus it will be designed with appropriate engineering
standards in the future.
Does that address your concern, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern really was is where
in the building is the delivery door and where will the truck position
itself for that?
MS. WILLIAMS: What we do know is that the entrance, the
public entrance will face 951. And I don't have an official footprint
floor plan for this building, but we expect that the trucks will come
alongside the building and deliveries will either be from that side or
from a door on the other side.
We don't expect that again any large vehicles will attempt to
come through this parking that's in the back nearest to the residential.
That's just not a turn they'll wish to make. So we do expect that they
will be alongside the building.
Page 141
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then another concern. We're
allowing other trucks 24-hour deliveries. The way this is worded, only
delivery trucks -- well, that was where we only allowed the two axles.
But there is no control at night for even the two-axle guys?
MS. WILLIAMS: I agree, the way this is written that probably
could be interpreted that way. I don't think it's our intention to have
the normal deliveries during the evening hours. We had expressed to
the community that wasn't our intention. And we could revise this to
make that clear.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we took out No.5 entirely
and, then -- well, you added a new No.5 anyway. So you actually--
okay. Can't you just say trucks? Because you're allowing trucks of all
axes (sic). And then that way we can control deliveries for the
two-axle trucks.
MS. WILLIAMS: The trucks that would make deliveries that
would be beyond the control -- the direct control of the operations
department for our client would be the vendors, like Coca-Cola or the
local Budweiser. I think they are the only ones that would have the
two-axle vehicles.
We can certainly -- I don't know that they would -- what times
they would expect to make deliveries, but I think they could work
with them to comply with these hours.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the concern is if the
door is on the back side, which looks like there will be an employee
entrance, probably it will be there where the parking -- I mean, you
wouldn't want a truck out there late at night sliding up and down its
sides and crashing stuff.
MS. WILLIAMS: No, I agree. And I think that's a commitment
we made to the residents in our first meeting and in the second
meeting, that we are not interested in creating a disruptive
environment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, can we somewhere
Page 142
September 18, 2008
maybe add to that sentence no deliveries between the hours of, and
control that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the way it's is written
now, it says when deliveries can occur. You're saying you'd rather it
have it say when deliveries cannot occur?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's see. It's -- well, first
of all they exclude trucks less than two axes (sic) the way it's written
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we definitely want to get
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so you would strike the part that
says having more than two axles. It's just trucks shall only make
deliveries.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then it controls it, right?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the applicant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll have to -- if that's the
condition, we'll have to go ahead and convey that. Right now I believe
we're comfortable with the 10:00 p.m. cut-off for any vehicle.
The only question I have is that gap between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m. for the non semi trucks, I don't know if the client's comfortable
with limiting that gap period. And, you know, they may want to start
at 8:00 for the smaller trucks instead of the semis.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's try it this way then: Don't
-- you know, keep the sentence the way it's written, which is
regulating trucks with greater than two axles. And then add another
sentence that says trucks of any axle, no deliveries will be after, and
set up a -- because you're right, because two-axle guys will be coming
and going all day.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So then all trucks, no deliveries beyond
Page 143
September 18, 2008
10:00 p.m. Is that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And then --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll add that sentence.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we're back at the same
problem we had with the church, is when do they start up the next day
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so pick a time for that too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was going to bring
up, that little piece of time in between and why was it there. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, questions of the
applicant at that time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, can you with a pencil or pointer
show me on this plan the two ways that -- where your trucks -- how
they would get in and unload and how they move out. You don't have
to say a lot, just point it. I just need -- I'm trying to understand the
routing.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. We expect trucks to enter from 41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: And we expect to have them travel behind
CVS and exit on 951.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you just pointed that they
would use that interconnection that in our last meeting you suggested
you didn't want to accept staffs recommendation, or there was an
issue about the interconnection could only be an agreement with a
neighboring property owner.
So now if you're relying upon that interconnection in order to
establish truck access that you're now telling us you want to use, then
it can't rely upon the property owners' agreement, it's got to be
Page 144
September 18,2008
mandatory .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, you're right. What happened
was is there was discussion requiring that inter -- actually, there was a
site plan that showed both. And what I had asked was that it not be
required unless we worked that out --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- with a neighbor. If they can't work it
out something with the neighbors, they may be changing their types of
delivery vehicles to where it can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Richard, the last thing I want
to do is see this panel say yes to the semi trucks, you don't work it out,
your owner, which you guys will be out of the picture by that time,
says I'm going to run trucks in there like I always intended to and he
starts trying to back in and out of those narrow roadways from the
north -- from the west side. That would be difficult.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they'll have to, I guess, worst case
scenario, and I don't drive a semi, but there's interconnection between
the sites already, which is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one to the west, northwest. I know
you're not good in directions, so the left upper comer of the page.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So there's already interconnection. And
so they'll be able to maneuver. They may end up parking in the very
front of the building on a temporary basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a -- wait a minute, Rich. If a semi
truck, two axles or larger, now, that's a bigger truck, that isn't a
bobtail, that's up to 35 feet, that's a bigger truck. He pulls into that
driveway and he wants to get down and unload in the area that was
indicated they would be unloading from, they'd have to back down
that parking area or they'd have drive forward. Either way, they'd
either have to back in or back out and do a lot of turning movements
Page 145
September 18, 2008
in the parking lot to the east, or they'd be backing out into the flow of
traffic to the north, neither of which is a safe scenario if that
interconnect that is shown to the back of the CVS Pharmacy isn't
attained.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I guess what I'm saying, Mr. Strain,
is it behooves my client to work out interconnection with the
neighbors in order to use semis; otherwise, they'll have to use smaller
trucks for the deliveries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then you agree then that this
semi use will be limited only in the condition you get that
interconnect. Thank you, that works fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that you necessarily have to
do that, Mr. Strain, but I'm just saying --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we do, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And for what reason?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you don't get that
interconnect and you try to cram semis down that narrow pathway, it's
going to be detrimental to the operation of that parking lot and those
incoming and outgoing roadways.
How are you going to back in and out of there with a large semi
truck?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can the semi not park in front of the
building instead of on the side of the building?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So across the driveway, blocking the
people that are parking there getting into --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'll end up -- I'm sure if the semi is
there first, they'll end up parking on the side parking spaces. It's a
short-term delivery issue, it's not -- they're not there all day.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a comment that I
agree with you. While I understand that may, if this were to go
forward that way, may eventuate that way, it's not really good
Page 146
September 18, 2008
planning.
Why do we not -- what obstacle have we run into that you don't
have that agreement with your neighbor?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. What obstacle have
we run into that you do not have an agreement with your neighbor
before the fact so that you know that you can do this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't control the speed at which my
neighbor works. Weare talking to the neighbor. We don't have any
issues. We're cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to work it out, but
I don't have it done yet, and we don't want that to hold up our ability
to go forward with our conditional use.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to agree with Mark --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand his -- I understand his
condition.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's only logical.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I'm going to have to
agree with him then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard and Heidi, if you've got nothing
else, we can hear staffs report.
MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record,
John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
I would just like to add that the application with the conditions is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC.
I'd also like to see if you all would clarify the new condition of
approval that you'd like included, number nine, about delivery times
from 10:00 p.m., if we could possibly provide a time when that ends.
Page 147
September 18, 2008
So from 10:00 p.m. until, would that be 7:00 in the morning, or--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time does the applicant's normal
deliveries occur?
Heidi, do you have an answer to that?
MS. WILLIAMS: I think we would be comfortable with 7:00
a.m. as the early limit for all deliveries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think the sentence you would
probably add is that no deliveries will occur between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
Does that work for Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just point out one thing. John,
this isn't a number nine, this is actually replacing five.
MR. MOSS: Is it adding onto five or completely replacing five?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Completely replacing five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language that you've introduced on
the second page of your report would replace the five on the first page
and it would have the additional sentence we just talked about. Is that
right --
MR. MOSS: If everyone would look at Exhibit D that's attached.
This is the list of conditions that's going to be attached to the
ordinance that's going forward to the BZA.
If we eliminate number five, it's going to cause concern I know
for the resident who sent the letter saying that he didn't want any
trucks --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're not eliminating number five.
MR. MOSS: Okay, so we're not eliminating it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five on the conditions, Exhibit
D, remains as you've written it with the exception -- I was talking
about your first two pages. You'll now add to that number five no
deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would take care of that on your
Page 148
September 18, 2008
Exhibit D.
Is that right, Brad? Does that get you there?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on, though. My handout
has a different Exhibit D.
Yeah -- okay . Yes, yes, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would add to that no deliveries
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us past number five.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have to ask, how far
away is Falling Waters, the first residence in Falling Waters from that
area?
MR. MOSS: Ifwe can put up the site plan again, you could see
it there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll get you real quick to the idea
that I have as a question. You have bigger -- you're going to have
bigger than -- you're going to have travel trailers -- you're going to
have tractor trailer type of vehicles. They run their diesels on a
common -- you know, they commonly -- they don't shut them off,
okay, and they could be noisy.
So I wonder, how far are we away from the first residence over
there?
MR. MOSS: I don't know the exact distance. I know that there is
going to be a wall separating this use from the multi-family residential
that exists there. And they will also have the transitional screening too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't like to, you know,
put a hammer on commerce, but I think we have to strike a balance
there. I wonder if 7:00 a.m. is reasonable.
Those are mostly retirees in that area. I don't know why they
have to be woken up at 7:00 a.m. I don't know, is 7:00 a.m. a fairly
common --
Page 149
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I won't object to it too
strenuously, but I thought 7 :00 a.m. seems early. But on the other side,
older people like to get up early, so maybe we'll go that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it might cure even Bob's
concerns. One of the problems I really do have is you're not really
showing us where the door is, the delivery door. And that would
matter.
For example, if it is the closest part of the building to Falling
Waters, maybe the concerns Bob has are connect. If it is on that side
between the two buildings, I would never worry about it at any hour.
So the point is you -- and I know I guess you don't know it. Are
you in for an SDP now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's rare.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But remember, the -- well, it's a
conditional use and we're tied to a developer contribution agreement
and all that stuff.
But remember that you'll have the building itself serving as the
buffer for the truck, because the truck will be on the side adjacent to
the building, so you'll have the building itself serving as the buffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're sure that it's not going to
be on the other side?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When we went through the last time we
committed that the trucks could not park -- where's the site plan? The
site plan?
We committed that the trucks could not park here the last time. It
was always here. It was just a question of what size of the truck. And
that's all that really we're back for is the size of the truck.
Page 150
"'---' .,,-,.. ._._"-~-",,-~..,
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about further on the long
side of the building in the back there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Back here?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, go up further. In the
back. Bring your pen up. There. In that area there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We committed to the parking of the truck
here the last time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. I didn't remember
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You remember it that way, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. In fact, it's nice that Bob brought
it back up because we can add the following criteria: The delivery
entrance will be limited to the side facing 951 or the side facing south
towards the existing pharmacy.
And you've got either the front or the south of the building, but
not the back.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, if the truck is parked here,
does it matter if we have a door here that people are actually going in
and delivering the stuff to?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but then if the truck -- if the door is
back there, what's to stop trucks of any size moving to the back to
unload if they can get away with it?
Why don't we just make sure your door isn't back there, then we
never got to worry about it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I'm not an architect, I don't
design buildings. I'd just hate to already design the building at zoning
stage when I just don't see that as an issue when we're going to be
limiting where we're parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anybody on the board concerned
about it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about possibly limiting the
Page 151
September 18, 2008
parking for delivery trucks to those two sides?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we had agreed to last time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't in here, I know--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, but we did -- okay, that's fine.
But I mean --
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was discussed. I don't know why
it didn't make it in as a stipulation. And I don't have the minutes, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So parking for delivery vehicles would
be limited to the side facing 951 or the side facing south towards the
existing pharmacy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I had to think about the directions --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's fine. Rich's point is
if they put the door itself on the other side, they can wheel around and
go into it without a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the parking and the truck noise that
Mr. Murray brought up would be limited to those two sides.
Are there any other comments, questions of the applicant or of
staff at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi and John-David, what's going on?
MR. MOSS: Heidi just wanted us to clarify the new condition
about trucks making deliveries -- or rather not making deliveries from
10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. She just wanted to clarify trucks of any size
shall not make deliveries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, number five, the
language we suggested adding would simply say no deliveries
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Doesn't matter.
MS. ASHTON: What I was asking to clarify was the trucks of
any size. Because you referred in the first sentence to trucks having
more than two axles, and I just wanted to make sure that you weren't
Page 152
September 18, 2008
limiting the delivery to the trucks to two axles by clarifying that the
trucks of any size shall not make deliveries between --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the intent was no deliveries. That
means period, no matter how -- air freight them in or however you
want to -- there's no deliveries between 10:00 and 7:00.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So adding that phrase is a good
thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yeah, I think that works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the other thing you can do is
put our new last sentence first, which says no deliveries, and then
there's a qualifier as the second sentence. Then nobody would be
confused to think the qualifier applied to the second sentence, right?
MS. ASHTON: So you're eliminating the time limitations of the
two-axle vehicles in your first --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, what he's saying is number five
would start out with the following: No deliveries between 10:00 p.m.
and 7 :00 a.m. Then we would have the next sentence: Trucks having
-- then we would limit the trucks having two or more axles to those
hours in addition to the first sentence.
MS. ASHTON: Whatever you decide with the motion, I just felt
it needed to be clarified that you were talking about trucks of any size
and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's suggesting by putting it in the
beginning of the paragraph it would take the reference away of the
trucks having an axle as a limitation. It simply is the first statement
said, no deliveries period between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Then the
sentence kicks in about the trucks as a further definition of that first
sentence.
Does that work for you?
MS. ASHTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: I would just ask that at the end that you read in
Page 153
September 18, 2008
what your changes are at the very end right before the motion because
this is going to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, so
there won't be time for it to come back on consent unless that matter
gets continued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, we're going to be doing a lot of
stuff today.
This idea of it has to go into consent today, that means you have
to have these written up and back to us before we leave today. So can
you do that?
MR. MOSS: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: J.D. will owe me an executive summary as
well so I can get it to the board, the fundamental executive summary.
Because this is on the schedule. If you recall last time --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do now.
MR. SCHMITT: -- we kept this moving forward because it was,
quote, deemed to be a rather simple change. Nothing's simple.
MR. KLATZKOW: John, use my offices.
MR. MOSS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, here's -- for the benefit of the
planning commission, I think there are three changes we talked about.
I'd like to clarify them for staff, then we can vote on it, then we can
get this done for consent review this afternoon.
Conditions, one, two, three and four stay the same. Condition
five starts out with the words no deliveries between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m., period. And then we go in with the second sentence after that.
MR. MOSS: You mean 10:00 p.m., right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., yes, I'm sorry.
Number six would read: The opening of the easternmost
inter-parcel access connection depicted on the site plan shall be
contingent upon the agreement by that property owner and CVS
Pharmacy.
Then the next sentence would say: Trucks larger than two axles
Page 154
September 18,2008
are not allowed without the use of this access.
Is everybody okay with that?
(Panel indicating agreement.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do you understand that?
MS. ASHTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven would stay as written.
Number eight would read: No public entrances shall be
permitted on the eastern/southeastern side of the proposed building.
Then we'd have an additional sentence that said: Parking for delivery
vehicles will be limited to the side facing 951 or the side facing south
towards the existing pharmacy.
Is everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the conditions of
approval. We just modified items one through eight. Is there -- well,
Ray, we have no public speakers, right?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made a motion to approve,
seconded by Mr. Murray.
Are your motions subject to the conditions --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as discussed and amended?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And Mr. Murray--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- yes. Okay.
Any discussion?
Page 155
September 18, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
This will come back for consent after -- this afternoon after we
hear the others that are coming back for consent.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Don't we need the consent
form?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we need to redo our
conditional use forms?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you do, we don't have them,
because they were in the other packet.
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe you need to do it again. This
was just a clarification of the other approval that you did back on the
original August 7th hearing date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Petition No. CU-2007-AR-12419
remains the same, but the dates of the hearing would be different than
the dates we signed those conditional use --
MR. BELLOWS: I think we will explain in the executive that it
was approved on August 7th, it came back for clarification on the axle
issue today.
Page 156
September 18,2008
MR. SCHMITT: It's already in the executive summary. It's
already explained. It also explains that staff will present the results of
this meeting verbally to the board on Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any -- is
that acceptable?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, with that we will go on to -- well, we're taking a break at
2:30.
Item #9H
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12357, FIRST CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH OF NAPLES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is CU-2007-AR-12357.
It's the First Congregational Church of Naples, presented by Wayne
Arnold. And the address is 6225 Autumn Oaks Lane.
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: Are there disclosures on the part of the
planning commission, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've had meetings with Mr.
Arnold, I've had meetings with the various members of the church and
their representatives, talking about all aspects of this project, all of
which we will certainly be talking about this morning.
Okay, Mr. Arnold, it's all yours, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
F or the record, Wayne Arnold. I'm here representing the First
Congregational Church of Naples. With me is Mike Delate from our
Page 157
September 18, 2008
office.
You'll notice that Tim Hancock didn't stand to be sworn, but he's
with Davidson Engineering, and they're actually doing the site
development plan for this project, so they're -- depending on some of
the questions you may have, it may be necessary to have Tim talk
about those.
Otherwise we have Reverend Wicker and Roland Fandessi, both
-- the Reverend and one of the church elders here representing the
church.
Most of you may remember this, it came before you as a
comprehensive plan amendment. It was a specific amendment for this
site to allow this site to be used as a transitional conditional use. And
that would have been for the church use that we're back before you
today.
As we've progressed through the process, we have entered into
the conditional use application for the church. The conceptual plan has
been modified several times, and some of those revisions have been at
our request, and others, because we have been working closely with
your transportation staff, if you recall, to deal with this extension of
Valewood Lane South, and it would have been an Oaks Boulevard
reliever through Autumn Oaks Lane.
Those details have progressed, and we now have a very specific
design plan, with sidewalk locations and comer clips that are required
in that right-of-way reservation area known.
So the site plan's come a long way, and the church actually
engaged Davidson Engineering to perform and develop that site
development plan for them.
So the conditional use plan that you see in your packet today is
very specific and maybe a little bit more detailed than you normally
see for a project of this type.
Again, we've met with the Oakes Neighborhood Association on
a couple of different occasions. And I know that the church members
Page 158
September 18,2008
have had ongoing dialogue with them. We have had our neighborhood
informational meeting and we held that at the Baptist Church on
Oakes Boulevard. And I think we had two people in attendance at that
last meeting.
I understand that the Oakes neighborhood may have a
representative here, but I don't see them. It's my understanding that
they're supporting the application.
Again, the application, specifically we requested to have a
300-seat church. I know that one of Mr. Strain's questions that came
up yesterday was the actual size of the church building itself. The
reference to 300 seats has been consistent from day one but the size of
the church building has morphed over time as the church came further
along with their plans.
I think the plan has most of the basics that you normally see. Our
access will be off Autumn Oaks Lane. At one point in time we had
contemplated accessing the Valewood extension road, but that's going
to be -- it's my understanding we'll have a median divider so we
wouldn't have access to the north anyway. So it only makes sense to
go out the Autumn Oaks Lane. The neighborhood has seen that and
they offer no objection, to my understanding.
I'm here to answer questions that you may have. There's really
not a lot of detail to be discussed here. We don't have an immediate
neighbor, we don't have neighbors that are concerned. And I don't
think there are any other letters for the record. I had heard that one of
the residents may have written a letter. I've not seen it. So if I'm
mistaken, hopefully Melissa Zone can correct that record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put the site plan on the
overhead while we're asking questions? Just makes it easier to
visualize.
Any there any questions of the applicant from the planning
commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
Page 159
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on the site plan, and
you can see it -- I'll tell you what -- see if Ray -- see the way the
striping is on Autumn Oaks Lane? How do people who are going
eastbound -- do they cross that striping to get in?
MR. ARNOLD: I think you would. I'm not sure that there's --
there's no divider there. I think that's just a representation of the lines
and the turn lanes that will be there to feed that northbound traffic.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they'll be painted solid.
You're not legally supposed to --
MR. ARNOLD: It will allow crossing. Mike Delate has been
working with your transportation staff. And it's my understanding that
that eastbound movement would be allowed out of the church onto
Autumn Oaks Lane.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm worried about getting into
the church, not out of it.
In other words, I'm coming down Autumn Oaks Lane. I see
where I can set up to go north on Valewood, but essentially I'd have to
cross those painted stripes to get in.
MR. ARNOLD: To make your left turn into it if you were
comIng In --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: -- from Oakes Boulevard to the west. That
would be an allowed movement.
Keep in mind the volume and the peak hours for the church are
Sunday morning, so it's off-peak for your normal traffic flow.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you will paint it that way? I
mean, isn't that -- you're not allowed to cross solid lines I thought
anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get transportation to respond
to you.
Nick, or if somebody could answer the question, we'd sure
Page 160
September 18,2008
appreciate it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation.
Traffic coming down south of Valewood is a free-flow
movement, it's not stop controlled. Traffic going west down Autumn
Oaks is stop controlled. Traffic heading east on Autumn Oaks is not
stop controlled.
So the traffic control is set up so that the movements south can
move freely and the movements west, east -- east to west can move
freely but from west to east cannot, they would be stop controlled.
That line is just the property line that's shown on that sketch, it's
not the actual striping line.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think what Mr. Schiffer is trying
to ask is see the diagonal lines on the western property line where it
meets the center line of the road? Those are like an island -- diagonal
island. I know it's not an island, but those diagonal lines, people would
have to cross those to make a left turn into the driveway of the church.
And he's asking if that's a permittable --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, those would be gored back. Those
would be taken out and moved back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. My next question maybe
Nick can answer too. Is this Valewood lined up perfectly with the
Valewood across the way?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I have a question for
Wayne, but while Nick's there, if anybody else wants to talk to him --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any transportation
issues at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Thank--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hang on.
Page 161
September 18, 2008
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question.
In this document it says that you want to waive the need for
required preserves on-site. Is that usually your bailiwick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's not. The memorandum was
done in coordination with the planners. And I've talked to Mr.
Schmitt, there is provision in the GMP to do off-site preserves when a
site is tight.
Yeah, off-site mitigation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand. But the way it
was worded in here, it sounded like you were making that
determination for --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. On Immokalee Road, the
LOS is E, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's actually existing right now F by
board commission because we have restriction due to the interchange
construction.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then it also says in the report
that this is expected to fail by 2013.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, in that report we have a
constrained four-lane facility in that area because we purposely did
that knowing that the interchange being constructed by DOT was
going to take a while. When that interchange is fully open we have an
eight-lane section there, and six-lane Immokalee Road there will be
okay in front of this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When is the project supposed to
be completed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: An FDOT project, they're telling us
about 20 months from now.
Page 162
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And the expected operating -- or
Certificate of Occupancy of the petitioner is what? What is their
schedule?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would imagine they're 20 months out
as well, too.
We didn't tie this to the C.O. They're working with us for the
right-of-way to make an improvement where we would be able to pull
traffic away from the existing Oakes signal and move it to the east. So
this project in coordination with them is actually making things better
out there.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you're satisfied that there
will be no traffic problems up in this area with this petition?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And as pointed out -- the answer to
that is yes. And this is off-peak type uses, a church. And Immokalee
Road in that area is set to carry peak traffic, not off-peak traffic like a
church like this. It will be fine during the off-peak hours.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation at
this time?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nick.
Questions of the applicant?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Wayne, the size of the
church is a problem. Your ground coverage, you're saying that the
building is going to take up around 11,000 feet. Obviously I see some
stairs, so there's mezzanines and stuff that could be taller. But I
assume these are one-story buildings to the side, the church itself is a
tall one-story building with a mezzanine.
MR. ARNOLD: It's not an extremely tall building. But I know
that there was a question, I think -- I wasn't involved in that
Page 163
September 18,2008
conversation. I think Mr. Strain had a question for the church itself
about the steeple height.
But the building itself, I haven't seen the latest iteration of the
building plan, but I know that we've got one in the room and I can
look at it. But I think there's only a mezzanine level. I don't believe it's
a full two-story type building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what is the -- in other
words, if your ground coverage is 11,000 feet, how big is this church?
MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I'm not quite understanding the
question. Are you asking the total square footage of the building?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: Mike Delate just corrected me, there's a portion
that's two-story. But the total building square footage is a little over
12,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then something's wrong with
your impervious calculations.
When Mike said there is a two-story part, what part was he
referring to then?
MR. ARNOLD: Just give me one moment to look at the plan,
Mr. Schiffer.
MR. DELATE: For the record, Mike Delate.
It's just a little bit of the area, the mezzanine area in front of the
chapel portion of the church.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's -- okay.
When you did your parking calculation, you did it solely on the
seating capacity. A building that big, is there any other calculations
you've done as to what the required parking would be?
MR. DELATE: The county only requires for church facilities to
use the primary principal use when calculating parking facilities.
Because the other uses will not be used coincidentally with the chapel
use. So it's rare if ever that they have coincidental use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the greatest load will be the
Page 164
September 18,2008
300 seats.
MR. DELATE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions of the applicant at this
time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I've got a few questions.
Do you intend to have any day care at this facility?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have no problem restricting day
care as a non-use.
MR. ARNOLD: I guess I would only distinguish -- there
wouldn't be an independent day care use, but certainly child care as
part of a service is not an issue. I don't think it is for any other church.
Is that where you're headed with that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --
MR. ARNOLD: A lot of churches have a child room so that
when you're conducting your service --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want -- if you want a day
care service, a conditional use needs to represent that, and you haven't.
MR. ARNOLD: We did not request a separate conditional use
for day care.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to question that. But they
would be allowed after school care and stuff like that, right?
MR. ARNOLD: After school care? I don't think so. I think the
type of -- somebody from staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my
understanding that you can ask for a separate conditional use for day
care, we could ask for a separate conditional use for a church, but the
only type of child care that would be conducted here under our
application would be in conjunction with the church service itself, not
Page 165
September 18, 2008
a separate independent function.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's too bad, because that helps a
lot of working families. But your choice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My next question would be the number
of congregations that you think are going to use this church.
MR. ARNOLD: That I don't know. I can ask Reverend Wicker if
he has any idea. Right now they don't own and utilize their own
facility for their services, so presently they probably don't share with
any other congregation.
But I know we had this discussion earlier that it is the mission of
a lot of churches to help other congregations get off the ground, so
they can share space. But I don't think we have an answer, the number
of congregations that could use it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because this is looking for a conditional
use specific to an area that has limited their conditional uses, namely
Golden Gate Estates. This is more residential and sparsely density
area. This has a different level of problems if they're going to have
more than their congregation using it.
This is exactly the scenario that has been experienced with the
Jehovah's Witnesses on Golden Gate Boulevard that has caused
problems for that neighborhood in regards to their objection.
So I want to make sure there's no problem limiting the use of this
facility to that congregation. And if you want to find that out, you
need to do so when staffs making their presentation.
MR. ARNOLD: I will do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And hours of operation, we just
had a church come in off Immokalee Road and -- I don't know if that
was Estates zoning but a similar rural zoning, and they went ahead and
limited their hours of operations to the uses they needed. They spelled
them out.
I'm wondering what the uses and hours of this church are. We'll
need to have the same consideration, I would assume.
Page 166
September 18,2008
MR. ARNOLD: I'll need to have that conversation with the
Reverend. And I can get back with you when we get a moment to
discuss that with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I notice in the staff report, Page 7
of 8, that there's apparently going to be a memorandum of agreement.
Are you aware of that?
MR. ARNOLD: I am. A copy of that draft is in your agenda
packet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But memorandum of agreements, do
they normally come before the planning commission? I don't
remember that kind of animal before.
MR. ARNOLD: No, this was something that's been and is being
negotiated primarily with your transportation department. Davidson
Engineering has taken the lead on this in drafting this agreement with
-- on behalf of the church, obviously.
And it's our understanding that it will likely be accepted by the
Board of County Commissioners at the time that the right-of-way
agreement is also finalized.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the process of requesting a deviation
to our Land Development Code something that can be accomplished
through a memorandum of agreement that doesn't go before this
board, a process that's acceptable to the county?
MR. ARNOLD: Are you speaking specifically to the condition
regarding off-site preserve? I'm not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm speaking to the reference in the
staff report that says the memorandum of agreement is requesting an
LDC deviation.
So why don't you tell me which one is the deviation that you're
asking for through a memorandum of agreement. Then I'd want to
know from staff or from legal how that's possible through that process,
and what process should be followed if that's what you're trying to
seek.
Page 167
September 18, 2008
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain that there is a deviation
contemplated in the eight current points of the memorandum of
agreement, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that would be good. I just
want to --
MR. ARNOLD: So I agree with you, there are certain
administrative deviations that staff can deal with regarding fences and
walls. One example, some signage things.
But no, any other deviation is not an acceptable method to come
through the conditional use. It would come back to you either through
a variance or a formal deviation request, if this were a PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that memorandum of agreement,
number one, at the time of SDP review and approval, the established
water management control elevation will be set no higher than 10.75
feet NGVD.
Why are you putting that in this? Why wouldn't you be subject
to the water management criteria at the time?
MR. ARNOLD: I understand what you're saying. I think maybe
Mike Delate can offer up why we've gotten to that specificity in the
agreement that you see before you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DELATE: Although not directly involved with the
development of this memo, what's concurred -- or occurred is the
consultant that the county's hired has been at a different pace than the
development of the site, at least the permitting activity. And some of
the conditions up front needed to be set between the county, Davidson
Engineering in this case, and the consultant who's doing the road
connection for Valewood Extension. They needed to set the
parameters. So some of them have been set forth in this memorandum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- Nick, step to the mic, if you
don't mind.
So Nick, you're saying that your department's requiring the
Page 168
September 18, 2008
10.75 feet NGVD and it's going to be consistent with the design of the
roadway improvements?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, I'm happy to say both the
owners of the church design team and the county's consultant design
team came up with this memorandum and worked back and forth.
They were both looking for specificity as they moved through the
design process.
So this was worked through Marlene Messam, our design proj ect
manager with the design consultant and with Davidson Engineering.
So the answer is yes, this number is needed to be in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if you'll know
anything about this, but somebody might. Number two, the water
management to serve the church parcel will be required to provide
water quality treatment consistent with South Florida standards and
will be reviewed by Collier County.
Well, first of all, that's a given. It's part -- they have to do that or
they don't get a South Florida permit, so I'm not sure why the first
sentence is needed.
Furthermore, the county has deemed the configuration of the
water management area as shown in the master plan to be acceptable.
My concern here is we have a standard of 1.5 times water
quality treatment. I think that's better than South Florida's. So if you
limit them to South Florida's, we're not getting what our code requires.
And if that's the case, then we need a deviation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure that's the fact. I think that
I'm --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm trying to find out, so --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was met with Stan Chrzanowski
in engineering. They talked about it and they went back and forth with
the engineers, and that's the language they all came up with, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but what I'm wondering is, if the
language is current code, which you don't know if it is or not, why is it
Page 169
September 18, 2008
in here? Because the current code then would then apply. So if it isn't
in here, that means something's up. What is it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I can't answer that question other
than to say that four or five designers and county reviewers have
looked at this and said this is what we need -- they want in there for
comfort for both on their end and the county's end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does number three pertains to
anything you're involved with: Offsite discharge of stormwater will
not exceed the predevelopment conditions of the site. A pre versus
post analysis shall be provided as part of the site development plan
process in order to make sure this standard is met.
Is that a new standard, a standard part of our current code, a
standard required by South Florida, or why is it in here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an existing standard, the pre versus
post requirement. They just wanted to make sure that they were clear
that we would be able to -- that the county would maintain a pre
versus post condition and the developer would do the same as well
too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know it bothers me when
someone has to have a code restated in an agreement because they
want to make sure it's clear. And I don't particularly like that, so I'm
trying to understand why this is necessary. Because if I don't see a
good reason why it is, it should be stricken.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, Commissioner, I wasn't part of
the water management negotiations at review, but the two engineers,
both from the county and the church, transportation engineering, both
CD ES and them discussed this and wanted some surety that these are
the guidelines we're all going by. Although repetitive, I think it gave
everybody a certain sense of comfort that they were doing the same
thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you can't answer all this.
Wayne, do you have anybody that can?
Page 170
September 18,2008
MR. ARNOLD: I'll take a -- Wayne Arnold. I'll take a shot at
that. And then Mr. Hancock's here and he can add anything that I
don't.
These issues that are in this memorandum of agreement are there
largely because the county needs this right-of-way reservation. Their
road will be substantially higher than our site. There are certain factors
for water management design that we need to know as we're moving
through the design process for this, so that both the road and the
drainage work for the road and also for the specific site for the church.
So these were trying to codify the terms of agreement that we
needed to make both the road and the church site function.
A lot of this probably wouldn't have to be here. It could certainly
be in a form that when the church makes its final commitment with the
county to take down this right-of-way reservation area, how those
terms of -- how they come up with the impact fee credits, whether
they come up with the sale price or donation, whatever it works out to
be, those could certainly be factors of that agreement. But they're
integral to the site design. That's the simple answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that explains the first one that has
a specific reference to an NGVD that was an absolute because it's
needed. It doesn't explain the general terminology of number two, nor
the general terminology in number three.
Do you have anybody who can tell me why that was inserted
into this memorandum of agreement --
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from a design perspective?
MR. DELATE: From a design perspective, a lot of this is
currently in the Land Development Code but is subject to, shall we
say, subjective review. What we wanted to do is have this formalized,
so memories that fade over time would have something to refer to as
to how this design is going to be reviewed.
It's not necessarily all science. Some of it's art. And we wanted
Page 171
September 18, 2008
to make sure that that art was written down for future use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the engineer who designed the
water management system here?
Were you sworn in, sir? You'll need to rise and raise your hand
for the court reporter.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. WHITE: Ryan White with Davidson Engineering.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your water quality treatment
rate?
MR. WHITE: We're providing an inch and a half.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I needed to know. Thank you,
SIr.
Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I have one more.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one I brought up as you pointed out
earlier. We have a zoned height in that conditional use, and staff needs
to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's 35 feet. And we don't have
an actual height.
I understand churches need steeples. I hope we don't get another
one like that one on 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road where the steeple
is bigger than the church.
So in that regard, can you tell me what your actual height is
intending to be on this thing?
MR. ARNOLD: If I can also give you that response after I sit
down with the Reverend, because I know he's got a set of the building
plans. I'd like to look at those and scale that.
They do have an actual design for the steeple. I think it's going
to be a little bit over 70 feet. But I'd like to tell you exactly what that
IS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll wait to hear back from you.
Page 172
September 18, 2008
Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, I guess you got something
you want to say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe in section four the
memorandum talks about the reservation of the right-of-way. The
County Attorney has asked us to clarify with the applicant how that
reservation will move forward. And I've discussed it with the owners.
I would like to read something into the record and then place it
on the viewer for an exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number are you on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe I'm on four, sir.
It should read the owner or its successors and assigns should be
required to reserve right-of-way as depicted in Exhibit A.
The reserved road right-of-way shall be conveyed to Collier
County in fee simple in exchange for impact fee credits. The value of
the credits shall be calculated at -- it's blank right now, but it says per
acre, which represents the actual cost per acre in which the applicant
has paid for the property.
The dedication shall occur within 90 days of the approval of this
conditional use.
So we're actually giving him credit for what he paid for the land
and to happen within 90 days.
And if you'd like to put that on the viewer and I can enter it as an
exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We definitely need the language to get
into a stipulation format when we get to that point.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's printed out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from anyone?
(No response.)
Page 173
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's have the -- well, you
know what, it's getting close to a break time. Rather than have Melissa
get up and not have all the questions, why don't we take a break and
come back at 2:40.
(Short break.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from
the break. And we were awaiting Melissa's enlightenment on the First
Congregational Church of Naples.
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner.
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning
and Land Development.
As previously stated, that this had went through a Growth
Management Plan amendment. And the specific reason why was
because this area, though it's zoned Estates, is in the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, which restricts conditional uses on churches. The area
did not allow transitional conditional uses.
The Growth Management Plan was heard by the Board of
County Commissioners and approved, and it is site specific, which it
says conditional use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the
Estates zoning district is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates,
Unit 97. So it's specific to this site.
It's been through the -- vetted through the public process. County
staff has reviewed it for conditions of approval.
There are some questions that the commissioners had that I
would like to address at this moment.
It's related to -- on Attachment D, No.8, which is the
memorandum of agreement. It is talking about specifically the
required preserves for the subject property may be provided off-site
through the acquisition of like property and so forth.
This provision is allowed in our Growth Management Plan. And
staff has this currently in the Land Development Code amendment
cycle to be reviewed by this board and hopefully approved by the
Page 174
September 18, 2008
Board of County Commissioners.
And normally conditional uses do not go through the process,
nor do you deviate. What you're looking at is, is this site appropriate
for a church. We found that this site is appropriate for church through
the Growth Management Plan amendment.
But this memorandum of agreement that was requested by the
transportation department was put there because the site is small, there
was reservation for the easement for the extension of Valewood. And
to make this site work for the applicants as well as for the county, this
memorandum of agreement was drafted to make sure that everything
is compatible.
I talked to our County Attorney during the break, and I don't
know, Mr. Klatzkow, if you want to mention anything about number
eight, but I know that this was a concern on the board, that hopefully it
will be -- the LDC will be approved prior to the construction of this
site and that there won't have to be actually a deviation. But if by
chance that it isn't, the GMP does allow for this provision.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't really have an issue with it. It's
allowed by the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we wanted to make
sure.
MS. ZONE: And so if there are any other additional questions. I
know that the applicants have come up with height requirements, but
I'm going to let them talk about that.
I just want to mention one more thing, and it's on -- was with the
parking. And Commissioner Schiffer had asked about parking for this
site.
The county has, in the LDC Section 4.05.04(G), paragraph G,
Table 17, church, house of worship, temple, synagogues, you use three
parking spaces for each seven seats in the chapel.
Now, on their site plan, which staff has asked, though the
application is for 300 seats, the site plan limits them to two hundred
Page 175
September 18,2008
and -- let me make sure I read this correctly. It was 290 -- it was 67
seats. I'm looking for that --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Looks like 276.
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner Caron. I was looking for
that, reading it frantically. 276. So the site plan has a 276-seat
capacity, which the parking calculations do meet that seat capacity.
Though they are asking for -- saying 300 seats, I think that it
needs to be determined are they doing 300 or are they going with the
276, which staff is asking approval for this site plan, which would then
be the 270-seat capacity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, couldn't you simply say not to
exceed 300?
MS. ZONE: We could. And if they can't fit it, then they can't go
that large, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that just keeps it a little easier.
MS. ZONE: Keep it simple. Thank you, sir.
If the board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the staff at this time?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I have one, and I need an
acknowledgement for the record. There's been a -- from the staff
report to now, there's been a doubling of the size of the facility, from
6,000 to 12,000 square feet.
We've heard from transportation and we've heard from the
applicant that it's based on -- the analysis basically has been on the
300 seats.
I just want to make sure you're consistent with that, that the
additional square footage change doesn't have any impacts that you
had not evaluated for differently than those of the 300-seat capacity
that you evaluated for.
MS. ZONE: Commissioner, I checked with all of the staff who
did review this. The only impact that it might have could be with the
Page 176
September 18,2008
stormwater.
I spoke with Stan Chrzanowski. He could not be here today. But
he did say that doubling the size of the building could have a
significant impact on the stormwater, but that could be worked out
during the site development plan. And they would have to meet the
terms of the county.
So if that size is too large and they don't meet it, then that would
be handled through that process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this gets approved today for up to 300
seats -- first of all, I'd suggest we strike any reference to square
footage unless we want to change it to 12,000, not to exceed 12,000
and not to exceed 300 seats.
But at the same time, even if they got that, if they go in with a
plan, because of the size increase it doesn't provide them with
sufficient stormwater from a number of different agencies, they
wouldn't be able to get a permit, would they?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ZONE: So in a way, during the SDP process we'll limit
them on that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But is this increase, I mean, one of
the reasons that we no longer have on-site preserves? We shouldn't be
allowing people to just double sizes of things and then say oh, well,
now we can't do the preserves but we know in the GMP it says it's
okay, we can do them off-site.
MS. ZONE: Right. Well, you know, actually, if you look at their
site plan, they do show an area for preserves.
The reason why this GMP amendment came in to allow off-site
preserve and now it's in the LDC process was because of this -- not
because of the square footage of the building, but because the site is
small and that the preserves are so small that the chances of them
Page 1 77
September 18, 2008
maintaining and living will not -- are very fair, there've not good at all.
And so having them buy -- or mitigate off-site and add on to
another area would allow a better preserve area somewhere else.
So it is intended for sites like this, but not because of the square
footage.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just trying to make sure that's
the way it's being handled.
MS. ZONE: Correct. And it is. It is. Because they don't look at
the square footage to base it on preserves. It's the site itself and what's
on-site.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because otherwise it is a
corruption of what the intent was.
MS. ZONE: Right.
You know, if this board would like to limit the size of the square
footage or would like to discuss this, staff certainly will support the
planning commission.
But at this moment we're deferring to what the board deems
appropriate. Staff will be comfortable. Because it has been based
mostly on 300 seats.
Staff did review, and Commissioner Strain brought up a good
point, we were looking at this as one congregation. We did not review
this as several. So that is something that could be taken into account
for as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the staff at
this point?
(No response.)
MS. ZONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Ray, do we have
any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Arnold, do you have any -- I'm sure
you got information we're looking for.
Page 178
September 18, 2008
MR. ARNOLD: I did. My notes reflect that you had asked how
many congregations will be using the site, the height of the steeple
feature on the -- and if we had hours of operation were the three things
that I wrote down.
The other was clarification that there was no child care, the note
that I had made. And I think we clarified that we did not have child
care outside of church services.
With regard to how many congregations utilize the site, we had
this discussion earlier, and presently they don't have any other
congregation. They don't intend to have other congregations.
The only issue that came up, and the Reverend mentioned that if
we prohibit other congregations from using their facility, what if there
was a catastrophe, another fellow church had been demolished, fire,
hurricane, whatever, would they not be allowed to outreach and allow
another church facility to come in and have temporary services there
or something? That's the downside of going to limiting them to one.
The other side of that equation is they're fine limiting themselves
to one, if that's the pleasure of the planning commission. But I do
think there could be an unintended consequence to limit them to only
one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, after what happened with the
Jehovah's Witness site, I myself wouldn't want to see that happen
again. So the limitation I believe is necessary.
MR. ARNOLD: So the limitation wouldn't be to this
congregation in the event that the church grew and decided they
needed another site, it would be to a single congregation? Is that how
that would be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, just come back in and ask for a
modification to their conditional use and they let the public know what
they want. And that's how it would be approached. It would be less
paper intensive or design intensive operation. It's simply a use request.
There's no reason why they shouldn't renotify the neighborhood
Page 1 79
September 18, 2008
of the further scrutiny they'd have on their site, especially from a
traffic viewpoint, which hasn't been taken into consideration.
So I think in a residential setting like this is, and an exception to
a residential setting, it certainly is warranted to request that.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. And that would be an added condition to
that, that it would be limited to use by a single congregation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then if that is accepted -- if
that's going to happen, the hours of operation don't become a concern
then, because obviously a single congregation can only put so many
hours into their single use. So I'm not too worried about the hours of
operation after that.
What about the height?
MR. ARNOLD: The height, we have looked at the architectural
drawings, and we don't have a fixed centerline height of Immokalee
Road, which is one of your measurements for the actual building
height.
We do know what the finished floor elevation for the church is
going to be, and it's going to be right around 15 feet. So I think we're
safe with a maximum height for the steeple feature.
So the building we know is limited to the height under the
Golden Gate Estates zoning designation. But for the steeple and the
cupola that they have on this building, they have a height requirement
of about 75 feet would do it. And that would be above the finished
floor elevation.
I hate to specify actual height per the Immokalee Road
right-of-way because I don't know exactly what that centerline is. Plus
we're having another road built that could potentially be a collector
road adjacent to us. And then we also have Autumn Oaks Lane on the
other side of it.
So if we could specify the maximum of 75 feet for the steeple
and cupola above finished floor elevation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
Page 180
",--""""_,,,,"""""'_"'~ .... ............"" _.."'".....,~~<~...
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I did look at the plans
after they rescaled it. It is somewhere between 75 and SO from grade.
I mean, I grew up in New England, a congregational church is
Christopher Wren steeples, a big part of it.
What if we just set it up where from a property line no greater
than one to one, which is what we do for a wall on a big box store
along property lines, and it be just the steeple itself? They're going to
be limited. The cost of a high steeple in Florida is very expensive with
the wind load, so they're not going to exaggerate that steeple.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but for simplicity to the public,
what's wrong with just saying 75 feet? I mean, you tell the public it's
one to one, someone's got to go out there will a tape measure, know
where the property line is and do all the measurements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne's point is it's -- well, we
would know on the site plan the distance from the property line.
Wayne's point is that the 75 feet he wants to measure from grade
then, not from --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he says above finished floor.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, the finished floor would be the
measurement at which -- that would be the safe measurement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(N 0 response.)
MR. ARNOLD: Finished floor elevation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think there's any more
questions. So we've cleared up the day care, we've cleared up the
congregations, we've cleared up the height, and we're looking at not to
exceed language of 12,000 square feet and 300 seats.
MR. ARNOLD: If I could just say that I think that I'd rather not
specify the square footage, if we can get away from that, and just limit
it to the 300 seats.
And I say that because the plan has morphed. We don't know
Page 181
September 18, 2008
exactly what may happen with all aspects of the site plan and the
building plan as we move through the process. I don't think it's getting
bigger.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morph it smaller. When this started out,
we were told 6,000 square feet, Wayne. That went on for years until
yesterday morning at 7 :00 when the bomb was dropped, it expanded
to 12,000 square feet.
Now, I don't mind working with anybody, especially if the
intensity is remaining the same, but to leave it unlimited, we've not
done that before, why would we make that exception now?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, if we're going to go square footage, and--
we'll do what you say. But I think the question is we need to make
sure it's the right square footage.
So if we can have Davidson Engineering pull the exact building
square footage off of their site plan so we can insert that, because I
would hate to end up that we're 200 feet too small for something
they've been working on a design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get it done then.
I mean, you did a traffic report at 8,450 square feet. The
discussion yesterday started out at 10,000 square feet and before it
ended it was up to 12. So now we've got another number coming in.
What's the final number?
MR. ARNOLD: Mike Delate just whispered in my ear that we
can live with a maximum building square footage of 12,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions or concerns?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might. And the 300-seat maximum stays in
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not to exceed 300 seats.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: I had a request that the memorandum of
agreement be incorporated into the resolution. Individually, not a
Page 182
September 18,2008
separate document. I think those are conditions that are just normally
found in a resolution with a conditional use, not a separate document
attached to the resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns? Does
County Attorney have any concerns?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I think I was the one who
asked that question, just because it was stated in here that it was going
to be an attachment --
MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't need to be--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and it's not an attachment. So I
was looking for it. If it was supposed to be there, it was not, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with that then, let me -- are we all
done? Let me close the public hearing and I'll read the stipulations that
I have and then we can entertain a motion.
MS. ZONE: Commissioner, I just wanted to -- just to verify that
the deviation in the LDC for the off-site preserve is going in front of
this board on September 26th, and it is scheduled to go in front of the
Board of County Commissioners on October 30th.
By the time it gets to Tallahassee and back should be approved
by November. So that not necessarily will be a deviation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been on this site?
MS. ZONE: I have, actually.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So have I. There's a house there. And
the guy that used to live in the house planted a lot of specimen trees he
liked. And they weren't really native trees, they were all kinds of
weird looking trees. Nice weird looking trees.
But there isn't one square foot of preservation worth anything on
this property. So to have them purchase something off-site is a real
benefit rather than a negative, so --
MS. ZONE: Absolutely --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I have no problem with that
Page 183
September 18, 2008
stipulation. Think it's a good thing in a case like this and it's a prime
example of when it should be used.
MS. ZONE: Right.
And it will be approved, we're hoping, by the Board of County
Commissioners at the end of October.
So to work with the applicants, it will probably be approved
before they're in and completed with their SDP process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public
hearing, I'll read some stipulations and then a motion either to work
with the stipulations, go with them or whatever.
The first one is that there will be no day care outside what is a
typical church service allowable as an accessory.
Second would be limit the congregations to this particular
congregation only.
The third would be that the actual height will be limited to 75
feet above finished floor.
The fourth would be to limit the square footage utilized on this
site not to exceed 12,000 square feet and the seating not to exceed 300
seats.
And then the memorandum of agreement that's part of the
package will be attached and incorporated into the resolution.
Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve. I
just have a question of Mr. Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you ask the question, let's see if
we can get a second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer.
Your motions are made consistent with the stipulations?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second?
Page 184
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Klatzkow, we've been
getting quite a few churches came before us recently, which is a good
thing. And we have more to come.
Are we -- or can we catch ourselves in a problem down the road
because of restricting hours, restricting congregations, putting
restrictions on them, even though it's a conditional use? Could we
wind up as a county in some kind of problem down the road?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have always had some discomfort on these
conditional uses when it comes to churches. And it would not surprise
me if sometime down the road there would be a court decision that
would be adverse to the procedures we take here.
Having said that, we have a current code in place. And the
current code has churches being conditional uses in some parts of the
county .
And as part of that, in order to make them compatible with the
neighborhood, certain issues such as times of day that they can be
open, the size of the church, everything we've been discussing are
appropriate for your review.
So I guess what I'm saying is we have a duly enacted ordinance,
and until it's changed by the Board of County Commissioners what
we're doing here is appropriate.
Having said that, down the road would it surprise me if a court
tossed any of this out? No.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then I was going to say, do
you feel comfortable with it, but that's not even that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do I feel comfortable? I've always felt a bit
discomfortable when we've had these discussions on churches. But it
is our current law.
Page 185
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we can proceed the way we
are?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to suggest my
frustration at the attempts. And while I applaud what you're attempting
to do to preserve the neighborhood for peace and quiet, it distresses
me greatly that this is an issue.
I will support the motion because I want to make sure that this
church goes forward. But I feel very uncomfortable about limiting
them.
What goes through my mind is, as a situation, and I'm sure you
would applaud this, just say for the sake of argument we had two or
three more congregations got together on a Saturday because they
were going to wrap up food and clothing or whatever to be sent over
to the military in Iraq or wherever.
It's the kind of thing that represents community to me. And that's
the contradiction that I'm working with.
So I understand clearly what you're trying to do for the general
public, and I respect that. So there's my little problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And it only takes one
bad example to cause a problem for the all. And that's exactly why I
keep having this problem with multiple congregations uncontrolled.
The example's already been set and we have to live with it and some
neighbors have to live with it in Golden Gate Estates, and it's highly
unfair.
So with that, is there any other comments?
(No response.)
Page 186
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conditional use papers, please pass
them in after you sign them. I'll need to borrow your pen here.
Okay, before we go into the Lee County Electric Cooperative,
it's 3 :00. It's most important today that we finish up the consent items
that are already scheduled for the agenda next week with the BCC.
We have four consent items. I'd like to finish them all up now.
Mr. Hancock, we're going to have to defer you for a few minutes.
I'd like to get past the consent items, so that if we do have to
continue at 4:30, we're continuing petitions that hadn't been heard yet,
and we can finish up what's got to go for the BCC by requirement.
Item #9A (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294, NAPLES CHURCH OF
CHRIST
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Ray, with that, our first consent item
was 9(A). And 9(A) was the Naples Church of Christ on Livingston
Page 187
September 18,2008
Road. This was a PUD. And there was a -- we had gone through it this
morning. I don't know if the applicant's ready to discuss. For their
sake, I hope they are.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nancy, you've seen all this?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I have just one minor correction.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On this page is where we showed the
change of the principal uses. We deleted the townhomes, and now it
starts with the two single-family dwellings. So that's what that page
represents.
And we've struck all references to the 74 multi-family dwellings.
So that's what this page shows, the strike-throughs of all the -- or the
deletions. It's not -- this format shows you on the margins what was
removed, versus a strike-through and underline.
So we deleted -- we took the word cumulative out to make sure
it's for the total enrollment of 150.
The next change was we deleted the 74 multi-family residential
dwelling units as one of the uses that was allowed in this opening
paragraph.
Since we no longer have the multi-family, we didn't have -- we
had that alternative language. It was an either/or before in the previous
document that you saw.
The former number one was the townhomes. That has come out
and become the new number one. And that's just renumbering for the
remainder of that page.
There were no changes necessary to the next page of the
document, which was the accessory uses for that parcel.
Then we got to the third page where we did make some changes.
As you'll recall, that was the preserve tract uses. We deleted the and
related open space activity. And then we added into the principal uses
number three, which was that we had to make sure whatever clearing
we did not affect our native preservation calculation.
And then when we got over to the next page, under the preserve
Page 188
September 18, 2008
tract under accessory uses, we again deleted the and related open
space activity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a blank page for us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I went too high.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. The next is the development table.
And it is a little tougher to show. But what you can see over here on
the margin, that was the deletion of all the references to the
multi-family.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then we get to Page 7 under the
footnotes, I believe it was. Again, there was necessary revisions due to
the removal of the multi-family. And that dealt with when we had--
well, it's really removal of the multi-family setbacks related to that.
No changes to the development table for the CF tract, since we
didn't make any changes to that.
The master plan we did make the -- we did delete the
interconnection.
Do we have that handy for me to put up there?
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll get that for you. But we did remove
that.
On the deviations, the requested deviations, which was Exhibit
E, we revised it to say unless the CFR tract is developed by any entity
that is not owned or controlled by the church, then the buffer required
for the CFR tract will be per the Land Development Code.
And then in deviation number three, we made it clear that a wall
only along the northern boundary from the preserve tract west of
Livingston Road will be required. And I believe that's consistent with
the requests of Positano and three of the planning commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on the map where
that's --
Page 189
September 18, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. I'll put that up. I'll put the master
plan up now.
As you can see on the master plan, this was the interconnection
that's gone. So we would be required to have a wall from here, which
is the preserve, west to Livingston Road. No wall anywhere else
within the proj ect.
And that is all the changes that we've made. And I believe that
addresses all of the comments.
Did I miss something?
MR. ARNOLD: I did.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You did?
MR. ARNOLD: I made a mistake.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You made a mistake? Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: Could I interject here again? Wayne Arnold.
On the Exhibit E deviation page that's on the screen before you,
I think we may have left out a word to make that clear.
What we had discussed when we took the break, that this is the
deviation between the two tracts. And it was my understanding that
what we wanted to do was not require a buffer, period, unless the
tracts were developed by an entity other than the church-related entity.
So I think the way that currently reads, it says, which requires an
alternative Type B buffer. It should say, to require no buffer between
the CF and R tracts unless the tract. I mean, I think that language --
and we can --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, you're right.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I think that's right.
MR. ARNOLD: So it should say, to require no buffer between
the tracts unless. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did you address the no formal
Page 190
September 18, 2008
recreational facilities and no outdoor lighting in that back tract?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was back in the permitted use -- list
of permitted uses.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ball fields?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. And we had put -- I'm sorry,
I forgot to mention that one.
Under the permitted uses we have parking, water management,
recreational uses accessory to the church school. And then we said no
ball fields, courts or similar recreational uses may be constructed. No
outdoor recreational use shall occur -- may occur, I'm sorry. It should
say no earlier than sunrise and not beyond 9:00 p.m. That's how we
addressed that. Since we're not allowed to do any formal ball fields.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the restriction was -- I mean,
you're allowed to -- you were talking about if people wanted to go out
there and throw a football around or run around.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine, I think everybody's
understanding that.
But I heard the gentleman specifically say they were concerned
about formal recreational facilities being constructed on the site with
outdoor lighting, and you agreed you wouldn't be doing that. I didn't
see the language in here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we said no ball fields, courts or
other similar recreational uses may be constructed.
MR. ARNOLD: If I might interject again, Mr. Strain.
We actually in a previous iteration of this had the word no
lighted. But then as Rich pointed out, if we said that you couldn't have
lighted, did that imply that we could build unlighted. And that wasn't
the case either.
So we felt that this as written reflected that if we couldn't build
the ball fields anyway, then we wouldn't have lighting. Plus with the
hour restriction to 9:00, I don't know that we would ever end up in a
Page 191
September 18, 2008
scenario where lighting would be necessary, to be honest.
But again, I think we can -- if there's a better way to clean that
up -- because we don't need outdoor lighted recreational facilities.
That's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just simply say there will
be no outdoor lighted recreational facilities? Is there a negative to
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. We thought we took care of it
by saying there were no formal ball fields being allowed. But if we
need to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't say that. You said no ball
fields. You didn't say no formal ball fields.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- but that was the point that
was pointed out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But it said no ball field, you
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that means you can't put even a
ball field where two people go out and kick a ball around then. Do you
really want it -- I think the intent was no formal ball fields and no
outdoor lighting. Those were the things that would create more noise
and more distraction to the people to the north.
N ow I don't think they -- from testimony I heard, they weren't
objecting to a couple people going out there and throwing a football or
a frisbee or kicking things around, but I think it was the more
formalized facilities that they were concerned about. So you -- you
know, you may want to think about better wording. It's up to you.
MR. ARNOLD: Maybe, if I might, we could simply insert the
prior to ball fields to say no formal, if that's the preferred word, to
reflect that.
And then if we need to add then a phrase at the end that just
simply says that we'll have no lighted outdoor recreational facilities,
Page 192
September 18, 2008
then maybe that makes that very clear.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No lighted or formal recreational
facilities shall be constructed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go no formal ball fields, courts or
other similar recreational uses or lighted outdoor facilities may be
constructed, then I think you've covered all the bases.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No pun intended.
MR. ARNOLD: And your phrase was no lighted outdoor
facilities?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No lighted outdoor recreational
facilities.
MR. ARNOLD: Recreational facilities. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets us to where we need to
be.
Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to -- at the risk of
annoying the petitioner, I'd like to canvas our board to find out
whether or not the same constraints still exist with regard to the 74
units that were talked about and deleted.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate that, but we spoke to the
resident of Positano and they were firm on that that they didn't want
the residential use. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's something, too. We all know that
Mr. Wolfley would have held out for that one. And probably to get
this through we may have gone along with it.
If the applicant has voluntarily pulled it out against the option of
leaving it in as a conditional use, it still is probably not much different
of a process for the applicant to have to come back for an amendment
to the PUD to get those added in the future if they find a compatible
way to do it, versus if they had it as a conditional use and had to come
back through the process again anyway.
So I think this is probably a good solution, Bob. And --
Page 193
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine enough for me, if
everybody's happy on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a minutia thing.
Rich, in there you described earlier a concrete fence you wanted
to build, yet in the thing you put in there it said concrete or masonry
walls.
Do you want to add the word fence, just to make sure you're not
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we talked about that. What did we
decide on the wood fence?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't say wood. I just said -- a
fence is a post and panel construction. A wall is bearing continuously
along the bottom.
MR. ARNOLD: I think the way that the condition is written as
we've -- I shouldn't say condition, but deviation, it clearly says that we
are required to build a -- I think it says concrete or masonry wall from
our preserve tract westward to the Livingston Road right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you don't want to do
the concrete fence?
MR. ARNOLD: No, I think it's a --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about we put wall or a fence.
MR. ARNOLD: Concrete wall or fence?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I would put concrete,
period, masonry -- I mean, you can't make a masonry fence -- comma,
wall, and fence -- or fence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if it's concrete, it really doesn't
matter whether you want to call it a wall or a fence, it's going to work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are two different entities,
especially in the building code, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I might have misheard
Page 194
September 18,2008
you, but you mentioned that wall is going west of Livingston. You
mean up to Livingston--
MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, west to Livingston. If I misspoke, I
apologize. West to Livingston Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does staff, the County Attorney's
Office, everybody involved with the consent issue, understand the
changes and corrections made here today? Because this will be the last
chance we have to change or correct anything before it goes to the
BCC.
Nancy, is this yours?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nancy
Gundlach for the record, Principal Planner, Zoning and Land
Development Review.
I understand your conditions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the panel would be
comfortable with this as a consent then? If there is, I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve
with the changes that we've all discussed here now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by -- well, Mr. Schiffer had
his hand up first.
Mr. Vigliotti, you want to --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I want to add something.
I'm voting for this, I made the motion. But I'm just concerned
and I want on the record that I'm concerned about putting restrictions
on churches in the future. But I'm okay with this.
Page 195
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and since Mr. Vigliotti wants to
put something on a motion, I want to tell you I'm concerned if we
didn't have the restrictions on it. I would then would vote against it. So
that would nullify your objection.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr.--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I express a concern?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would just like to hear from staff that
the deviation is consist -- I would like to know if it is or is not
consistent with their recommendation. I hope it is, because it changes
where we go with -- I think we would be on the summary agenda if we
don't have any consistency (sic) with the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, when Joe was here it was different,
and he said that they would -- you would actually put it on the -- pull
it off the consent.
N ow that they've changed the wall issue, is it enough for you
guys not to object to it, or are you still going to take an objectable
position?
MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is that we've come very
close to meeting staff things. And I think what I'd like to see is where
we're short of the fence -- Nancy, if you can point that out.
MS. GUNDLACH: There is no --
MR. BELLOWS: Do you have the master --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, from the perspective of the
County Attorney's Office, I have a question.
So this means if this panel wants to make a recommendation and
we're all in cooperation and we're trying to move to the Board of
County Commissioners in a unified manner, there's nobody here
wanting to pull this, if we disagree with staff, staff can pull it off the
summary agenda?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I have no control over the staff and the
Page 196
September 18, 2008
summary agenda. But I think Mr. Bellows would be able to work this
out pretty quick.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think we can work it out. I just want to
make sure I understand where we're short on the fence.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The preserve.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy wanted it completely
surrounding.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, there is no fence located--
and keep in mind, all these residences are built right here. There is no
fence located along here, along here, here, here.
The fence that's proposed is proposed from here to here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to comment?
MS. GUNDLACH: Would you like me to -- I can draw it in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Nancy--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Keep going, keep going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you got a preserve in the part in the
north where the fence isn't going to be. You got a strip of preserve
plus a whole bunch of what looks like untouched land to the east. To
the south you got an FP &L easement that looks to be what, 100 or
more feet wide, I don't know. And then you got a preserve between
that and the houses. What more do we need?
MS. GUNDLACH: I conducted a site visit --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know, I built the houses there.
So did I.
MR. BELLOWS: Now that I -- for the record, Ray Bellows.
N ow that I see where the fence is and where it isn't, the preserve area,
except for the difference, we can accept this and go forward on the
summary .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any there any other discussions
from the planning commission?
Page 197
September 18, 2008
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you gentlemen for your cooperation today. We appreciate
your getting it done so we can get this moving forward. I know you
do, too.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #9B and #9C (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
CP-2007 -7 and CP-2006-S
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 9(B) and (C) are the petitions for
Orange Blossom. There was one, 9(B) had some consent stipulations.
And 9(C), where are we at with those?
MR. SCHMIDT: Coming to you now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask the County
Attorney something while this is being passed out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sure, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir.
Page 198
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could somebody from your
staff send us a link somehow to that recent court ruling with the
Jehovah Witnesses?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll get you the opinion. You won't get--
there's no link involved. You have to --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I get one also?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'll give it to all of you.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That'd be a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's going to be an issue, let's
look at it.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's site specific. Every site's going to be
different. That's why we go through this process.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't it common for
Jehovah Witnesses to share meeting halls anyway? From limited
experience I have, that that's part of the way they deal with things.
We don't know.
MR. KLATZKOW: They come to my door, I talk to them. Other
than that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't read the Watchtower
then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on to consent item 9(B),
which was the CPCS-2006-7. It was the first one that we went through
this morning. The changes have been passed out to us.
MR. SCHMIDT: And again for the record, Corby Schmidt with
the Comprehensive Planning Department.
On your visualizer is the top page or the first page where the
provisions would apply to both of those parcels in the subdistrict. And
we've made those changes in accordance with your recommendation.
And both transportation staff has read and agreed to these -- this
language, as well as petitioners.
Behind -- and again, the most recent changes are appearing in
Page 199
September 18,2008
green on your sheets.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I think there's enough there, I
think we understand the gist of the consent.
Are there any questions involving the consent items that are
being presented for the first part, which is the 9(B) item, which would
cover us on the first page and down to parcel two on the second page?
Any concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve this
for consent for the adoption process for 2006- 7?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries. Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm still opposed to this one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron is still opposed. Motion
carries 6-1.
Now, the second one didn't require a consent item because it was
a tie vote. So is there anything else that needs to be discussed on the
comprehensive plan issues?
Page 200
September 18,2008
MR. SCHMIDT: Just the staff understood that, and we'll split
the documents apart so you're not reading both when the
recommendation does come before the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Item #9F (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12419. ABC LIQUORS INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to 9(F). That one
was the conditional use for the ABC Fine Wine and Spirits,
CU-2007-AR-12419.
Okay, we have a new list of conditional uses, numbers one
through nine. The changes we asked for were in number five. And we
asked the first sentence be added no deliveries shall be permitted
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
We asked for number six, trucks having two or more axles shall
not be allowed without this inter-parcel access connection.
And we asked for number nine, parking for delivery vehicles
shall be limited to the side of the building facing the CR-951 or the
side of the building facing south towards the CVS Pharmacy.
Anybody have any other issues?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm just looking at number
five, and I'm wondering, I thought we got rid of that from the 4:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. thingy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why do we have it there?
Explain it to me. It doesn't make any sense to me why we have an
interruption in there.
MR. MOSS: For the record, John-David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
Page 201
September 18,2008
That was as a result of the second NIM. A member of the
community showed up and said he was opposed to having trucks
operating at rush hour. He felt it would be dangerous for people
exiting Falling Waters' community, which is adjacent to this
development.
He was concerned that their view would be blocked of traffic
coming through the intersection, if they were, for instance, trying to
make a right turn onto CR-951.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mentioned earlier about
commerce and 7:00 a.m. And I see that as an estoppel for commerce
and I don't understand that at all.
One person I'm not sure should change the whole process. I don't
see the point. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, the only -- it may not be a
valid point, but if the applicant's willing to provide it, is there any
harm done? I'm just wondering --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't know whether
they're willing to do it or whether or not as a result of that one person
we do what sometimes that's said that staff does to people just to move
things along. I don't know.
What sounds to me or seems to me to be just not right doesn't
make sense for me to go on the basis of one individual.
Answering your question, I'll accede to it, but not -- I don't
believe in it.
MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, Heidi Williams. I'll just
respond, Mr. Murray, to your concern.
Our client is willing to make this commitment because they have
several stores and they can just work out the route so that they avoid
those times when they arrive at that store.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, all right, that's fine. I
thought, though, that this was associated with vehicles of more than
two axles. Is that correct?
Page 202
September 18, 2008
MS. WILLIAMS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, who all controls
them? The store doesn't control them.
MS. WILLIAMS: Our client is the owner-operator of this
business. So they will control the operations that anticipate having
semi trucks --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I suspect they'll attempt to
control it. But inasmuch as interstate commerce is a matter of time and
distance, no one can foresee when a trucker will necessarily arrive, no
matter the best efforts to get there.
MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, they -- not to be argumentative, but
they are the distributor for their stores.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
MS. WILLIAMS: So they can control their route.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I thank you for that. I'm not
going to go any further. If you're satisfied with that, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments on the
consent item?
(No response.)
MR. MOSS: I would just like to add one thing: If you notice on
the overhead projector, number six, there's a line drawn. Ad the end of
that first sentence it did say the property's owner, CVS Pharmacy.
Heidi brought to our attention that CVS Pharmacy is just a lease
tenant. And so she asked that we delete that, and so staff did.
So I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that other
change to number six.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only reason I had mentioned it
is to keep it clear what side of the building we're talking about.
If you feel that works, that's fine --
MR. MOSS: Oh, no, Commissioner, I think you're looking at
number nine now. I'm talking about number six, the first sentence of
number six, reference the owner of the property being CVS, and
Page 203
September 18, 2008
they're actually not the owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you.
Okay, are there any other issues on consent?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's not, is there a motion to
approve the consent agenda item?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded it.
All those in favor -- any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you.
Item #91
PETITION: PE-200S-AR-13117, LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE. INC. (LCEC)
Page 204
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock, we have just plowed
through the consent agenda items, so let's now move into Petition
PE- 200S- AR -13117, the Lee County Co-op Electricive, Inc. ( sic) for a
20-parking space employee parking lot in Immokalee.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, bordering on evening,
Commissioners. For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering.
I want to note today that Mr. Yovanovich has indicated he is
neither an architect nor a truck driver, so this day is very special for all
of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will change the next time he's up here.
MR. HANCOCK: In this economy he may very well become a
truck driver, we don't know.
But I'm here on behalf of Lee County Electrical Cooperative
Service Center, which currently has a location on State Road 29 in
Immokalee. They are a utilities service provider for the majority of the
Immokalee community.
The exhibit before you is a zoning map in your packet showing
the project location. I just want to point out that the site, which is
approximately 2.46 acres, fronts State Road 29 and lies extending to
the west of29.
The property is bordered -- it's interesting, there was a
commercial corridor created here, so there was a parallel line to 29
that was drawn that bisects the property, leaving approximately a third
of it at the front as commercial and two-thirds at the back with its
RMF zoning.
Surrounding the property basically on three sides are mobile
homes. And even where we have commercial zoning in one area, there
is a mobile home on that property. And that is identified in your staff
Page 205
September 18, 2008
report.
Currently LCEC uses the property as a service center, and the
building has been there in excess of 20 years. The building is in need
of tremendous updating and renovation. It serves its purpose.
Finally, Mr. Midney, something in your backyard that you can
sink your teeth into.
But what LCEC is seeking to do is to really upgrade the service
to their customers in this area with a brand new facility on this site that
will add drive-through facilities.
And as you may understand, in the Immokalee community there
is a lot of payment of bills in person. And so this service center gets a
lot more traffic than what -- a typical Comcast service center, simply
because of the dynamics of the community within which it's located.
LCEC is being very responsive to the needs of the community
and is going to bring this site up to a top notch facility.
Part of that process is -- and I'll put the site plan on the visualizer
for you at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', by the way, are we doing okay
with you timewise? Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: The reason for this parking exemption, as you
see the site plan before you, has nothing to do with building location
or circulation or size or square footage. All of that is okay. But one of
the functions of the service center is that they have meter reading
vehicles that have to go out and read the electrical meters.
Typically the employee comes to the site, they park, they go in,
they pull their tickets, they come back out, they get in their meter
reader vehicle and they go off and do what they need.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you know, this is one of the
simpler ones I think we've had in front of us today, and maybe we can
shorten our day up by simply asking: Does anybody have any
concerns with this issue? Because if we don't, we might just expedite.
Page 206
September 18, 2008
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a question or two. I'm
looking at the staff report. But it relates. It says in here, whether the
off-site parking will be used for employee parking. And it goes on to
say, by employees only.
But isn't that the same area that's occupied at night by trucks?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. But the number of spaces allows the
employee vehicles to pull in and park, go inside, get their tickets,
come back, get in the truck and go. So it is employee parking and for
the service vehicles. Both are accommodated in the space you see.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but my point was, is that
it indicates in here as an answer employee parking only.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, that means no customers will be
utilizing the area, only employees will be utilizing the area --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it doesn't matter if it's their
vehicle personally or a truck.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the other thing is that
under 12, whether there are more viable alternatives available.
While I don't disagree with it, the answer doesn't really to my
way of thinking provide -- it says proposed site plan appears to be a
viable alternative.
That of course is for staff, I think, unless you folks wrote that.
MR. HANCOCK: That's Ms. Deselem's response. We're -- put it
a little stronger, we think it's pretty great.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would agree. And I would
hope that she would have written it a little bit more strongly too,
because it seems that that's where they're already established and that's
where they intend to have a structure that -- and the whole bit, right?
MR. HANCOCK: If you'll allow me to admonish her later, I'll
take care of that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you, okay.
Page 207
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, this is a--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is a wonderful project that's
long overdue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Paul.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question of staff. Just Kay, a
question.
In the site design requirements, since they are going in excess of
the parking, are they required to put the -- or will you make sure they
put the double the landscape in that front parking area?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
I don't know that we have that specifically in here, but I will
make certain that it is included.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, this is not a major, this is
just a minor comment. But I'm trying to identify the number of
parking spaces. On this chart here to the left as we look at that chart,
those are the 20 spaces that will be off-site, correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Over on the right side the
parking area is indicated there a total of 17. But in your write-up you
talk about the spaces necessary for 3,200 -- 616 square feet of
building, which comes to be 14 spaces.
And then somewhere in the report you also refer to 19 spaces.
I'm confused as to how many spaces there actually are over on this
east part.
MR. HANCOCK: The plan before you shows a total of -- it is 19
spaces. We believe that is adequate, along with the stacking for the
Page 208
September 18, 2008
drive-through, to accommodate the building as proposed.
At time of SDP, the building square footage may change a little
one way or the other. Either way, we'll have to comply with the Land
Development Code requirements for parking at this site.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, you have plenty of spaces,
so there's no problem here of being shortage of space. I was just
confused on how you arrived at the totals.
MR. HANCOCK: I apologize if there was an inconsistency in
our application, sir. The plan that you see before you is what we stand
by.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the
applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, are there any public
speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Hearing none, we'll close the
public hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to make a motion to
approve this and send it forward with staff conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the second.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 209
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you, Mr. Hancock. That will have to go down as the
easiest staff report Kay's ever done.
Item #9J
PETITION: NUA-2007-AR-12575. HITCHING POST CO-OP. INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the next one, Petition
NUA-2007-AR-12575. And this is the Hitching Post Co-op, Inc. West
side of Barefoot Williams Road in East Naples.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Mr. Murray, you're already under oath.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no, he's just moving some
books around, I think.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures. Any disclosures on
the part of planning commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the record, something's being
handed out to us.
Mr. Murray, has this got something to do with this application?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this was Mr. Bosi giving me
the opportunity to give it to you.
Page 210
September 18,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to discuss it or reveal
what it is for the record other than the fact that it's an infrastructure
and horizon study analysis.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somehow I got yours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got mine?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anybody have mine?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got Tor's.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They have names on them? I
didn't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Mr. Murray, Michael Bosi's going
to be mad at you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I got my own, son of a gun.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I got yours.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, here's yours.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I knew I could cause trouble if I
tried.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is like the Chinese fire drill.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All I wanted to do was pass
something out.
MR. HANCOCK: I'm just happy to find out it had nothing to do
with my petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was too. That's why I asked. Okay.
We've had swearing in. We've got another meeting to open and
close yet. We've had swearing in, we've had disclosure.
Mr. Hancock, you can proceed with the presentation.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, again, Tim
Hancock with Davidson Engineering on behalf of the applicant, which
is the Hitching Post Cooperative.
The Hitching Post -- before you is an aerial showing the
approximate 43-acre site. This is a very unusual case, one you
Page 211
September 18, 2008
probably haven't seen very much of in the past and hopefully will not
see much of in the future.
This has been a mobile home park since the early Seventies. '70
or '71 was the earliest I could find.
When it was created, it obviously pre-dated our Land
Development Code. And as such, there were no platted lots, no lot
lines, just a parcel. And then they had internal rules which originally
were governed by the state as to how close mobile homes could be
together based on fire code and whatnot. And that's how the park
operated from that point forward.
Into the Nineties, it converted over to a cooperative, which was
simply a change in transfer of ownership method. But nothing else
changed in the park itself. There were no changes in boundary limits,
setbacks or anything.
So the park has continued to operate really the same way it has
since the early Seventies.
The reason this application is before you today is a particular
owner of a unit, a neighbor called and complained about their shed. So
code enforcement went out and said gee, you didn't have a permit for
the shed, you have to remove it.
In the process of removing it, that particular owner says, oh
yeah, what about that one and that one and that one. This thing's been
around for 38 years.
And what came to light is that there really are no standards for
separation between structures for this site, because our setbacks apply
to property boundaries, of which this has a perimeter boundary. There
are no internal lot lines or boundary lines. So how do you know if a
shed or an addition or even a mobile home is too close?
And so the purpose of this application, quite honestly, is to
create a standard so that future actions will have a measurement to be
applied to.
And secondly, it's to ensure that the existing mobile home park
Page 212
September 18, 2008
can continue to function.
And I think I can put your mind at ease about some of these
issues as we discuss those standards.
The key issue before you, and I don't really have a
recommended -- or a stated objection to the staff recommendation, but
let me kind of point you to the exhibit here on the visualizer.
And what we've done is we -- we actually had to go out and take
some on-site measurements to figure out what it is we have.
One of the basic issues is a fire code requirement that there be 10
feet between principal structures. The good news is that has not been
violated in the park, it's part of their rules. We have no problem
applying that standard.
The trickier standard is what about the accessory structures that
are attached to the principal structure, how close can they be to each
other?
In your packet you'll see there's a reference in fire code to three
feet. Well, what we found out going through the park is the closest
consistent measurement we had was five-and-a-half feet. In other
words, there were no accessory structures that were closer than
five-and-a-half feet to each other. Or in the case of a carport being
added onto a mobile home, there was no less than five-and-a-half feet
between that carport and the next door mobile home.
So that's a standard that had been carried throughout the park
and does not appear to have any conflict with fire code. So we were
comfortable in those numbers.
And so what we've proposed basically is -- and this was an
exhibit that was intended to clear things up a little bit, but I'm not sure
we did by its inclusion.
But the intent here is that within the park, if we establish a
minimum seven-foot front setback to the edge of the roadway, an
eight - foot rear yard distance between structures, again which is
consistent with fire code, a five-and-a-half foot separation between
Page 213
September 18,2008
accessory structures or an accessory and a principal, and then a
10- foot separation from principal to principal, we have met fire code,
we have established a set of rules and regulations that allows the park
to continue operating as it has for 38 years, and quite honestly we can
now at least answer the question is that shed or addition legal or
illegal, which right now we can't really do.
That's the entire basis for this being here. Absent these standards
being approved or stricter standards than this being approved, we will
in effect create a rampant non-conformity situation within the park,
which I think if you can imagine going back and looking for 38 years
of building permits, would be a nightmare.
So if we can comply with fire code and we can adopt standards
that now will be on the county's books, not just internally within the
park, so that investigations can be made and completed if someone
should build a structure illegally and what the building separation
should be, that's the whole purpose for this application and why we're
before you here today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to acknowledge that I'm a
little slow here on this. If we have a requirement for a 10- foot
minimum between structures, in that rear yard area you have eight
feet. Those are principal structures separated by each other? I'm
looking at the visualizer.
MR. HANCOCK: They are. But the fire code actually culls out a
separate requirement between the rear of the principal structures of
eight feet. And it is in your packet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I understand. What I'm
getting at -- I struggled with this when I read it. I wondered. And it
seems to me if you're trying to establish a fire line, if you will, a space
so that fire doesn't jump as quickly, you'd want to do that all the way
around.
Page 214
September 18, 2008
I realize the implications of what I'm saying, I assure you. I
remember another mobile home park that we had down there.
But I'm just wondering, in some of the setback areas you want a
seven-foot minimum in certain circumstances and an eight in another.
Geometry won't work if we were to go to 10 foot all around,
would it?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it creates a massive non-conformity.
And where I don't think it's necessary is a seven-foot front yard
setback from the edge of the roadway, the pavement, you still have a
20- foot wide drive there. So you're dealing with a 34- foot separation
between the front of a mobile home and the front of another mobile
home. So that's an excessive standard.
And the rear standard, we comply with fire code at eight feet, so
I felt that that criteria was being met.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you comply. I have
no objections if you comply. I know that if these things ever do go on
fire, they go like the devil.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
I do have a concern here. The process is for a nonconforming
use alteration, meaning this is a preexisting already nonconforming
mobile home park.
The process isn't creating a zoning district with setbacks. We're
not approving setbacks for this process, we're just allowing and
deeming -- and putting on record we recognize this is a
nonconforming mobile home park.
However, we would like to see the nonconforming mobile home
park be able to improve dilapidated trailers where currently the
building department would not allow for a replacement trailer because
it is a nonconforming park. And under the current LDC requirements
for non-conformities, it would not be allowed to do so.
The nonconforming use alteration allows for the replacement of
trailers, subject to approval and consistency with the fire code. That is
Page 215
September 18, 2008
why we tailored the stipulations to be consistent with the fire code.
We're not approving setbacks with this process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the improvements that would be
applied for be subject to new codes and updated to new codes? Just for
the improvements?
MR. BELLOWS: Fire codes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any code. If they came in with an
improvement to add an addition, would their addition be subject to the
new hurricane standards, the strapping, the attachments, all the other
good things that are --
MR. BELLOWS: Through the building department, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be an improvement
overall to the public if this place made improvements and they were
allowed to make improvements, because they would be consistent to
the newer, more modem codes.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And that would also include meeting fire
codes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I know. I just want to -- I want to
make sure.
Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, looking at the sketch that's
up there and the requirements ofNFPA 501A, they don't match.
So in other words, for example, side to side in 501A is 10 feet.
You have side to sides at five-and-a-half feet.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And that's why -- that was the
purpose for my clarification. 10 feet for the principal structure. 4.2.1.1
of 50 lA states that no portion of a manufactured home, excluding the
tongue, shall be located closer than 10 feet side to side, eight feet end
to side or six feet end to end from any other manufactured home or
community building.
The differentiation is -- and this is why I think the
Page 216
September 18,2008
recommendation in the staff report is not entirely clear -- is the mobile
home separation must be 10 feet side to side, but the distance from an
accessory structure to a mobile home, we're listing at 5.5 feet. Under
NFP A 50 lA, if you look at 4.4.1, it states that such buildings or
structures are not less than three feet from an accessory building or
structure.
Now, it says on an adjacent site. Again, we don't have sites,
we're instead inserting from one building to the next.
So when I say it is my opinion, when you look at NFP A, that the
mobile homes are no closer than 10 feet to each other. The accessory
structures, as I read it under 4.4.1, could be three feet apart, yet we're
showing 5.5, because that's the standard that's been applied in the
park. So in essence we would exceed that standard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now we don't really define
what an accessory structure is. Neither does NFP A, unfortunately.
Would you consider, for example, the typical sunroom on the side of a
trailer, is that an accessory structure?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think you're right.
So everything you want to do is really meet this standard. I think
one thing I would do is, in here you use the word fire codes a lot. I
would -- instead of that, I would refer to NFP A 501A and the 2000
edition. The future editions have eliminated these requirements and
have gone straight to building codes. You don't want to go there.
So I would specify exactly this edition and not use the word fire
codes, use the word as per NFP A 501 A.
MR. HANCOCK: I will absolutely agree to that inclusion that
the references shall be to the 2000 edition ofNFPA 501-A when
referring to any fire related requirements.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's no dash, it's just
501A.
MR. HANCOCK: Again, corrected.
Page 217
September 18, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER:. And I think that's the best thing
you can do. I give you credit for being able to find a standard, a
contemporary standard even that establishes these requirements.
MR. HANCOCK: This was actually contained. The NFP A were
put in by -- at least made available by staff, so I have to give Nancy
credit for making them available. I just read them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, in the report it states any
other setback requirements for principal structures internal to the
project site are matters addressed by the mobile home park
management or the cooperative.
How do they administer that? Do they have a committee that
reviews this or is it one person, or how is it done?
MR. HANCOCK: They actually have written standards.
However, that is the current condition, Commissioner Kolflat.
What will happen now is those standards will be revised to
incorporate the standards that we are proceeding forward with today.
So not only will the county have those standards, much like you
have an HOA document, before a mobile home can be replaced they
have to go through an internal committee there in the co-op, which is
required under the co-op rules. And it has to be approved based on
these standards.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, your exhibit,
attachment number two, do you have a copy of that?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes. The attachment two in the staff report,
sir?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes.
Now, this big road here, the main road is a rather heavy traffic
road, I assume. It looks like a main road there.
MR. HANCOCK: Barefoot Williams Road, it is a higher
capacity than in the roads within the park, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the setback is no greater
Page 218
September 18,2008
there than it is on the secondary roads, 10 feet. Is there any reason that
the setback for that road because of possible traffic should be greater?
MR. HANCOCK: Actually, sir, the setbacks along Barefoot
Williams Road are governed by the Land Development Code. Those
are true setbacks. What we are proposing today are the internal
controls which relates to distance between structures.
So along Barefoot Williams Road, the external project setbacks
do apply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you meet all those, right?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They do on that road rather than
the property line? I thought they didn't apply to the property line.
MR. HANCOCK: I'll be honest with you, I don't -- I cannot tell
you whether they do or don't. We did not specifically look at that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, my only concern was is
that a heavier traffic road, possibly a greater setback might be
warranted.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, sir, the problem we have is that a
greater setback in essence, because park models have not gotten
shorter, a greater setback makes the home irreplaceable.
In other words, you're done. When what you're living in gets to a
point of no longer being able to use it, you cannot replace it if you
increase the setback off Barefoot Williams Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But maybe to get to Mr. Kolflat's point,
do any of the standards you're asking for today impact those homes
from the front setback of Barefoot Williams Road?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. They only apply to distance between
structures of the adjacent structures internal to the property.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right, then. Could you look
farther on this sketch here. Right about the middle point there is a
horizontal road that runs there. Can you see that where it has some
notations on the end of the road?
Page 219
September 18,2008
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, I believe that's Abilene Trail.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. And that's dead-ended
there. See the road dead-ends there?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Whereas the other roads have a
circular path. If a fire truck was to go down there, there's no space for
that fire truck to turn around if it made a mistake in going in the wrong
road.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Shouldn't there be some method
that that fire truck could make a turn there and come back if it had to?
MR. HANCOCK: The only way you can do that, sir, would be
to obliterate the units that are at the end of the roadway.
Again, this is 38 years old. This is not a new project where
you're starting from scratch. And there's certain things that you're
unable to retrofit, and that's why this is a non-conforming use change.
In order to put a 100- foot wide turnaround to meet current Land
Development Code at the end of that street, it would eliminate
between four and six mobile home sites, which I do not believe this
county has the authority to do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But isn't that a fire safety
consideration that should possibly be looked at?
MR. HANCOCK: It may be looked at till the cows come home,
but there's nothing we can do about it unless we eliminate the units at
the end of that roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this was built 38 years ago, was
that road one of the approved improvements on the property?
I mean, basically what Mr. Kolflat's trying to do is bring it up to
today's standards, which I understand.
But unfortunately a building built 38 years ago, you're subject to
the standards at the time they were built. And I'm just wondering if
that was a standard then that you violated 38 years ago.
Page 220
September 18, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: No, the standard for 100-foot cul-de-sacs on
dead-end roads didn't exist 38 years ago.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's probably -- Tor, that's
probably the difference that we're dealing with today. This is a much
older project that came under the rules at the time.
And the issue they're in here for today isn't an issue of that
nature. It's basically --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Something we can't do anything
about then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. We wouldn't be able to.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. On your evaluation
criteria, Mr. Hancock, I had another question. Item two relative to the
height, the building height, you say that the existing height conditions
are what will prevail.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We're not requesting or asking for
any change in the existing height permitted in the mobile home
district.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the mobile home district
identifies it as 30 feet. Why don't we just say 30 feet instead of
existing conditions.
MR. HANCOCK: This is a straight zoning project, and mobile
home has a height defined in the Land Development Code, so it's
already defined.
What I was doing is trying to answer the question that we're not
requesting any relief or the ability to exceed what is currently in the
Land Development Code for building height.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I just thought 30 feet might be
more definitive than existing, but it's not a major point.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. I think the Land Development Code
adequately covers the permitted building height for mobile home
zonIng.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
Page 221
September 18, 2008
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments or any
questions of the applicant from the planning commission?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a presentation by county
staff?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Staffhas
reviewed this mobile home petition, and it is consistent with the
Growth Management Plan, and it is recommending approval.
And it's subjected to the following conditions that the number of
units not be increased. There are currently 368 units or leased sites at
the Hitching Post.
And number two, all principal structures must maintain the
minimum of 10 feet.
And three, all accessory structures are to comply with, and I'm
going to change the word per Commissioner Schiffer's request, as per
NFPA 501-A.
MR. KLATZKOW: No dash.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the addition that Mr. Schiffer
referenced, which I think is this year's edition; is that correct, Brad?
COMMISSIONER CARON: 2000.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2000 edition.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No dash.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, I can see there are a lot of
public speakers. Can you start calling them.
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
Page 222
September 18, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you can chance a rebuttal, if you'd
like.
But with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion. Is there amotion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion subject to the change
recommended by staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which tailored yours, and staff
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no old business listed on our
agenda.
There is no new business listed.
Page 223
September 18, 2008
There is no public comment because no public's left.
Is there a motion to adjourn so we can reconvene another
meeting?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded
by Mr. Midney. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries.
Okay, welcome everybody to the Collier County Planning
Commission meeting of the Land Development Code 2008 Cycle
One.
Is there a motion to adjourn this meeting and continue it to
Friday at 8:30 on the 26th of this month in this room?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to continue to the 26th in
this room at 8:30 in the morning.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Commissioner Kolflat.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 224
September 18,2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we're continued, we're
adjourned, we're out of here. Thank you everyone.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:58 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 CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Page 225