CCPC Minutes 11/20/2008 R
November 20,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
November 20, 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
Karen Homiak
Donna Reed-Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney (Absent at roll call)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, Dir. of Real Property, School District (Absent)
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 AM., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2008, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 2, 2008, REGULAR MEETING;
OCTOBER 2, 2008, LDC MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 24, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 7, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER
14-15 REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: BD-2008-AR-13305, Peter D. Donahue, represented by Ben Nelson, Jr. of Nelson Marine
Construction, Inc., is requesting the addition of a boatlift to slip number one in an existing 24-slip dock
facility that protrudes 44 feet and six inches into the waterway. Proposed change includes adding a boatlift,
extending it approximately 10 feet further into the water for a total distance of approximately 54 feet and six
inches from the mean high waterline (MHW). The subject property is located at 4895 Bonita Beach Road in
Hickory Bay West, a condomininm, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner)
B. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite Kings Lake, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich and Koester, is requesting a PUD Amendment to modify the permitted commercial uses within
the Kings Lake PUD (Ordinance No. 82-52). The 9.63-acre subject property is located at 4890 Davis
Boulevard, in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-
David Moss, AICP)
1
C. To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review and consider a proposed ordinance to
amend Ordinance Number 90-17, known as the "Collier County Noise Ordinance", codified as Chapter 54,
Article IV, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, which Ordinance subsequently
was amended by Ordinance Numbers: 93-77,00-68,04-15, and 07-61 that is intended to provide sound levels
that are not detrimental to life, health, enjoyment of his or her property. (Coordinator: JeffKlatzkow, County
Attorney; Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARJNGS
A. Petition: SV-2006-AR-l0482, Seasonal Investments, Inc. d/b/a Fairways Resort, represented by Tim
Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting seven variances. The first variance is from
Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.a. of the Land Development Code (LDC) which requires an off-premise sign to be
located in a nonresidential zoned district to allow an off-premise sign in a residential zoned district. The
second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign area of 12
square feet for a double-sided off-premise directional sign to permit a 79.6'" square-foot off-premise sign.
The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.ii. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign height of
8 feet in height above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign to
allow a maximum sign height of20 feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.b.iii. of the
LDC which requires that a sign is located no closer than ten feet to any property line to allow a sign within
zero feet ofa property line. The fifth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.c. of the LDC which requires
an off-premise sign to be located no closer than 50 feet from a residential zoned district to allow a sign to be
located within a residential zoned district. The sixth variance is from Subsection 5.06.06.2. of the LDC
which prohibits any sign which publicizes an activity not conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
maintained to allow an off-premises sign. The seventh variance is from Subsection 5.06.06.AA. of the LDC
which requires that no sign shall be placed or permitted as a principal use on any property, in any zoning
district. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Piper Boulevard and Palm River
Drive, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED TO 12/4/08
B. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-1I546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP 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'" acre property located on the
southeast comer 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)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
] 1,120108 cepe AgendaIRB/sp
2
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the November 20th meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call by our secretary, please.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Tom Eastman's not here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom Eastman is not here. And Mr.
Midney is not here.
Rightfully so, because we don't have any school issues with the
sign variance coming up and there's only discussion, so I certainly
understand why Mr. Eastman's not here today.
Page 2
November 20,2008
Before we get into the agenda, let's go through a few of the
housekeeping matters.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. The first item
on today's agenda of the advertised public hearings was Petition 9(A)
for Seasonal Investments, Inc., d/b/a Fairways Resort requesting seven
variances. That item's been continued to December 4th at our regular
meeting. It will not be heard today.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. We
have to discuss some -- a schedule that we have changed. 11/24,
which is next week, we had scheduled a review of the floodplain
management ordinance. That needs to be changed to January 26th, if
that works for the majority of the members of this commission.
I don't hear otherwise. I'll assume it does, and we will use that
date, January 26th.
If Ray or Joe, you want to confirm with Mr. Wiley that works,
then that will be fine.
And our next regularly scheduled meeting is December 4th.
Does anybody know ifthey're not going to be here on December 4th?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we've got a quorum
then.
Page 3
November 20,2008
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2008, LDC
MEETING; OCTOBER 2, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER
2, 2008, LDC MEETING
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is the approval of the
minutes. The first one -- we have three of them. The first one is
September 26th, 2008, an LDC meeting. Is there a motion to
recommend approval?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, thank you.
Okay, any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
The next one is October 2nd, 2008 regular meeting. Is there a
motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
Page 4
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0.
And the final one is the LDC meeting of October 2nd, 2008. Is
there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron made the motion, seconded
by Mr. Vigliotti.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.M
Page 5
November 20,2008
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 24, 2008, LDC
MEETING; OCTOBER 7, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 14-15,
2008, REGULAR MEETING
Okay, BCC reports. Ray, anything you want to throw into the
mix?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On November 18th, the Board of County
Commissioners heard two items on the summary agenda. Both items
were approved.
The first was a conditional use for the First Congregational
Church of Naples. And the second one was an NUA for the Hitching
Post -- a Nonconforming Use Alteration petition for the Hitching Post.
And that was also approved on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Ray, have you had
all the LDC hearings already?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The -- all the LDC hearings have been
conducted. The board approved the final resolution -- or correction,
ordinance.
However, there were 13 or could have been 14 amendments that
have been bumped to the next cycle. Those were the amendments that
you all did not pass having to do primarily with the EAR-based
amendments dealing with the environmental issues.
Page 6
November 20, 2008
(Mr. Midney enters the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question was, does the
commissioners ever change the amendments as they're going through
them, kind of like we do as they're going through us?
MR. SCHMITT: I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, does the
commissioners make changes to the amendments as they're going
through them?
MR. SCHMITT: In most cases they do, yes, they'll make
changes and modifications as they go through the two hearings. Well,
I say -- often they do, but not many of the amendments, but there are
amendments that they certainly make changes to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the question really
is, is there a way we could get and see what those changes are just so
-- because we remember them as they go through here. They
obviously go into the ordinance, into the LDC, and I'm not so sure --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In could interject for a moment. We do
have copies. I think there were about three changes, slight changes to
a couple of the sections. And we can get that information to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or are they posted on the
internet --
MR. SCHMITT: And there was one withdrawn during the
hearing, had to do with the bubble irrigation systems in lieu of that
one, as actually the board didn't approve and it was withdrawn. So
there were some other ones. We can certainly give you a recap of the
changes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent, Joe, is just to
keep up to speed. As we leave here, it would be nice to know --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- how they've changed. Thank
you.
Page 7
November 20, 2008
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item is Chairman's report.
I have passed out or provided copies to each of you of the letter
that this board authorized to be sent to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding our concerns over the processing of the
RLSA Phase II report. So that was distributed a week or so ago, a few
days after the approval was provided. And that's just for your records.
I also passed out, and I'd like Ray to put it on the overhead, a
map I've received that I can't tell you what the purpose of the map is. I
can't tell you what it's to be used for other than what it plainly says in
the front of it. And it says, the illustrated road network which supports
45,000 acres of potential development in the RLSA is for modeling
purposes only. Actual road segments and alignments may differ than
as shown on the map.
Obviously this is a draft of something, conceptual build-out
roadway network. The red dots represent town nodes. There's 22 of
those.
Now, my purpose in showing this to all of you is that this may
not be a real map, this may not be anything that could even get to a
point where it's built this way. But if the system can provide for this,
and as it says here, it supports 45,000 acres of potential development
when the current SRA's are much less than that right now, this then
possibly reflects things that could come through the change process in
the GMP's after the GMP's are discussed with the Phase II report.
That's why the Phase II report and its discussion is so vital to the
citizens of this county. If we're going to have an area in the east with
22 towns as a potential where you have acreage of each town up to
4,000 acres, and they're a full service town, schools, shopping centers
and everything, the planning of that area cannot be rushed through the
Page 8
November 20,2008
system.
And that just further emphasizes why this planning commission
last time wanted to see this go through the process carefully as it had
previously been planned.
And I'm leaving this with you all for your reference. This is just
something to keep in -- when we do get to the discussion it will be
interesting to understand this a little bit better at that time.
So that's all I have.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bravo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Item #8A
PETITION: BD-2008-AR-13305, PETER D. DONAHUE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move into consent
agenda items.
The first one is the boat docks -- boatlift slip number one to the
existing 24-slip dock for Peter D. Donahue on Bonita Beach Road.
And Ashley, I believe you may have a correction or something
to it?
MS. CASERTA: Yes, I do. For the record, Ashley Caserta,
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
The original -- at the original hearing, the request was 54 feet,
six inches. And at the hearing it was decided that it should be 57 feet
and six inches. The resolution was revised to reflect that. However,
Exhibit B wasn't revised until yesterday.
So I have changed out the Exhibit B in the official resolution for
you to sign. And I've got copies here, if you guys would like to have
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only change then on that
Page 9
November 20,2008
graphic would be to take the 54-six and change it to 57-six.
MS. CASERTA: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a problem with
that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there a motion to
approve the consent item for Petition BD-2008-AR-13305 with the
correction noted by staff?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Wolfley, seconded by Commissioner Caron.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion caries 9-0.
And by the way, let the record show that Mr. Midney arrived a
little while ago and is now here.
Item #8B
Page 10
November 20, 2008
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13494, KITE KINGS LAKE, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on today's agenda for consent
is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite King's Lake, LLC. And that's
the shopping center that we went over last time.
Are there any comments, corrections to the record on that?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have a number of things.
First, there's a few corrections in the -- on -- in Section six that
we were given, 6.2.A, number six. It said to exclude lumber yards. But
the SIC number for lumber yards is 5211, and it's not included in that
anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I think the concern that was
raised during the meeting was that they still -- we don't want them
having yards of material stored outside when the example provided to
us was they were looking at it like an Ace Hardware or something like
that which is fully enclosed.
And I think the reference is only to make sure that they don't get
into an outside operation. I don't know if it hurts anything. Do you?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's just not under that
number, but that's all right.
And number seven, it lists 7384, and then says detective and
private investigators only. But that should be 7381.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's the code that that comes
under.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see where it says 7371-7384, that
means it's all the numbers in between. And so what they're saying is
for all the numbers that are in that cluster, it means detective and
private investigators only.
So that number you're referencing --
Page 11
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't see that anywhere else, it
seemed to be right behind the number, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, if I'm reading this wrong, please
correct me.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, the way we've been doing this
in the past, if it's in a dashed group of numbers such as this, then you
can pull out certain uses within that range of SIC codes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could this be made clearer then? Is
there a better way to do this?
MR. BELLOWS: The only way is to list that specific SIC
number, then say excluding that. I don't think it matters one way or the
other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, if I can. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
I think was that the intent. And we need to put the SIC code
number there that only allows those two uses out of it. Because
obviously that range of SIC codes encompasses a lot more than just
those two uses. I think we were supposed -- it was supposed to clarify
which SIC code itself had that number. So we'll make that
clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make it right now so we
know what it's going to say. And that way Karen knows right upfront
how it's going to look.
COMMISSIONER CARON: She knows, 7381.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it will say 7371 to 7380. Then it will
say 7381, detective and private investigators only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it will be 7382 through 7384.
Page 12
November 20, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that work?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then number 15, code
number 5735 includes in it videotape stores for retail. So I think it
should be the same, whatever wording -- if it's going to be on number
31, it uses no adult-oriented store. So that should be included on that
number too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that one, Richard, you would read
5712 to 5734, comma, 5735, and you would use the language on
number 31, excluding adult-orientated stores of any kind.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you would go 5736.
Does that work for everybody?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
And then number 20, 5999, it should also include that it excludes
gravestones. So you have monuments and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that different than tombstones?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- monuments and tombstones,
but they also list gravestones.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And possibly sales barns. I don't
know what a sales barn is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We think that's an auction house.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather, ifhe doesn't have an
objection, it would be better to take it out than leave it in. Who knows
what that -- could happen in the future.
So number 20 would read in the end, except auction rooms,
monuments, gravestones, sales bars and tombstone sales.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Was it sales bars or barns?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Barns.
Page 13
November 20,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Barns.
Okay, we'll take that out. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Anything else, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Oh, no, did you say, or yeah?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's fine. No, this is what we're
supposed to be doing.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I have -- I didn't have the
book last time, so -- and I didn't know the codes were online, so I went
through them all. And there's a lot of things here that could potentially
-- personally I think -- I mean, this is supposed to be a commercial
shopping center, and that's what it's listed as, for retail shops and
personal services, the way it's been for 20 years. I think it should
remain that way and serve the neighborhood.
But a lot of these listings here could potentially leave it open to
being a government center or a college campus, research center, jail.
There's so many things listed under there that it's -- so I really can't
support this with some of these numbers that are in there, like number
10, educational services, and 26 is also educational services.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far then --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I have all of these listed
here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But see, we got a little problem.
I've got to get legal counsel to kind of help us here.
The discussions of those kind of items were supposed to occur at
the last meeting. This is purely a consent agenda where the only thing
you're allowed to do here is clarify language that wasn't written as
clearly as we stated it at the last meeting.
And I understand your dilemma because you now got --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. But then I do not support it
and list these reasons then, right?
Page 14
November 20,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you could do that, certainly. Then
what that will do, Karen, is send a signal to the BCC that they need to
look at some of these in a closer manner than --
MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute, you can't revote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to vote on the consent
agenda. She's going to just vote yeah or nay on the consent -- oh, I see
what you're saying, she's going to be voting for the whole action.
Yeah.
Heidi, any comment?
MR. SCHMITT: We can add in the executive summary
additional concerns that were raised on the consent -- during the
consent discussion. But I -- and I'll turn to counsel, but I don't believe
we can reopen this for a vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to do that, I know we
can't, and that's why I'm trying to figure out a way to let Ms. Homiak's
concerns get on record, but at the same time finish this as a consent
item.
Or if the applicant wants to come back and rehear it in front of
us before he goes to the BCC, that's their option as well.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you've covered some of the
options. You can either proceed today and staff can note in the
executive summary that it was approved, whatever the approval
number was at the last meeting, and then note during the consent
agenda discussion there were some questions raised. They could do it
that way.
If the applicant chooses that they want clarification of these
issues, then they can request staff to reschedule it at another CCPC
agenda.
But generally advisory boards don't have the ability for
reconsideration like the Board of County Commissioners does. So I
think those are really the two options that I can come up with today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and a reconsideration would have
Page 15
November 20, 2008
had to been done within two weeks anyway, I believe. Isn't it--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But again, generally that's the Board of
County Commissioners that has the reconsideration. That has not been
extended to the advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have had reconsideration.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, has it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I thought we've had in the past.
But I understand there's some -- Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're in a little precarious position
here, because we've worked with the neighbors and given them
basically everything they had requested regarding the changes, so we
don't have any objectors that we're aware of.
We had unanimous support from the planning commission the
first go around, so we were heading towards a hopeful summary
agenda.
And I would like to see if there's a way to possibly continue to
do that, if -- is it possible, and I'm just asking to consider it -- to hear
maybe what those concerns are, if you were to -- if we were to agree
to allow it to be pulled off and take out uses that were previously
allowed, would that be an allowed change to a previous approval?
Because it's not adding anything new, it's reducing what was
previously there. And if, you know, there's a clarification like we can't
have a college campus, we thought we took care of that by deleting
that as one of the conditional uses, that we would have to come back
for that.
So if it's maybe we didn't adequately limit what we previously
had limited, you know, I'd hate to go off the summary agenda for
something that really could have been clarified.
So maybe if we can go through the uses, maybe some of these
are really clarifications to what was voted on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Heidi answers, maybe as another
Page 16
November 20,2008
option, consider this: We have a -- we virtually have one item on
today's agenda. I expect that to be moved through reasonably quick
this morning. And we could actually put this off until after that item
on this agenda, which will give us time to, you know, spend more time
on it on our regular agenda, and then we could finish it all up on
today's agenda.
Is that acceptable?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that's acceptable. I'd suggest that
you raise all the issues that you have right now and give the applicant
the opportunity to come up with some proposed language that can be
read at the conclusion of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't that, though, represent
that we'd be giving it a rehearing? Because while one objects to it
now, the balance may not. And we're holding it hostage to an
individual. And that might be an appropriate thing, but I'm talking
legally now, aren't we effectively having a rehearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I think --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that what could happen is
if it goes to the Board of County Commissioners with issues that they
deem unresolved by the planning commission, I believe that they
would have the ability to ask that it go back to the CCPC for
clarification, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: I've got to tell you, we'll have to talk about this
I think privately, because I just don't see how we now can discuss
issues and raise issues that are going to change the zoning that have
already been heard during a public hearing. And we're essentially now
changing what has already been approved.
I can understand modifications or other wordsmithing for
clarification, but if this is a material change, I mean, we're opening the
door for readvertising and for rehearing.
Page 17
November 20,2008
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I understand Joe's concern. However,
Mr. Y ovanovich has indicated that it will be a further limitation of the
uses and not an expansion. So based on that, I am okay with --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, we briefly talked out in the
hallway about some of the issues. What was mentioned to me was
never intended to be on this site anyway. And I thought we had
clarified that.
So I think it's really a clarification -- it may be a clarification of
the intent of the motion altogether when we move some -- we
eliminated a lot ofthose conditional uses, remember. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just for that purpose, why
don't we continue with the debate -- the discussion between Ms.
Homiak, her issues, and responses from you. And then at the end of
that, if there's anything that increases the level of this to a scrutiny
beyond what can be done on consent, then we can decide how to do it
based on how intense or less intense it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's proceed that way.
And Karen, if you just want to move forward with your points,
we'll just work our way through them.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, I think the issue here is
that Ms. Homiak, being a new member, did not have the SIC Code
book, nor did she have access online at the time. So dynamics have
changed a bit. And out of deference to any commissioner on this
panel, I certainly want to see this vetted out as thoroughly as we
possibly can.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do, too. And again, what we heard
was nothing that I see as an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I know I'm going to seem
as an objector to this, but it effectively reduces the action to one
Page 18
November 20,2008
commissioner and the petitioner, and then -- as a sub-committee, and
then it's brought back to the full committee. And I find that irregular,
so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me explain an example then, Mr.
Murray. Because I know that we took out conditional uses, some of
which were college universities or something like that from the last
one. I forgot how that was worded.
But yes, it says number two, C.2 was stricken. Could have come
back as a conditional use as schools and colleges.
Now, if you go to number 10, educational services, groups 8231,
it seems kind of contradictory to our intention by striking it as a
conditional use to have inadvertently left it in number 10; otherwise,
they would never have needed to ask for it as a conditional use.
So those kind of clarifications I think would benefit everyone if
we would just, you know, flush them out and get through the
discussion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. Let me
just say to you, I have no objections in general terms to modifications.
I just thought if it's going to be something that is significant -- because
quite frankly, the way I see it, we had a CA and I think C.5, or C.3
and CA.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: UCA.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those uses were, you know,
potentially significant. All of the things that might be objected to may
have been something that could have been put in there legitimately.
And we -- you know, you were asked to change it and you've changed
it.
And while you have no objection, I think it also precludes many
things for the future that might very well be desired to be manifested.
So I just thought it should be the regular -- if we're going to start
talking about significant changes, and I don't know how many changes
we're talking about, but I got the impression, and maybe that's where
Page 19
November 20, 2008
we need to be qualified. Are we talking about a lot of changes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, that's what we're trying to
find out. If they're really clarifications to the intent of the motion, then
fine. If they're an elimination of a use that everybody else thought was
appropriate, I don't know the answer to that.
I do know the schools and colleges issue, we never intended to
put a school and college there, and if it still shows up in one of the SIC
codes, then maybe we need to add --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- except school and colleges.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's look at this as a continuation of
the discussion of clarifications on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will concur.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the county attorney sees it going
beyond that, she needs to step up and say so, and we'll continue under
that manner.
Is that okay, Ms. Ashton?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's in number 10 and number 26.
Those --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with 10.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- are both the same groupings,
though. They're all under educational services. And they include the
schools and colleges and libraries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if Richard --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have them all right here, if you
want. I can pass these out, if you want to see them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, you can pass them out if you'd
like, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All the code listings. I don't know
how many --
Page 20
November 20,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I guess then that goes back to the
intention of this commission's striking C, conditional uses. If we
thought those elements were not supposed to be conditional uses, then
rightfully so as a matter of clarification why are they even in the
principal use allocation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess it's funny. Like for instance, 8231
is under educational -- the grouping of educational. But what 8231 is,
it's a library.
Now, the previous PUD had libraries listed as a use, an allowed
use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We didn't intend to take out
libraries that I know of.
Does anybody on this commission believe that was their
intention?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not 1.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So could you not under 10 just put
in parens, libraries? I mean, that's what it is. Do it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then there's no question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I understand. We're--
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's easy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's easy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now let's go to 26. How would--
now 26 is -- was added as a conditional use, but it was in the principal
uses. What was your intentions there? Because we struck the
conditional uses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, maybe it's easier in just go
through what -- 8243 -- we're on number 26, right? 8243 is data
Page 21
November 20, 2008
processing schools, which is computer operator training, computer
repair training, computer software training and data processing
schools. That's what 8243 is.
8244 is business and secretarial schools, which is business
college and schools not of college grade, court reporting schools and
secretarial schools. That's what 8244 is.
And then 8249 is vocational schools not elsewhere qualified.
And we limited only to real estate, banking and tax and restaurant
operations within the center.
And then 8299 is school and educational services not elsewhere
qualified, which -- classified, I'm sorry. And we only have art schools,
charm schools, cooking schools, diction, drama, modeling, public
speaking, language, and reading and tutoring. So we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody see--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope that those limitations make it clear
that we are not going to have a college or a real -- or a school.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of this commission
see any conflict between those uses as in number 26, after they've
been now explained, versus the striking that we requested on C.2?
Because the striking of C.2 is a consent agenda item consideration.
And if there was a conflict, then I would believe under consent
agenda we have the right to clarify the conflict.
Does any --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I'm also going to suggest a
slight change in the language in that after 8249 you delete the comma
and put a parenthetical. And the parenthetical would end after
restaurant operation.
And then for 8299, put a parenthetical after that, which would
end at the end of the sentence reading and tutoring.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which it does already, so--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. And then you're going to have
to add another parenthetical for the whole thing. So between schools
Page 22
November 20,2008
and colleges, it will be a double parenthetical. And then at the end of
the sentence it will be a double parenthetical. I think that reads a little
more clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I noted that our good
friend, Mr. Y ovanovich, in his recitation spoke of language schools.
But on Ms. Caron's document, that's not bolded.
Did you want language schools, or is that -- maybe Ms. Homiak
doesn't want language schools. I'm not sure which applies.
I'm looking at her document, the one she passed out.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was just highlighting what was
on here.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak was highlighting in bold
the ones that were culled out for apparently on --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except that he said language
schools.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said language schools?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He did, in his recitation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see what you're saying.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She just -- I think she just missed
highlighting that one. I think she was highlighting the ones that were
okay and she just --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So is that okay, language
schools? Is that what we're saying?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this okay the way it's written? Does it
clarify your issue regarding a college and all that?
You'll see in a lot of these centers, in a lot of shopping centers
Page 23
November 20, 2008
you'll see like a real estate school as a tenant. And that's what we're
trying to make sure we could still have those as tenants within the
shopping center. Because if you don't list those, then you cannot have
a -- you couldn't have a real estate school as a tenant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective here though is to get this
board's opinion on whether or not the striking out of the conditional
use is consistent with the remaining principal uses based on the
discussion we just had on item 26.
Ms. Homiak, did you have any more concerns on item 26 after
this discussion?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, just a clarification. On
there, the first one that was crossed out, I mean, what they're changing
never listed the codes; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it was just crossing out
schools and colleges.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell me what you're looking
at? What is it --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine, if this is going to be
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you looking at the C.2 on Page 6?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, accessory uses. That must
have been added before, because there was never any codes. It was
just schools and colleges.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was from before, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there any -- from your
perspective, since you brought it up, do you now have any concerns
after this discussion on number 26? In regards to the intention of this
board's vote, and your vote as well, last time versus what we now have
today.
Page 24
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I guess not on the vote last
time. But I didn't realize what all the listings were, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and that's--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- it's difficult for me to -- you
know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think where I'm trying to go is,
even though you may not have been clear on the SIC codes because
you didn't have them at the time, does this discussion raise any more
flags for you, regardless?
Because we need to end this part of it and move on to the next
one, and I'm trying to get a consensus from the panel. I think the rest
of the members are satisfied that --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's fine. I mean, this still goes to
the BCC for the vote anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the next one then. Do you
have any -- what's your next question?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Number 18, membership
organizations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did we address in our
preVIOUS --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That list, you know, I -- it lists
churches and -- but there is a -- under the accessory uses there, there
are private clubs -- subject to provisions of section -- I don't even
know what section -- this is an old description, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any specific change from what
we voted on last time to the language in number 19, or concerns from
19 where that may be included in the SIC code to what we discussed
last time that you feel needs to be addressed?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just don't -- I mean, that
was a place where there could be a church previously?
Page 25
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know what 18 -- what
7622, if it's in your document -- do you have it, Wayne?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 8661, it lists as allowed uses churches,
convents, monasteries, religious instruction provided by religious
organizations, religious organizations, shrines, religious, and temples.
8661, those are listed as what's within that category.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, were any of those brought up in
any discussion by this board at the last meeting in which they needed
to be addressed under that category? Does anybody recall?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do not recall any such
conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, is there a new issue you
have with that, so we can determine if it's something that goes beyond
the consent agenda then, or do you have a specific reference that we
need to look at in regards to -- or we may have decided one of those is
not -- or one or more may not be the right thing for this location?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just thought private clubs,
that's not the same as a membership organization?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could be a civic association,
that's a membership organization.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
I don't see that as a point of discussion from last time, but it will
go to the BCC, and you --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's crossed off there in the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where is it crossed--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Accessory uses, C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back. Number C?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: C.3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Private clubs, okay. And where is the
private clubs in number 18, what number would that be?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it's listed as membership
organizations. I don't know, that's not the same?
Page 26
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, I shouldn't say no. Is there a
definition?
What's the SIC definition is -- well, I'll tell you what, why don't
we just go membership organizations, parenthetical, excluding private
clubs, end parenthetical, and that applies to the whole line. And
clarifies that line.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just trying -- I'm trying to think.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's pretty broad.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that -- the question I have is if I'm
the Elks Club or someone else, am I considered -- I mean, I'm a
fraternal organization. And does the private -- I don't know, is there
any kind of conflict because the two, because you have to be a
member of that fraternal organization.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but Richard --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure I'm not doing
anything silly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the last meeting. Last
meeting we agreed private clubs should be eliminated as a conditional
use. Basically the intention there was if you thought you needed that,
you'd come back through an amendment to the PUD.
Why would we have done that if you could have -- if you
included it somewhere else under another number that we didn't
know? Our intention wasn't for that to happen.
So I don't know how you'd have an objection for the same
wording being added to 18.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying I do, I'm just trying to
think it through real quickly because I hadn't thought of there could be
a potential conflict. I'm just trying to think if there is one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That should have been done two weeks
ago.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
Page 27
November 20,2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, you could have
some of these weight loss center type organizations, call themselves
private clubs, and they have membership. Does that put you in
conflict?
We're in a rehearing, right now as far as I understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I mean, I understand. I think that -- I
never thought we could have -- I never thought that in any way
someone would interpret that -- that use you just described as a quote,
private club.
So I just -- I just want to see, is there something I've got to worry
about, I get a tenant who is a weight loss center that someone could
interpret to be a private club. Now that's --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would you have a
problem. One of these things in there is called a social club,
parenthesis, membership. Would you have a problem just excluding
that one? I think when we thought private club, we meant something
like that.
But these other associations are essentially nonprofits. That one
could be the problem child. Do you see it in there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under 8641 ?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Social clubs?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says social club, comma,
membership. Let's just -- we kill that one, I think that might help us.
Essentially I would interpret that to be -- could even be a bottle club or
something.
Actually, bars and restaurants owned and operated for members
of might be another one to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It sounds okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, do you have a comment.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I'm starting to agree with
Mr. Murray. We are starting to rehear this thing. It just seems like it. I
Page 28
November 20, 2008
know we're excluding, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue in the manner
we started and so you can -- we're going to continue and we're going
to finish this, out of fairness to everybody involved.
So as far as getting to the end of it, under membership
organizations, the suggestion is excluding social club membership.
And what is the other one that, Brad, you just brought up?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that SIC code 8641?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Bars and restaurants owned and
operated for members. Are those two things --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. I mean, the
Elks Club has a bar and a restaurant within it, and I don't want to take
that out. We never -- that's not related to the private club issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's set this one aside. Ms. Homiak,
let's go through the rest of yours so we know if we have -- how much
we're going to be getting into. And we may just have to defer this
whole thing to another hearing or vote this is inconsistent or consistent
with the consent agenda based on these comments.
Go ahead, Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had listed number 23 and
number 24. But 24 specifically, because to me -- I mean, and these
weren't -- I don't see any reference to them in the accessory uses
either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so 23.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So I just have a -- there's a lot of
government agencies, entities that could be there. And there's private
-- there's also other -- private jails and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take them one at a time. Let's take
them one at a time.
You said government agencies. What item in our previous
discussion would have excluded government agencies from this area?
Anything that you can recall? I mean, anything you can reference?
Page 29
November 20, 2008
Previously you've referenced actual locations in items C.l, two,
three, four, five or six. Do you have a similar reference for
government now?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that wasn't one we discussed
before. So honestly, that can't be on the table for a consent agenda
item.
The next one that you went to is what after that?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had number 23 and 24. 23 was
professional offices. There's a lot of research -- it wasn't on there. It
mean, this wasn't part of the other discussion, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then honestly, there's nothing we can
handle during a consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This needs to be brought up to
the commissioners, then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your -- do you have any others.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think what it boils down to is,
Richard, there are some things that may be discussed with the Board
of County Commissioners on this matter, which means you may be
pulled off the summary agenda.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will be because she's going to vote no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And my question is -- is that -- unless we
take some of these uses out, is your vote going to be a no?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure a no vote on the consent
agenda gets you off summary when you had a unanimous vote on the
primary agenda.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I would recommend--
MR. SCHMITT: That's what Ray and I were just talking about. I
Page 30
November 20, 2008
don't know how you -- it was a unanimous vote during a regular
advertised public hearing that you are essentially rendering a new vote
if it doesn't -- if it's not concurred on consent.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would just suggest you put it on
summary agenda, reflect the vote was, what is it, nine, or seven to zero
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be eight to one or something.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- and then you could make a note that
during the discussion on the consent item Ms. Homiak raised some
questions, and then it would stay on the summary unless somebody
files an objection, wants to speak at the hearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Or one of the commissioners pull it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or one of the commissioners hear it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I would like for the record.
Ms. Homiak, if you decide to vote no on the consent, I'd like you to
articulate specifically why so that it's known that you're voting no
because it is different than what we had approved in our regular
meeting or because you've come up with new issues.
And I think that's an important factor in the consent review. So
when we get to the vote, if you could just articulate your reasons that
would be helpful if you decide to vote --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I really can't vote no then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can vote any way you want. But
asking you to vote -- if you vote no, you need to tell us -- I think you
need to be on record for your reasons, so that if they're not consistent
with what the consent agenda is, that's -- the consent agenda is
supposed to be to review what we said last time. And if this meets
everything we said last time, then we don't have a lot of latitude to say
no for reasons other than that, other than the fact that it may not meet
our intentions last time.
So if it meets our intentions, it may be real hard on the consent
agenda to say no to it. So that's why I'm suggesting if anybody does
Page 3 1
November 20, 2008
say no, we need to get it recorded as to why.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So really, you've already voted
on this, so you vote --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- yes again anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as the vote that was taken two
weeks ago is matched by the changes that you see here today.
You're asking for things beyond those changes, and that really
isn't an item for consent, so -- now that we've gone through the
discussion on your concerns, that's what it kind of boils down to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm clear, all of this
information here then, the only things that were related to us as
interests were the ones that were cited and not all of the
supplementary information on this document, correct?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think she was using this as
supporting various arguments, and the only ones -- whatever she used
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: She only used --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- she used, right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- certain arguments. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not voting on this listing of the
SIC Code, so--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is not going to a be part
of the record?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it was passed out, but it's not
part of the discussion or the motion under the consent item.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do we -- well, my question
would be, and it's I think a valid question, should it become or not
become part of the record, I think it as being supplementary and
advisory, you know, informational rather, and that the record is as we
Page 32
November 20,2008
had it. Otherwise, I do think that this may tend to confuse the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- especially if it's pulled from
consent.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Since it's been handed out to all the
planning commission members, I would suggest that a copy be given
to Cherie'.
But Mr. Chair, I'm going to suggest after you've completed all
your discussion on it, before you make the vote, just to read into the
record one more time, since this is not coming back again, what the
changes are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any -- Ms. Homiak, do
you have any other changes or corrections or concerns?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, let's go through this one
more time to make sure you have everything down that needed to be
clarified from our previous motion.
Number 7, there was going to be some modifications to the way
the numbers were written, so that it's clear which applies to detective
and private investigators.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does staff understand? Whoever
staff member is, are those changes clear with them?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I believe we have all the changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, number 7, we'll just make it
7381, detective and private investigators only, when--
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
Page 33
November 20, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we change that last grouping--
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- number 7.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it won't.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's 7381, and then we continue with the
rest of the string, 7382 to 7384. And prior to that, it's 7331 to 7380.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be 7381 (sic) to 7379. Then
you'd have a standalone 73 -- is it 80 or 81, whatever one that is -- and
that's where the parenthetical would come in. Then you'd continue
after that one to the end, 7384. So it contains all the numbers, but
you're clarifying a use of one number.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so you did want everything
in that grouping.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Except we were limiting just that one
SIC Code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'm sorry, that was my
misunderstanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10, you're going to add a
parenthetical that indicates the group's 8231 is libraries.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 15, you're going to add a
parenthetical and break up the numbers so that 5735 is clarified with
the same language that we have in number 31.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number 18, membership
organizations. The intention there was no private clubs.
Did we ever come back to -- now that we've gone through the
remainder of the issues, did we ever come back to a discussion on 18
as far as do we want to clarify it any further. Anybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: We took out social club
memberships, and that was it, right?
Page 34
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I believe.
Richard? We're going to do an exception -- after the word
membership organization will be excluding social club memberships?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think that is under 8641, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So in 8641 we would exclude social
clubs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you deleting the SIC Code or are
you just going to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're leaving the 8641 in, but we're
just -- the only thing in that SIC Code that we can't have is social
clubs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number 20, we're going to do an
exception -- we're going to add some exceptions to 5999 for
gravestones and sales barns.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 26, we're adding a series of
parentheticals and deleting one comma.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe that's all. Does that meet
with what everybody else believes we discussed?
Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval with the changes
noted for the consent agenda item PUDA-2008-AR-13494?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I have a discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm really concerned about this
Page 35
November 20, 2008
whole procedure we did today. We came up with the consent agenda
to resolve things, make things easier. I think what happened today
wasn't fair to the petitioner or anyone else. He doesn't have his client
here, we put him on the dime, asking him to make decisions that he
had no plan of doing.
I just hope we're not starting a precedence here that this is going
to happen over and over again. I don't know how to prevent it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, and Bob, I respect what you
just said, but I think that any time we have to have a discussion to
clarify things, and we have gone through and made changes because
the clarifications were obviously needed, that's a good thing. And if it
took all day, I'd still say it was a good thing.
So I understand your frustration, but at the same time, we're here
to make sure everything is explicitly clear. And the more time it takes,
that's just the way it has to be.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, if I may speak?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I speak?
I just caution you to try to limit your discussion to the, you
know, original hearing.
However, Ms. Homiak did raise some issues that appeared to be
inconsistent in the ordinance, so I think that you did achieve a benefit
if you should approve this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you see anything in the resulting
motion that is inconsistent then with our regular hearing?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: From my recollection and with the
changes that you've made today, I believe it is consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do I, and that's why I think it was--
for that reason, I feel that it worked out.
Ms. Homiak, then Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I can assure you this won't --
if I had had the information that I was supposed to have in the first
Page 36
November 20, 2008
place, I would have had this discussion to begin with.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine. I'm not
picking on you in particular. I'm just saying what we have procedures,
and I think what we did was unfair to the petitioner, and I don't want
to create a precedence that we rehear every issue at the consent agenda
item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, we didn't rehear this issue.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We clarified things for the record. And
to me it's to the petitioner's benefit, because if it doesn't get clarified
here, it could get a lot -- between now and the time it gets to the BCC,
it could be much more difficult.
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where I have my little difficulty
comes from the fact that we sit here and we hear evidence. People are
sworn in, they testify, we get information. We weigh that information,
we make a determination.
If we ourselves start introducing modifications absent the
petitioner, absent the public, we are now modifying the process of the
hearing. That's my problem.
I realize that someone might say we're stretching an issue, but
that's an issue that I have, and that's where I'm coming from, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, just so that we don't go
forward with something that isn't correct, is there anything in the
discussion in the motion and clarifications that are on record that you
feel are inconsistent with our intentions during the other hearing?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I could say that the fact
that a social club is being denied when it could very well have been
there is a change that who's to say -- who on this board is to say that a
social club shouldn't exist there when we didn't have members of the
public making that objection?
I can live with the fact that we can vote for it as we've concluded
Page 37
November 20, 2008
it, but if you ask me for that example, that's the one I would give you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we've talked about
this one enough.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, this is for you.
Remember last time we discussed how important it is to get the
SIC codes to the members? The report Karen did is excellent. It's the
report that was probably missing. If we're having trouble with it,
imagine what the public's having.
So somehow we have to come up with a way where you can
trigger a download of all the SIC codes so that this conversation we
had today we would have had at the hearing where it really probably
belonged.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
I've been working on some options that we could implement to
require the application to include a summary of the SIC codes and
their application. So when it's first submitted to the general public,
Page 38
November 20, 2008
when they get ahold of these rezoning requests, we'll have a summary
of all of these SIC codes that are supplied by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Karen did an excellent job.
I mean --
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. I think this whole process was to
fulfill the intent of the summary agenda, which is to make sure the
Board of Collier County Commission's (sic) action is correctly
translated to the Board of County Commissioners.
So if we have to spend whatever time it takes to make sure that
motion was adequately translated into the documents that get sent to
the board, I think it's well worth the time spent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is that
things can get buried in the SIC number, and since it's proven it can
confuse planning commissions, it can certainly confuse the public, and
that's not good.
MR. BELLOWS: No. And that's one reason we implemented the
neighborhood information meeting is to help explain all these uses.
And my direction to staff is to make sure that they just -- the
applicants just don't say general commercial uses. You know, go into
details what kinds of commercial uses are they talking about. Are they
C-l through C-3 uses, or what's being specially eliminated from them.
The more those type of discussion occurs at the neighborhood
information meeting, the better the public can comment on it.
Item #8C
REVIEW AND CONSIDER A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO
AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-17, KNOWN AS COLLIER
COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on the consent agenda is
Collier County Noise Ordinance. And this is the one we've been
Page 39
November 20,2008
beating around for 18 months. We're finally on consent with it.
Does anybody have any clarifications need to the consent item
for approval of the Collier County Noise Ordinance?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to
recommend approval --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on consent?
Mr. Murray made the motion. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
And it's too bad, Jeff, you didn't have a challenge here today,
sorry .
MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Goodjob. You finally
got us through it.
CHARIMAN STRAIN: Okay, the first and only advertised
public hearing.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman?
Page 40
November 20,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, the consent also includes
the motion that was made last time in regards to the outdoor seating
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody see it any differently?
That was one motion, so I on --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE
FOUNDATION, INC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next petition up, we can only
hope it isn't a shopping center. Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11546,
Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., to allow an off-premise sign for
Saturnia Falls, a/kla Terafina PUD. It's on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any disclosures on the part of planning commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Duane for a while on
the phone the other day concerning matters on this, and they'll
probably be brought up here again today.
So with that in mind, let's move forward with petitioner's
presentation.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Page 41
November 20, 2008
Robert Duane, from Hole-Montes. I have Kevin Rattery here with me
this morning. He is the senior vice president ofG.L. Homes. I'm
representing him today.
I also have Bill Bates, who is the president of the Longshore
Lakes Foundation that is also a co-party to this petition and prepared
to speak on behalf of it in favor of it.
Just to briefly introduce the petition. It is located, as you can see
on the aerial photo, at the intersection of what will be the extension of
Oakes Boulevard and Immokalee Road on this corner right here. It is
for an off-premise sign approximately 270 square feet in area for
Saturnia Falls, which is a PUD which is located approximately one
mile north of Immokalee Road on the east side. It comprises
approximately a square mile, and it is approved for 850 dwelling units.
And it is anticipated to undergo development in the near future.
The request is also to allow the sign in the event that a lease
agreement between the developer of Terafina or Saturnia Falls
chooses or the Longshore Lakes Foundation chooses not to extend the
lease agreement, it has the ability, based on the PUD provisions we're
bringing before you today, that it could also be allowed to be used as a
signage for Longshore Lakes.
Before I go into any further detail or entertain anymore
questions today, I received a phone call yesterday from Nancy
Gundlach who raised some issues that had resulted either at the staff
level or based on her conversations with certain planning
commissioners as to whether certain requirements previously had or
had not been fulfilled in Longshore Lakes developmental history,
some of which those requirements are outlined in the PUD ordinance
that's before you that were actually added by staff when it was
determined that there were some oversights made in the adoption of
the ordinance in 1993.
If I could have some input from the Chair Person or from the
diocese (sic) as to what those issues may be, I think I have a general
Page 42
November 20, 2008
understanding of what they are.
I mayor may not be prepared to be able to address those issues
today. And if that turns out to be the case, I may have to continue this
hearing for a date certain, depending upon the extent of those issues
and what information I either do or do not have able today.
So if we could articulate those on the record, we could make a
determination whether we're prepared to address them or whether
we're prepared to come back after we obtain more information.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy and I received an e-mail last
night to clarify some of the additions that the traffic -- transportation
department wanted to add that they believed were missing from a prior
PUD. And they most likely were, no doubt on that issue.
My only concern at the time was if we add these in, is this going
to trigger something that Longshore Lakes can't do? One of them in
particular was real concerning is because they're a built-out
community, how do you add an access point now if it was supposed to
been done years ago and you don't have a way to do it?
And so I wanted to make sure that by putting this back in,
especially when the community was taken over by the homeowners
since the original PUD and they may not have had the benefit of this
information because it was missing on record, that now they're not
going to be in a Catch-22 with a code enforcement action saying,
you've got to put this road in; I don't care how you do it, you've got to
change your PUD or put this access point in.
So I went back to staff and I said, how -- you know, that's fine, I
understand your concern, it was missed. But even though it was
missed, now that the project's built out, can they still comply with
these conditions?
And I got this, and I'll read it to you. It was an e-mail I got last
night from staff:
Commissioner Strain, with reference to the application being
Page 43
November 20, 2008
heard before the planning commission on Thursday, staff would like
to confirm that the traffic signal commitment listed in 522 of the PUD
requirements was satisfied after project review was completed.
Well, that takes care of the first underlined in number two.
The second one: Staff would like also to confirm that the
emergency access discussed in 523 of the PUD commitments would
only be required and when Logan Boulevard extension is completed.
Now, I don't know, what I'm intending to find out today is if
Logan Boulevard is completed, can they get their road to connect to
Logan? And I'm sure one of the aerials will show us that that can be
done, and if so, then that then clarifies the concern. Because the way
this was written, it wasn't just Logan, it was either Logan or the
shopping center, and I'm not sure that the access was to the shopping
center.
The last one was: As a final note, transportation staff has sought
that the second page of the transportation commitments be reinserted
into the document, as this page was somehow omitted during the most
recent previous amendment of the PUD.
So that's the questions, Mr. Duane, and that's the answers, and I
think that does help everybody for clarification.
Mr. Rattery?
MR. RATTERY: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kevin Rattery with G.L. Homes.
And the Chair brought up that -- the essence of what the issue is,
and that is we as G.L. Homes did a PUD modification with the
assistance of Longshore Lake relative to an off-premise sign, which
was the petition that's before you this morning.
Through that process, questions were raised relative to
obligations of the original PUD and whether or not those were
originally approved.
Obviously we weren't in a position to know that information as
of yesterday. I think actually some of the questions that were raised
Page 44
November 20, 2008
this morning we actually do have answers to. But I think in fairness to
Longshore Lake and knowing whether or not they have obligations
which mayor may not affect them in the future, we need time to go
back, research that information with them and make sure that that
information is clearly brought forward and on the record for your
consideration.
So rather than saying we may want a continuance, I think we do
actually want the continuance so that we can get the record straight.
But let me go ahead, at least try to address as many of those as I
can so that at least it's part of your thinking process, or if it's the
Chair's wish, we'll go back, research it, provide that information, and
then we'll just do this again at the next hearing. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather see the second hearing more
productive. And so let's go through any concerns we have, so when
you come back you can address those concerns.
And just by the way, when most of this stuff came up, I would
have discussed it with Mr. Duane ahead of time. At the time he and I
talked, it was early I think Tuesday morning. And I went through this
before my staff morning. Tuesday night is when I started pulling
records. So otherwise you would have had a little more heads up than
just one --
MR. RATTERY: Right. And it's no problem. And obviously this
project is still waiting on the Army Corps permit appeal to get
resolved, so it's not something that we're coming out of the ground
with immediately. We have the time to do this.
I'll speak on behalf of the Logan Boulevard issue, because that
was a question that was raised, and give a little bit of a history lesson
relative to Logan Boulevard.
There are two projects which have obligations associated with
the construction of Logan Boulevard north of Immokalee. That is, the
Saturnia Falls, a/kla Terafina project that is the G.L. Homes project;
and the property immediately to the north of that which is known as
Page 45
November 20, 2008
the Parklands Ronto project.
The G.L. project, Terafina, has a development order condition to
extend Logan north from its present terminis at Immokalee up to our
project entry. That is for the sole purpose of providing access to the
PUD.
The second project, Parklands Ronto, has the obligation to
extend Logan north from its present terminis at Immokalee, all the
way up to Bonita Beach Boulevard -- or Road. I can't remember which
one it is, they confuse me every now and then.
So both projects have some obligation relative to the
construction of the road, and one project has the obligation for its
entirety .
The question comes in, who's going to come first, okay. And the
realty of it is, when Ronto came forward with their DRI modification
and their extension, they committed to build that road all the way up
to Bonita Beach, and then G.L. Homes in turn entered into agreements
with Olde Cypress, Quail Creek and the Longshore Lake Foundation
relative to landscape and wall improvements associated with that.
Obviously in this economic climate, the Ronto project has not
gone forward. So we're in the process now of trying to work out how
we're going to deal with what happens if G.L. Homes has to then step
up and build that road up to our entry relative to those private
agreements.
The point is that either project has to have the road built up to
their entry to be able to get access. So one way or the other the road's
going to be built relative to one of those projects. The question is
who's going to build it, who's paying it. Those are not issues I think
that are germane to the sign request, but it's certainly germane to your
knowledge and understanding of what's going on.
As part of our agreement with Longshore Lake, we included a
provision that when Immokalee was built, there would be the
opportunity for them to request a connection of their community to
Page 46
November 20, 2008
Logan Boulevard. Either along their east property line, they would
decide where they wanted it and if they wanted it at all, okay.
So that is something that's at least covered in the agreement that
the design would handle the ability of that community to have a direct
connection to that future road.
Relative to the shopping center, the interconnect was an
obligation for the residential community of Longshore to interconnect
to the shopping center. That shopping center subsequently was done as
residential, no longer a shopping center. So that interconnect point
somewhat became moot, because the point was to provide
interconnection from residential to the commercial. That commercial's
no longer there. So that issue's that.
Relative to the signalization, Mr. Bates just informed me this
morning that they had just cut a check for 27,500 to Collier County
some months ago, which was their proportionate share of their
obligation relative to the signalization.
So I think the point is we're trying to address these issues so that
when we come back, we're talking about the sign. Because that's really
the nature of the request that was submitted. Let's get those issues
done, we'll get documentation from Longshore, the correspondence,
we'll provide that to staff so it's part of your backup material. We'll do
a little more research on the interconnect, because obviously the
change from commercial to residential kind of made that interconnect
to the south a moot point. But I'm just trying to get that out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your point's well taken that this is a
sign variance request. And the problem that opened it up a little bit
more, and certainly not to the whole PUD, but when staff added
language that for some reason or another wasn't there before, I wasn't
concerned about the language as far as staff telling us it needed to be
there. I'm sure it did. I was more concerned about the HOA at
Longshore Lakes, not knowing that language existed, now having it
put upon them and not being able to meet the conditions of that.
Page 47
November 20, 2008
So that's why it is kind of an issue that we have to resolve to
make sure we're not putting a burden on the HOA that the developer
should have been obligated to, but somehow a page dropped out of his
document and he wasn't.
MR. RATTERY: And that was the exact conversation that Mr.
Bates and I had yesterday, that we need to make sure we understand
what obligations mayor may not be placed upon them that they have
not -- did not have knowledge that they needed to do, and make sure
that that's covered adequately before we proceed forward with this
petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Bob, did you have anymore of your presentation you wanted to
get into, or how did you want to move forward?
MR. DUANE: No, we'll come back, as Mr. Rattery indicated,
and address these issues and then discuss the merits of the petition.
Are there any other ones that we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to have plenty
of questions, yes. So I think -- and then there is --
MR. DUANE: Regarding Longshore Lake.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going to be some language cleanup
that's needed. And I think we even need more clarifications on a
couple other issues that are part and parcel to this whole change of
stuff going on. But let's get them all on the table right -- and we'll go
through it.
So let's start with the presenter. And Mr. Kolflat, you love signs,
so why don't we start with you.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Why do we have to combine
these three traffic issues with a petition for a sign variance?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't -- it's not that we have to
combine them. They were inadvertently not recorded with the original
PUD. When this sign variance was reviewed against the original PUD,
transportation staff noticed that these things hadn't gotten in there,
Page 48
November 20, 2008
although on some record they were, and it was proven apparently that
they should have been in there. So trying to keep the record clean,
these things had to get added back in.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that's a scrivener's error.
Aren't there other ways to correct that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess I'd turn to Heidi for that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I mean, here we're taking a
petition for a sign -- they don't call it a variance, but it's basically
varying from the LDC, so it is a variance to me.
But in addition to that, now they're trying to lump in there three
issues relative to a scrivener's error that occurred in the transportation
area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it would be a scrivener's error, but
I think there is a time efficiency by addressing these issues now
through this process, since there may be an issue that the homeowners
association is not able to comply with the requirements.
So I'd suggest we vet it here so that the board can receive the
recommendation from the planning commission, unless you as a group
decide to proceed otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, on that same issue?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, it is on this.
Heidi, what if we decline the sign variance, we voted this down.
Would those scrivener errors be introduced, or -- in other words, if we
vote no for this sign, then they don't get into the record then; is that
right?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that that would be an issue that
we would have to follow up on if it's -- if you vote not to proceed with
the PUD amendment request.
Staff is alerted to the issues, so it's a transportation issue, and
they I believe would push it forward if they deemed that appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's going to be a lot more
Page 49
November 20, 2008
weight put on this -- or could be by some of us, a lot more weight put
on a sign request change to a PUD that includes needed elements that
were missing from the original text, versus whether it was a
standalone request or not. Plus it opens it up to a lot of discussion that
the applicant really may not need to get into.
Is there -- and so I guess Brad's question is real pertinent. This a
change to a PUD. Ifwe vote 4-1, do we -- are we obligated for the
other or can they be mixed and matched? And if they can't be, then
maybe we need to separate them out before it comes back so that we
don't have a conflict like that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Like I said, I think there is some time
efficiency to address it, find out whether it's something that they can
do at this time. If you want to separate out and recommend that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll work with the issues--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The scrivener's error would have to be
advertised separately, if it's pushed forward. So you're taking an
ordinance twice back to the board, so I do think there would be some
time efficiency. But I think that it appears that you're willing to
discuss some of the merits of this at this time, and that's certainly
appropriate if you decide to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then Brad, does that answer
your question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does, but can we start talking
about the sign?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I want Mr. Kolflat to
proceed first and then Mr. Schiffer.
Did you have some specifics now about the sign request for the
PUD amendment?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, let me ask you, are we
going to vote on the sign today or are they going to continue it as
they've asked to do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're trying to do is get all
Page 50
November 20,2008
the issues on the table. Most likely it will be continued and they'll
come back with a more succinct addressing of all those issues so that
when we get it next time it will have all of our concerns hopefully
addressed, depending on whatever they are.
So it most likely will come back, Tor. We just need to -- right
now we're going through an exercise to tell them where are concerns
are so they have a chance to clean it up if need be before it comes
back.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, there were a couple issues that
were raised, and staff will work with the association and Mr. Rattery
and Mr. Duane to determine whether those can be met or not and
whether they should be placed in the ordinance.
So you've raised the issue. You don't need to be so concerned
with the transportation issue and you can look at the merits of the sign,
if you desire.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Kolflat, did you want to address
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are we going to have a
submittal by the petitioner describing the sign, or are we going to have
the staff report or have public hearing? Are these going to try to jump
over all these, or are these going to come before we discuss it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant suggested that we air our
concerns with them now. And they volunteered to come back with a
granting of a continuance, and we can provide them then with a
review of the revised plan they would bring back to us based on our
comments today.
If they want to make a presentation of the sign to benefit any
clarification that we may need in order to make comments, that might
be something you should consider doing now. Otherwise our
comments, some of them may be held until you come back.
MR. RATTERY: Yeah, it's kind ofa weird thought process
going through my head.
Page 51
November 20, 2008
What we were hoping to do is make sure that the issues
unrelated to the sign request, we understand from this board and from
staff what they are so that we've got a comprehensive list that we can
go back to our plus, minuses, make sure we get all that information so
it's part of the record. So that when the sign petition comes back,
which was the petition that was filed, we're here to discuss the sign
and we don't get caught up in all this other conversation about an
interconnect or a buffer or an extension of a road.
We're certainly prepared to make the presentation on the sign,
but I think in all fairness to Longshore, if some of these things are
expenses to them that they were not aware would be part of this
request, we would have to go back and make sure that we've
structured that properly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough.
So then Mr. Kolflat, in response to your question, I think what
we ought to do is focus on anything that is non sign orientated today,
get that on the table so they can fix that up and then come back, then
we'll be focused mostly on the sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a question of the staff
report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go right ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nancy, there is a large
monument type sign there going into Olde Cypress, which is very
close to this entranceway where the new sign is proposed, but it's not
discussed in your report.
Can you make any comments on that, on the proliferation of
signs so close together of that size?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
And Commissioner, yes, there is a sign. And I do have a little
graphic here -- or there it is. It's across the street from the proposed
Page 52
November 20,2008
location of the Saturnia Falls sign. And it's for the Olde Cypress PUD,
which is directly east of Longshore Lakes.
So both signs would be at the intersection of Olde Cypress
Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, for ground signs and pole
signs, there's a limitation of at least 1,000 feet distance between the
two.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. The code does -- it does
contemplate a separation of 1,000 feet between signage. And the
purpose of that and intent of the sign code is to avoid a proliferation of
sIgnage.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And this does not meet that
1,000 foot limitation.
MS. GUNDLACH: No, these two signs would be closer together
than 1,000 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right.
Now, also in reading your report, as I understand it the staff
denies all aspects of this sign relative to the area of it, the height of it
and so forth; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. The proposed sign for Saturnia
Falls that you see there is larger than what would be prescribed by our
sign code.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all the questions I had at
this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And mine is really to Bob.
Bob, the drawings you're showing in the one that was on the
screen prior to this, there's something that you're really
misrepresenting. This thing is setting on a five-foot hill off of grade.
That drawing gives the illusion it's sitting on a -- maybe an eight-inch
hill.
So when you come back, would you change all of the documents
Page 53
November 20, 2008
that we have, show the proper relationship to the hill? Because height
is an issue. You're five feet above grade with the bottom of the sign.
MR. RATTERY: It's the drawing. He's correct.
MR. DUANE: Yeah, it's the drawing.
And I think all the elevational data was included as justification
for the deviation. The adjacent that had the height of the berm area,
the height of the road, the difference between the eight feet that was
allowed by the ordinance and I believe the 13 and a half feet or so that
we are requesting its final --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is is draw all of the --
MR. DUANE: But we'll revise the drawing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- elevations --
MR. RATTERY: I understand. And you're correct, the color
drawing rendering doesn't show it sitting on a hill. The backup data
clearly does show the hill that's there on the mound. We'll correct that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it only shows it in plan, it
never shows it in elevation. Which could cause a misconception as to
how tall this thing really is.
MR. RATTERY: Understood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe mine was for Nancy,
and it had to do with that Olde Cypress sign. I was wondering the size
of the print, the -- I guess it says Olde Cypress. I'm just wondering if
the next time around if we could have more information about that
Olde Cypress sign that -- about the signage. I know it's a monument,
but I was concerned more about the lettering.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, we can do that.
MR. WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, while you're up there, I had a
couple issues that I want to follow up with you.
Page 54
November 20, 2008
The addition to the Longshore Lakes Homeowners Association's
obligations, basically because they're assuming the developer's
position, with number four, a minimum 15- foot landscape buffer shall
be required between the loop road and Valewood Drive where the two
are parallel and adjacent.
I went through the recorded plat. There is no recorded landscape
buffer easement there.
Now, if we put this in here, they've got to have one. So somehow
that has to be addressed or refined. So I'd like an explanation when
this comes back as to how that can be addressed so that everybody's
fairly protected.
Now, the landscaping may be there, it just may not be in the
landscape buffer easement, and that may just be a private instrument
that's got to be recorded to make that happen.
There is a 15-foot DE and UE there, but you can't necessarily
put landscape buffers on the top ofUE's. And drainage easement's got
to flow, which prevents landscaping in a lot of ways from being there.
So someone needs to take a look at that and make sure we're not
triggering something for Longshore Lakes that now becomes even a
bigger problem for them.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one other, and that is the corner.
The corner is a residentially zoned area with an open space drainage
easement and landscape designation on the plat.
They want to put a monument there, which I think would
probably fit within that, but I notice that the line on the monument,
and you can see it on this plan here, that dark line that goes across
diagonally, that doesn't match the line on the plat where that tract is.
And I don't know what the intention of that dark line is. And
especially if you look at the language in the lease.
And they've got a chain link fence in this area with two
buildings. I don't know how those all got there when the area is a -- on
Page 55
November 20, 2008
the plat is designated as open space landscaping and DE. Which
means I looked in the PUD and there were no standards for the
placement of these buildings. I'm not sure what criteria was used to
allow that.
And that's the line, Ray, I was wondering about, what's that
mean on this plan? Because it's inconsistent with the plat. And there
certainly may be a separate instrument recorded. And ifthere is, that's
fine. I just want to get it on record and get it cleaned up.
So somehow between now and whenever this can come back, I
think it would do well for everybody involved to get these questions
answered so we're not triggering something negative unintentionally
to people, so --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions or
concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I guess there was a request
for a continuance by the applicant. I think we need a motion to -- yes,
sir?
MR. RATTER Y: Mr. Chair, if I could request that it be 60 days
so that we have enough time to get back, get that information, get it in
your backup, and then we just do a time certain to your 60-day,
whatever your January hearing would be. And if that's okay with staff,
if it's okay with you, that's what -- just to give everybody adequate
time to get all the correct information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean a date certain. Because we
try not to do time certains.
MR. RATTER Y: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ray.
Ray, do you have any problem with 60 days, or do you want to
just leave it -- can we go indefinite and that way it's whenever they get
the information?
Page 56
November 20,2008
MR. BELLOWS: That probably would make more sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you?
MR. RATTERY: Does that re-kick in--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could come earlier or later, whenever
you get a --
MR. RATTERY: The advertising side of this is, you know,
$5,000 a pop. And I know that because I've been cutting the checks.
And so I wanted to make sure that it was a time certain so that we
didn't kick back into a readvertisement obligation that was going to --
MR. BELLOWS: It would be more than five weeks.
MR. SCHMITT: Five weeks it's going to have to be
readvertised.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you don't have 60 days, you
have.
MR. RATTERY: Okay, well, then can we do a continuance for
30 days and if we're not ready we do another continuance at the next --
I'm sorry to ask that of you. I know it's kind of a pain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that's a problem.
Anybody have a problem with in that?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at all.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
MR. RA TTERY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
At the request of the applicant, we'll seek a motion to
recommend a continuance for up to 30 days. Is there such a --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who said--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley.
Mr. Kolflat, are you seconding that motion?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Absolutely, in can't first it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he jumped to the mic.
Page 57
November 20,2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine. If you'd like to go
first, I will second.
MR. SCHMITT: For planning purposes, you're talking
December 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schmitt, the motion has been
made to extend a continuance for up to 30 days.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whenever that can happen within the
30 days, if it can, that's fine.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
MR. RA TTERY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we appreciate it.
And that gets us through a very lengthy and intense discussion
today.
Item #l 0
Page 58
November 20, 2008
OLD BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll move into old business, which
none is listed. Anybody have anything?
(No response.)
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in case it was missed, if I'm
not mistaken, the County Commissioners approved mileage refund up
to 20 miles round trip. I thought for Mr. Midney that would be a good
thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's a very good thing. That's
excellent. I didn't know they approved that. I'm glad they did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 951 study, is that still going
to happen on the day scheduled?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. There's no date change to that. And
I'm sorry, I should have brought that up. That was a date in December,
wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, I'm going to be
missing that, unfortunately.
Is there any way we could -- I'd be curious about it, but--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is that date?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since it is a presentation, I think
I can watch the reruns, but --
Page 59
November 20, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and honestly, it's--
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 9th of December.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So come our next meeting, I would have
asked for attendance on that one, but it is the 9th of December we
have the 951 horizon study.
And I've reviewed the document. It's pretty straightforward, so
I'm not sure how much time we're going to need for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I can watch the rerun of the
presentation.
MR. SCHMITT: I'd recommend, yeah, if you can. Because the
contractor who -- Interactive Growth Model, which is a pretty
interesting demonstration, it's certainly worth seeing that and
understanding how that -- the model works and how that's going to be
used to evaluate the impacts of growth east of 951.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're talking about east of951,
I'll share a little observation I made the other day watching the BCC,
part of it.
An issue came up by a member of the public who was charged
about $6,000 in impact fees way out in Golden Gate Estates off of
Della Road. And the guy came forward and he says, why would I be
charged impact fees, there's no water and sewer out there.
And of course the commissioners asked that same question. And
the utility department got up there and carefully explained that
because the commission approved the water and sewer plan for the
future that showed the potential of that area having water and sewer in
it, that gave them the right for 10 years to charge impact fees.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I correct? It's the approved water/sewer
district .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The approved water/sewer district.
MR. SCHMITT: The district -- the boundaries include that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but those boundaries were
Page 60
November 20,2008
approved by a submission of the utility department in review of the --
what was it, CIE or one of those --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plans? Right.
And so when the utility department was asked what can we do
about this, they said, well, basically nothing. Florida statute allows us
to charge these fees, even though we now know by our new plan we
probably won't ever do this for 20 years. And that was specifically
pointed out at the meeting.
Now, what failed to be told to the Board of County
Commissioners is that they could change the boundaries of that
water/sewer district. And we will have that opportunity I believe in
January and February when we review the water/sewer master plan,
won't we?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if the boundary will be part of that
master plan. It will be included in it, but whether a recommendation to
change those boundaries is part of that master plan -- I would assume
so. I can't answer for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just think it's pretty interesting
that we have a -- something slid through the system like that with that
potential charge sitting in the background and everybody having to
pay it, and now with the latest statistics shown that we're not even
going to possibly do that for even 20 years or 15 years, that people are
still going to be charged those fees so they can sit somewhere, by the
way, earning interest that the people don't get paid back. Because it
was stated on the record, they only get their principal back.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. After 10 years it's mandatory if
the water/sewer utilities aren't run to that element or portion of the
district, then the impact fees are returned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And they've been paying on their
mortgages that additional 6,000 for a part of their 30-year or 20-year
or 15-year mortgage.
Page 61
November 20,2008
So that's about as blatantly unfair as anything I've seen. And I
just wanted to make this commission aware of it so the next time these
plans come through and we think they're all glossy and nice and we
pass them on, and I'm as guilty as anybody, maybe we ought to really
take a look at what ramifications some of these we don't expect may
have. So -- Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What happens if they sell their
house within that 10-year period?
MR. SCHMITT: The impact fees run with the land, they stay
with the land. It's part of the value of the property.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So if I built it and sold it, the
purchasers would get the check.
MR. SCHMITT: The next -- the purchaser who owns that home
after 10 years -- after the 10-year period, that money is returned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But why pay 10 years worth of
interest on it and the initial money out on a system that isn't even
going to be there within the 10-year period and it's now known it's not
going to be by the recent AUIR that was adopted. It's just absurd.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm not answering that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish CBIA in some ways was stronger
so they could take a look at some of this stuff.
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But anyway, public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's none here, so we will assume
there's no public comment.
Motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
Page 62
November 20,2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion make by Mr. Wolfley, seconded
by Mr. Vigliotti.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done. Thank you all.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mark Strain, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
as presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 63