Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/04/2008 R December 4, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 4,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron (Excused) Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, School District Page 1 AGENDA Revised II COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO IlA VE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF I 0 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 - OCTOBER 7, 2008, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 16,2008, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 22, 2008, AUIR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS., OCTOBER 28,2008, REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 30, 2008, LDC MEETING; NOVEMBER 3, 2008, AUIR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Chnrch of Naples, Inc, and Florida Community Bank, Inc., represented by Micbael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development, Inc., are requesting a rezone /Tom the Residential Single-family (RSF-I) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, wbich would memorialize the existing church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent with a master site plan to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of houses of worship, cbildren and adult day cares, a Pre-K through 3rd grade school, and various accessory uses; and an additional 20,000 square feet of children and adult day cares, Pre-K through 3rd grade school and accessory uses contingent upon Conditional Use approval. The 15.93-acrc subject property is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block bounded by Ridge Drive, West Street, Myrtle Road and Trail Boulevard in Section 3, Township 49 South, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) CONTINUED FROM 11/6/08) 1 B. Petition: SV-2006-AR-10482, 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. oftbe LDC wbich allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for a double-sided off-premise directional sign to permit a 79.6::1:: square-foot off-premise sign. The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.I 6.b.ii. of the LDC which allows a maximum sign height of 8 feet in heigbt above tbe lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign to allow a maximum sign height of 20 feet. The fourth variance is /Tom 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. Tbe fifth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04.C.16.c. of the LDC which requires an off-prernise 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.Z. of tbe 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 /Torn 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 Gundlacb, AICP) CONTINUED FROM 11/20/08) C. Petition: V A-2008-AR- 13568, Robert Oster, Trustee, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, is requesting a ] 4 foot 1.25 inch variance from the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet as specified in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD (Ordinance No.8 I -6 I) to allow a rear yard accessory structure setback of 10.75 incbes to allow construction of a screen enclosure over an exiting pool and patio. The subject 0.32-acre parcel is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and approximately % mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896). More specifically the property is located at 540 Bald Eagle Drive, in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) D. Petition: RZ-2008-AR- I 2930, Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Laura Dejohn of Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone /Tom tbe RMF-6 (Residential Multi-family) and C-3 (Commercial Intennediate) zoning districts to the CF (Community Facility) zoning district to provide overflow parking for the Bayview Park boat launch. The +2.I3-acre subject property is located in Section 23, Township 50 South and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) E. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325, Wynn Properties, Inc, and Carbonc Properties of Naples, Ltd Liabiltiy Co., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of R W A, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel and Andress LPA, and Carbone Properties of Naples, LLC, reprcsented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., are requesting a rezone /Tom Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for the Sungate Center CPUD. The project proposes a maximum of 83,000 square feet of commercial leasable floor area. The subject IO.O::J:. acres are located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS I I. NEW BUSINESS A. Detennination of daters] for CCPC workshop with tbe Rural Lands Stewardsbip Area Review Committee regarding its Phase II ReDort, which is a review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay_ (Review Committee liaison, Tbomas Greenwood, AICP). 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN ] 2/4/08 cepe AgendalRB/sp 2 December 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. We1come to the December 4th 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: Thank you. If the secretary will please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Donna Caron's absent. Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Vigliotti's present. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Caron did notify me that she wouldn't be here today, so it's Page 2 December 4, 2008 an excused absence. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. We have two changes. If you are here today for the Heavenly PUD in Pine Ridge, that one is not going to be heard. There was an advertising problem and it's being continued to January 15th. So if you're here for Heavenly PUD in Pine Ridge, we're going to be hearing that on January 15th, assuming everything else goes well. But it will not be heard today. We have an item under the agenda that is under new business, II.A. It's just a scheduling item that is going to be moved up first on the list after chairman's report. So we'll get into that a little bit earlier, but that won't take too long. Now I want to go into Planning Commission absences -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to add a new business. And what it is, it's the code surrounding boat dock extensions. I'd like a little conversation on that. Just the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you have -- that's fine. I mean, I'll add it there, but you've made your statements on that many times before. If -- they're different than what they are (sic) before? I know you don't like the code because you think it's a given and yada, yada, yada, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's see. Maybe it's a fast conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be -- that will be II.A there, II.B, whatever we want to call it. Page 3 December 4, 2008 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. We have two meetings coming up. One is December 9th. It's a special meeting for the review of the East of95l Study. Does everybody know if they're going to be able to not make that or make it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney won't make it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Tuesday mornings I have a diabetic support group that has a large turnout -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What's the date on that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- and I'm the only one who can do it. So Tuesday mornings are always going to be bad for me. However, I will make written comments about that report, because some of it pertains to Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people are in your group? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: About 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll fit in here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good idea. They probably have a lot of diabetics in this room, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little government interaction, you never know. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, Mark, what time is that meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meeting is at 8:30, on Tuesday morning, the 9th of December in this room. Page 4 December 4, 2008 And I honestly think we'll probably be able to get through it rather quickly. It's pretty straightforward. But at least it will start at that time. The other item we have is our regular second December meeting, which is December 18th, I believe. Is anybody not going to be here for that meeting? (No response.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7,2008 LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 16,2008 REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 22,2008 AUIR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes. We have three sets of minutes to approve. I'll ask for them individually. The first one is October 7th, 2008, an LDC Meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Seconded by? Somebody. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 5 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The next one is the October 16th Regular Meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The October 22nd AUIR meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 6 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Ray, your BCC reports? Item #6 BCC - REPORT - RECAPS MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any recaps for today's meeting. Last Tuesday's results I'll present at the next meeting. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's Report. This is going to be interesting today. I've got handouts again. Some of these you've asked for. A while back a handout was -- or Russ Weyer responded to the issue concerning the support documentation for the 2.0, the commercial area. I didn't know if you all printed it out or if you even got it. I didn't even look at the e-mail to see who got it, I just printed it myself and then I thought well, just to be safe, I'll bring copies. Because this issue Page 7 December 4, 2008 came up during the Strand transmittal hearing; which is commercial area out in Immokalee. And the Strand is coming back to us on the 18th for a final. So if there were any outstanding questions, it would be good to have this ahead of time. So here's a copy for each of you that way. And Mr. Midney, here's a copy. I'll give one to Tom as well. Tom down there. And Ray, I'm going to have an extra one up here for you to give -- after the meeting I'll give it to you, you could mail it to Donna Caron? MR. BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have one for the record. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department. Just to clarify the record, the representatives for the Strand actually asked for a month's delay yesterday, so it will be pushed back to the second meeting in January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. Okay. Do we know -- well, I'm sure we'll find out the reasons. Thank you. Anyway, that will give you all some reason -- some background on the question concerning how the 2.0 figure is used in Collier County. I mean, we certainly can ask questions about it if we have any at the time of the meeting. And then one of my favorite topics, the RLSA upcoming issue. There's a couple things with that. Yesterday at the Board of -- or Tuesday at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting the Board reinstated the process for the RLSA back to what it was originally. That is, there will be a review by this body independently of the other Page 8 December 4, 2008 bodies involved in the other EAC. We're going to set a time in our first scheduled item today to actually hear the RLSA report. And then -- but we will hear it as the Planning Commission. And it will be a regular meeting, not a workshop, and we'll be able to make our recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners now as this body normally does. So I was very pleased the Board saw their way to do that. It was very nice of them to change their prior direction to accommodate the boards individually, and I think it will produce a better product for everybody. Along that line, I think we're probably going to set a date today, and most likely it might be the 1st of February or the 2nd or 3rd, I think that's the first available date. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't exactly remember where I saw it, but it was noted in one of the documents that the comments that would be made would be footnoted in the staffs presentation to the Board. Does that still stand now, as opposed to our direct recommendations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how staffs going to handle our recommendations. This is -- there's three levels of recommendations. The first one is going to be a committee's Phase II report done in a manner that they felt was the way it should be done. And I believe it's going to be in a format of recommended changes to GMP language, not the typical narrative report we see. This board can proceed any way it wants during that meeting to review that. And I certainly have some ideas on how that should be done. Our recommendations, I would hope that once we get them done, we can send them to the Board of County Commissioners independently of what anybody does. Page 9 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I bring the issue up. Because I remember reading that it was to be footnoted in the document that would be proffered to the BCC, and I thought that would not necessarily provide a clear direction from this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. I have absolutely no idea as far as what you're referring to a footnote that may have been mentioned in a news report, but we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it was in one of the documents we received. MR. SCHMITT: We will send and forward your comments to the board as either an enclosure or comment to, just like we would any other document that goes to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. SCHMITT: And let me turn it over to Randy Cohen and Tom Greenwood. Tom is the staff coordinator for the RLSA, and Randy, director of comprehensive planning. We've been working on this and we can talk specifically about dates. Randy? MR. COHEN: Well, Tom's going to talk about the dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, the dates are coming up on our other agenda. And this is my chairman's report, so it's the time and moment I get to say a few things. But I'll certainly let you guys comment and make any clarifications needed. MR. COHEN: Yeah, I wanted to clarify what our intent was with respect both for the EAC and the CCPC, which would be to send under separate cover your comments and delineate them accordingly. The only thing that I would ask is -- and this is one of the things, they asked for a clean copy of the committee's document to move forward as well. The one thing that we've done in the past with a lot of other documents is we've also sent a separate copy of a document with the Page 10 December 4,2008 comments from both the EAC and the CCPC under them as well in addition to the separate report. The question that I have for you is would you like us to do that as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to have an opportunity to do both. I think you're going to find that during the meeting we are going to have a lot of general comments, comments that won't be nailed down to a specific GMP language amendment. Then as we get into each GMP language rewrite, we may have comments about those as well. So I think you'll have maybe a narrative from us to begin with as an introduction to any of our specific concerns, if we have any, and then any comments to the GMP language as we go through each paragraph, one at a time. MR. COHEN: We anticipated doing both and we will do so accordingly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. To further the discussion on the RLSA, part of the RLSA program, not the one sponsored by Collier County but that's involved with many of the people who attend the RLSA meetings and even some people who I believe are on the panel, there was a private agreement established between some landowners out there, I think most of the big ones, and some of the environmental groups out there. That private agreement was titled as a Memorandum of Understanding. It had very specific time lines in it and it had very specific commitments in it that the people who signed that memorandum were obligated to do certain things as a result of signing that memorandum. And it referenced the RLSA program in many, many instances within the document. I think it's important that this board understand that document as maybe a preclude to what they see coming through from the RLSA report. So I made copies of it for everybody to pass out here today for Page 11 December 4, 2008 your reading. And you have plenty of time. And I've read it four times. It's a little complicated to understand. Some people that probably wrote it would think it's real easy to understand. But I tried to understand it and how it impacts the RLSA, and so that's why I read it. It is not a governmental document. It is not something enforced by the government. It is purely a private agreement. So you need to look at it that way and read it at your leisure. I think it would be good for everybody to be at least familiar with it. It's all about panther mitigation and how the program is proceeding out there. And there it is for your reading pleasure. And with that, I've got one more item to discuss and that was the discussion on Tuesday from the Board of County Commissioners involving the appeal of the Monte Carlo dock situation. I don't know if any of you heard about it, but if you recall, we denied on a 6-3 vote the Monte Carlo multi-slip docking facility that was in Vanderbilt Beach. The applicant appealed it to the Board of County Commissioners. There seems to be some debate over the context in which we supplied the information for those that based their decision for denial. And there's going to be further discussions with the county attorney's office and staff, and I'm assuming a presentation back to us as to how this needs to be re, say, structured or looked at so that the board gets a product that they feel more comfortable with in understanding what the vote was for and how it came down. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we concluded at the end of the meeting that it -- and I'm going to turn to Jeff as well; we haven't discussed this between him and I privately. But it was my assumption or at least perception that it's going to come back to you almost as a rehearing. And -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, that wasn't my understanding. And I Page 12 December 4, 2008 think you and I need to look at the transcript when it comes in. Because my understanding, Joe, is that they just wanted the board to delineate or to specify their reasons straight on down the line. But it was kind of complicated because of the discussion on the dais. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it had to do with the -- how the rules are written and what -- four out of the six primary and five out of the six secondary . MR. KLATZKOW: I think you and I will sit down, we'll hammer it out, then we'll get an agenda item before the Planning Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Because it was coming back completely packaged again. And for all intent and purposes, it was almost a rehearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as before we hear it your department and legal department will -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we'll sort -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- come back with a conclusion that's consistent with what the BCC wants. And -- MR. SCHMITT: And I'm looking at a January date. This will probably be a January time frame it will be back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as you guys come back, or come up with a way that that's to be handled, it would be important to know if we're going to hear public testimony again and get into those kind of issues, because that will certainly change the style and format of the meeting for both sides. So with that, I think I've finished my comments from the chairman's report. We have no consent agenda items today. Item #llA SCHEDULING OF THE RLSA REPORT MEETING Page 13 December 4, 2008 And then we'll go into our first issue, which was moved up for new business, and it will be ll.A, and that is the discussion on the scheduling of the RLSA report. And Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Cohen are here today. I think you've all received a schedule. And basically, if we want to operate in this room, it would be February 3rd and February 17th. I think we might be able to get through that hearing in one day, but we need a backup day just in case we can't. I understand that the EAC is going to hear this on January 29th. MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. And they have a backup date of the 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we can certainly entertain an oral report from staff during the February 3rd meeting, but I would highly recommend to the Planning Commission we take the two dates in February. They are the best available dates for this room and the only ones and the earliest we could get in here. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, we were sent out a whole bunch of dates. So they weren't for this room? Because unfortunately the 3rd is the only day I can't make it of all the dates sent out. And again, the same reason why I won't be here next week, that's the date the Building Commission's Meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Building Commission, is that what, a Collier County board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a state board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, the Collier County board is I think much more important than the state board. MR. SCHMITT: No, no, I think that state board is pretty important, too, for the building code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just had to give Brad a hard time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some would argue that. But the Page 14 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Tuesdays are a very bad day for me. I see that there are some days that are in the CDES rooms that are Thursdays. That would be my preferred day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My thoughts on this is because it is the RLSA and it is something that we want to make sure the public has -- is able to see as clearly as possible and attend as clearly as possible, this room is probably the best option for that. But I understand the concerns of both you and Brad. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to come to a consensus on the dates here. Does anybody want to make a -- I mean, personally, and I'm sorry that Paul, you and Brad have a conflict, but I still think the 3rd and 17th are the better of the two days, but -- MR. GREENWOOD: Mr. Chairman, if I could -- Tom Greenwood for the record -- just make a few comments. The committee has met 19 times, the Ad Hoc Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee. In fact, one of your members sat through most of the meetings. They did decide to take the tact to go through each and every one of the policies of the 77 policies. Three-fourths of the policies either have no changes or have minor changes such as annotations, updates, et cetera. There's about 12 policies in my opinion that are substantive changes. And my opinion is that probably half of those policies will generate a lot of discussion. The documents that you'll be receiving, by the way, which has not yet been completed by the committee, they meet next Thursday, is on-line right now under rural land stewardship review committee. That document also lacks, in my opinion, all the data and Page 15 December 4, 2008 analysis necessary to go through transmittal hearings. So what we're really talking about before this body and before the EAC is a review of a planning document as such, but it's a very critical review, and I'm personally very glad that the BCC directed that it come to you first before you see it in the form of Growth Management Plan Amendments. And really, those are my comments. There's a couple of new policies and a couple of policies that are proposed to be deleted. And I think you're going to -- I don't know if you're going to enjoy the process of review, but I think it will give everybody a good sense of where this program has been during the last five years. And that was included in your Phase I report, which came to this body I believe in May. But you'll also see some -- a lot of discussion in the document about the time that the committee has put into the review. Just some comments. So -- and maybe that will help you decide on dates, maybe it won't. But you will, if this becomes a Growth Management Plan cycle amendment, which has not been authorized by the board, you will get two additional bites at it in transmittal and adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, is the January 29th date that's on our list now out because the EAC's meeting and I assume they're using that room? MR. GREENWOOD: They are. However, if you'd like, I have a feeling that the EAC would be willing to swap dates. They were looking at another alternative. But I can look into seeing whether you'd like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go there, you know, Mr. Midney, being the representative from the Immokalee area, his input is very important in this process. And Brad's methodology of reviewing code is also equally important. I would hate to see meetings of this importance be held without them present. Page 16 December 4, 2008 As much as this room is preferable, especially for communication with the public, I believe in the CDES room we're completely set up for public broadcasting. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they can now broadcast from there. It's probably not the most desirable from a standpoint of presentation, but they have -- they do broadcast live. We have -- the last several meetings have been live. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any -- from comprehensive planning, is there any presentation -- how much of a presentation option is going to be needed for this discussion; do you know? Is it going to be -- I'm assuming an overhead projector is sufficient? MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, we'll have Power Point. Basically Power Point, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, to let you know, we submitted this board nine pages of questions -- MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and requested they be answered. The meeting will be held starting out answering those nine questions before we get into the GMP language, just so everybody has a heads up on that. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I think that's a good point. There were actually about eight or 10 different agencies and organizations that submitted comments and questions and statements. And those have been addressed. Some people may feel they haven't been addressed appropriately, but they have been addressed in the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they will be addressed again in a public meeting with this board that will be televised so the public knows the answers and knows the questions. And that's exactly what -- that's the approach that I believe we're going to be taking. MR. GREENWOOD: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So however that needs to come out. Page 17 December 4, 2008 Now, considering that, Mr. Murray, I know the other room was a problem for your hearing at times. Is it something you could work with if -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll do my best to work with it, if you don't mind if I ask for qualification when I need it because I may have missed something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I want to make sure all of us hear it and have a proper understanding of it before it's approved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your concern, because I do try to follow it. I don't want to miss any parts of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with that in mind, then maybe the 28th and 30th will work better. The EAC can go ahead on the 29th. I'm not sure we need their review for us to do our review as much as we need our review responded to. So I think we can work with that. Does that sound like an idea to everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the 28th and 30th would be here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would January 28th and 30th in the CDES room. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The February dates we'll just have to pass and maybe fill up with something else you guys may have coming forward, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's better for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's make it, Tom and Randy, the 28th and 30th of January. And I would suggest we allocate -- block out both full days, so -- MR. GREENWOOD: We'll do that. I also might mention that the EAC had scheduled the 29th with a Page 18 December 4, 2008 January 30th rollover date. And what I suppose I can do is contact the EAC and see if they would consider a February 3rd rollover date here in this room in the event that there is a rollover. I don't know that the EAC will spend more than a whole day on this, but you don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I would suggest then we look at the 16th. But honestly, that's after the meeting on the 15th. And I'd hate to see us sidetracked by having a review for the data on the 15th, so -- MR. GREENWOOD: We'll work with the 28th and 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the -- just see what the EAC can do. Okay, we'll leave it like that. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. That takes us to our first regular hearing petition. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? MR. SCHMITT: I do add one issue of old business. You asked at the -- or was asked at the end of the meeting, if you want to cover this now, it had to do with reimbursement for travel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do that under old business -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we could. MR. SCHMITT: We'll do it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this was just getting some -- this was agenda Item II.A. I'll add yours under old business, which would be 10.A. Item #9B - Continued to later in Meeting Page 19 December 4, 2008 PETITION: SV-2006-AR-10482 - FAIRWAYS RESORT The next item on the agenda will be an advertised public hearing. It will be Item 9.B. And it will be Petition SV-2006-AR-I0482, Seasonal Investments, Inc., d/b/a Fairways Resort, requesting variances on the corner of Piper Boulevard and Palm River. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I had some conversations with staff over the legal description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a conversation with Mr. Hancock I believe yesterday on the phone. No information that really was exchanged, other than I didn't have any questions of him at that time. With that, we'll move forward. Mr. Hancock, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, representing Seasonal Investments, owned by Mr. Stephen Mirowitz, M-I-R-O-W-I-T-Z, who is here today with us, the owner of Fairways Resort. This is a rather unusual variance request. And if looking at your packet and through the background on this you're a little confused, I don't blame you. We started with a sign that pre-dates me, which as my children will tell you is a very, very long time. It goes back some 40 years in this location. Page 20 December 4, 2008 The subject property, Fairways Resort, is located just off of Immokalee Road, as you can see on the screen in front of you. The property that the resort is located on is zoned RT, residential tourist, which is allowable for a hotel. The piece that the sign is on is not owned by Fairways Resort, it is owned by Horse Creek Partners. And it is the small strip between the RT property and Immokalee Road. Because this property was constructed in the sixties, it pre-dates all of our zoning laws and zoning rules. So at some point after this property was built, we came in and we applied zoning. And somehow this property, which has had parking on it since 1968 for the resort and had a sign on it since the 1960's, somehow it was rezoned to RSF-3 instead ofRT. But yet it's a nonconforming lot in the RSF-3 category. And if that isn't confusing enough, it just continues getting worse. But let me cut to the key elements of the purpose for the variance. In 2005 a notice of violation, or at least a complaint was registered with regard to the existing sign. I'm not sure the origin of the complaint, whether it was a resident, but it did coincide with a visit from someone with the South Florida Water Management District to Fairways Resort, indicating that the sign was not on their property, it was actually in the right-of-way for the canal. It turns out that is the case. Most of this sign sits in the South Florida Water Management easement. Whether that easement came after the sign or before the sign, I have not been able to determine. But nonetheless, the sign in some regard has to be at least relocated. We understand that. The problem came in, in how do you relocate a sign that's not allowed on residential property because it is an off-site sign that has been there for 40 years? And I will tell you that from the time I was engaged in 2006 to Page 21 December 4, 2008 now there's been a lot of back and forth on that. And fortunately the Board of County Commissioners in October of this year at least clarified the Land Development Code to allow for an off-site sign in a residential zoning district. So that key issue that was a point of deliberation and delay for a period of time has been addressed. And what that has done is it's changed the number of variances being sought from an original number of seven down to what is now five. You had a previous staff report that indicated three, but five is the number. Let me give you a little bit of -- this is also the exhibit contained in your packet. You can see the Fairways Resort is the RT property. And the sign location, as it's shown there, while it's shown within that block, the existing sign is just outside the property line and the proposed sign will be just inside of it. As you can see, that is an RSF-3 property. There is an easement for the parking that exists in perpetuity, it will always be used for parking, and we now have an easement to allow for the sign that was granted by Horse Creek Partners. This exhibit shows the existing conditions a little more clearly. You can see the sign itself is predominantly within the Immokalee canal right-of-way. Only about a foot or two of it exists on the existing property. Prior to the hurricane in April of 2006, that was what the sign had looked like more or less for some 40 years. And to grant the historical perspective, this is an aerial from March of 1968 which shows the Fairways Resort and not much else. To the north of the residential subdivision -- and I learned some history of Palm River from Elwood Witt, who has since passed, but he was one of the early builders in there. To the north of that it was the Palm River Golf Course, which for many, many years was a private or semi-private course, and the resort was able to -- guests were able to come and play golf. And that has since obviously been purchased by Page 22 December 4, 2008 LaPlaya as a private club. And so this resort is a vestige of the past. Despite all the odds, it continues to exist. It has a loyal client base. But one of the key elements for us is in fact the sign. And the reason that we know that is Mr. Mirowitz has requested surveys from his guests as they check in as to how they came about, how they found the property. And it helps his marketing. He's been able to determine that approximately 18 percent of his guests first noticed the property because of its sign. Now, unfortunately the current sign, the face panel that you saw previously, was blown out in 2006. Mr. Mirowitz was unable to replace that panel because of the code enforcement action and the questions with regard to the variance. So a temporary banner, if you will, has been placed over the sign. It's been in place for two or three years -- two years, excuse me. Nobody wants to see that banner continue. The neighbors don't like it, we don't like it because it doesn't represent the quality of the resort. And so what we're proposing in this variance is to construct a new sign entirely within the RSF-3 property owned by Horse Creek Partners. The new sign, instead of the 25 feet of the existing sign, will be no higher than 20 feet. Instead of being predominantly off the property, it will be entirely inside the property, right at the property line, though. And I'll explain the importance of that in just a minute. Obviously much more attractive and 100 percent in line with today's sign code as far as having the proper base and width. One of the key issues for this location is obviously visibility. The property is set back very far from the road. It relies on its signage dramatically for properties from either direction. And without the sign, the business may very well teeter from being sustainable to no longer being able to provide the services it does. I'll give you an example of the view. The existing sign is visible Page 23 December 4, 2008 from some five or 600 feet coming down Immokalee Road, which is fantastic. That's great. If the sign were to be moved back on the property, you would not see it until you're approximately 100 feet from the intersection as you're traveling to the west. Traveling to the east you get a little bit closer to the sign before you can see it. Currently -- when this picture was taken, it was 275 feet. Since that time this median has been landscaped, and so the visibility is a little more spotty and you literally are on top of the property . The primary reason why the sign cannot be located on the RT zoned property is just that, sight visibility. If the sign were to be located physically on the Fairways Resort property, it would still require variances even to be 20 feet tall. But this would be your sight triangle as you approach the property. Visibility would be reduced from some five or 600 feet down to approximately 150 feet as you travel to the west. Coming from the east, there's a significant amount of landscaping that you can see where it says sign location. It's been there for a long time. This building is very lushly landscaped. The primary visible element of this building is its corner. And there's not a lot to see. And these are all typically good things. However, the building would have to be made more visible if the sign were to be moved back. We feel that putting it back on that property basically negates the sign. And to mirror comments Mr. Kolflat made in April of last year, a very similar application, the Unity Church of Naples came before this board and received unanimous approval. And the concern there also was folks who may not be as familiar with the church could come upon it very quickly and there were concerns over safety. And I think sometimes we may overstate those concerns, but the truth is, this is a resort -- a small motel, relatively few rooms. People typic -- they're Page 24 December 4, 2008 coming off the interstate, traveling to the west. They may know where they're staying, but without that sign they are literally going to be by it before they ever see it. If you're coming from the west heading eastbound, you may never see it without the sign, period. So our concern is that this is a 41-year-old sign. We would like to bring the sign closer into compliance with the current code to create a positive aesthetic experience, to maintain the visibility that it currently has, albeit smaller and shorter in height, and we simply ask for your consideration in doing so. The staff report we felt was very well put together. The only exception we take is staff is asking for a three-foot setback instead of a zero setback for the sign. Again, where the sign currently sits, in order to put it inside the property line entirely, we're already moving it seven feet to the north. That additional three feet would put the sign squarely behind some existing sable palms. And we're concerned that additional three feet may render a portion of the sign no longer visible and cause us to have to possibly remove landscaping. We'd like to avoid that. We'd like to achieve the minimum variance required in order to maintain the visibility of the sign. In a nutshell, that's the basis of the request. I'd be happy to address any questions you may have, as would Mr. Mirowitz. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my -- for clarity. In the picture that you showed to us -- you can leave this one there, but in the picture that you showed to us that showed the new proposed sign, my understanding of it is that it was, how shall we say, facing south as opposed to facing east and west; would that be correct? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I wanted clarity on. If it's -- I see your line of sight here, which suggests that the sign is Page 25 December 4, 2008 canted or, how shall I say, vertical in a north-south alignment? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that correct? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, the current sign is in that alignment and the proposed sign would also be in that same alignment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because that first picture, I got the distinct impression that it was flat too, and that would do what you don't want it to do. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, it is north-south. And one of the reasons I hesitated to use that picture is all the colors and copy haven't been finalized yet. It's really for illustrative purposes. And the second reason is it actually shows the new proposed sign in the same location as the existing sign. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: You actually need to move it a little bit to the right in that photo, if you would, to get the actual appearance of what the result would be, should the variance be granted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So just for absolute clarity, the sign will be -- you hope to be right on the property line, or within an inch or so of the property line, and will have a vertical alignment; that is to say, the non-face of the sign will be north-south, and the face of the sign -- and it will be double sided? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that will be east and west. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the result is that you gave us visualization at what, 500 and some odd feet you said? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, the sign is currently visible from in excess of 500 feet when you're westbound. We believe the new sign would maintain the majority of that visibility. A little bit smaller. We Page 26 December 4, 2008 think it's ample distance to still serve its purpose. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any -- did you take into consideration the possibility along that line of sight -- and I don't see the other one from the west, but along that line of sight, is there any possibility that there might be some growth, trees or such, that might eliminate or impede visualization? MR. HANCOCK: In a westbound movement, not really. The width of the canal in '68 when this was built, there was 70 feet of area between the sign and the canal. There's now 30 feet. The width of the canal really provides an ample viewing corridor to the west. To the east, the primary -- there is some blockage of the existing landscaping on the property, which we think is going to be okay. The primary blockage now actually comes from the median landscaping on Immokalee Road when you're eastbound. And there is nothing we can do about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, nothing. Okay, that really was the only thing. I was concerned whether or not you actually were high enough to be able to assure continued visualization, assuming you were -- MR. HANCOCK: Certainly we would like the 25 feet. We would not have brought the 20 feet forward if we didn't feel that it would serve the purpose of the resort. I think less than that, they would be in significant trouble. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, what's the design of the sign going to be, since we're going back for the legacy of the location? Is the design going to be similar to that? Because this hotel does have a charming Fifties/Sixties kind of look to it. In other words, is that the design that was there or is that the new design? And actually show the design that was. Okay. I mean, it would be nice if we're going to grab the legacy, Page 27 December 4, 2008 we grab the legacy all the way. MR. HANCOCK: By comparison, this is the copy that was provided to the sign company. And Mr. Mirowitz is not necessarily committing to the size of the font or whatnot, but I believe this is -- is this the style and character the sign will be constructed in? And he's indicated yes. MR. MIROWITZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's similar enough. I think that's good. Second question is that throughout this whole application, including the lease, the legal application doesn't define the site that the sign's on. Are you concerned about -- or Jeff, would you have a concern with that, or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you look at the second page of your resolution, that's the -- that contains the legal description of the property where the sign is going. It's Exhibit B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at -- if you follow the -- and we have -- it's best shown on -- we have an attachment in the original application that shows the full site. And if you follow that legal description, it isn't the site at all. MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I've obtained as of yesterday a copy of the accurate easement agreement that I'm happy to hand out to the commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do you have a copy of this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have a copy of the application. When I requested a copy of the permission for where the sign is being placed, because the easement in the backup that I was provided is only for parking, there is no easement unless there's a new document for the SIgn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even that easement's incorrect. What essentially it's doing is it's going to the west, not to the Page 28 December 4, 2008 east. I mean, if -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, the operative language for the placement of the sign is what's in the proposed resolution. I did not plot that out. It's a metes and bounds description. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Exhibit B, which is essentially a lease from the owners, this Horse Creek or whatever it is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, it's a letter of permission. And essentially that is a license, and it is revocable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not the proper legal. That's my point, is when you follow that it isn't -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll let Mr. Hancock address that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tim, the best way to look at it is that we have a staff report that's black and white. If you go into the back of that, there's a pretty good survey of the project. And if you follow the legal description that was first provided, you can see that it starts at a point and goes west where actually it has to go east to catch us. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Schiffer, is your question with the legal description on the surveyor the legal description attached as an exhibit to the application? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is -- well, first let's start with there's the lease you have to use the property from -- and let me -- from Horse Creek Estates. That's the lease you have, which is allowing you to put a sign on property you don't own. But that legal description is one of the ones that's incorrect. I know further into the code the legacy also has incorrect easements. But I think since Nancy's given us a correct one, I think what would be appropriate would probably be do we have Horse Creek Estates, which owns the land; assumably they own the land where the sign is -- MR. HANCOCK: They do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- giving you a lease for that Page 29 December 4, 2008 land. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, we do. And we actually executed an additional easement agreement with them specifically to allow for a sign on the property. What we can do, hopefully subsequent to this body's action, would be to ensure that the record clearly shows the proper easement and the proper location. I'm not so sure that it doesn't, but we certainly can do that. We have an easement agreement for the parking. We now have an easement agreement for the sign. And we have their permission to act as an applicant based on both the partial LD. number and the legal description submitted with the application. I'm not sure where in that we have fallen down, but it can be corrected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Nancy's reviewed it, maybe Nancy could state is in fact the legal description correct or is it incorrect. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And I can give you a little bit of history about this easement agreement. It appears that the original easement agreement is for the property to the west of this site. Upon further research we found another recorded easement agreement for the correct property, and that is the one that I've just handed out to you. And if we look at Exhibit B that's included and attached to the resolution, it appears that Horse Creek Estates used the incorrect legal description when they created this easement agreement for the sign and parking that's dated 2007. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since Exhibit B is what's referenced in our resolution, can we be assured that Horse Creek is going to provide a document similar to that with the correct legal description on it? Page 30 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The easement agreement that you just passed out is already included in our package. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman, may I just clarify for the record for the Commission, because I think that there's some confusion. And for the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. The document that Ms. Gundlach is referring to is easement agreements that pertain to the parking that allow the use for parking. The issue that you have today is the sign. And the operative documentation related to the sign is attached as Exhibit B to your resolution. That's the legal description for the placement of the sign. Is that the legal description that you're saying is incorrect? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, that that is an incorrect legal -- that is a legal description for property to the west. There is a 40-foot overlap, but the sign's not on that 40-foot overlap, it's on the other side. If you want to take a quick break, I can prove that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not going to -- maybe if-- Tim, is your surveyor here? Did somebody in your department survey this property? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. We don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did someone proof the lease agreement in your department who -- one of your surveyors or anybody like that you could call and get verification? Ifwe were to continue this until a little later today, could you clean this up for us? MR. HANCOCK: I certainly could attempt to clean it up. We did not perform a survey on the property, nor do we have an internal survey department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all the county attorney's office needs is a lease agreement with a verified legal description that this Page 31 December 4, 2008 encompasses this sign location. I think that's the point; is that right? Heidi, is that correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. Because what you're approving, if you were to approve it today, is this language right here. And if that's off-site, then that would be problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if between now and say later today when we -- if we were to continue this till after the next three, Tim, you could come back through your department and have someone verify the legal; you could probably get it faxed over to the commission's office or one of the secretaries could receive it bye-mail and you could bring it back in here and we could just verify the legal and be done with the issue. Does that work for you? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of the board? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's bring up any other issues we have now so if there's any other clarifications needed by this afternoon, we can get it done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, let me see if Mr. Schiffer is finished first. Mr. Schiffer, are you done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat I think was next and we'll get back to you, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, we're going to continue on and we're going to give you everything we have now, so if there's any other clarifications needed, it can be done all at one time and we don't have to continue another hearing. Page 32 December 4, 2008 MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will this sign be lighted? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It will have the internal lighting, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Internal. So the entire sign will be a lighted sign. MR. HANCOCK: That is the current plan, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to what Brad brought up about the license agreement, if there is a license, in other words, a permission to use that space, you recognize that if the permission is withdrawn, the sign would have to come down, correct? I'm assuming that that is a correct statement, that it is a permission and not an easement for that particular parcel. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And the permission does not have any revocability associated with it. It's just a permission. Much like the parking has no revocability associated with it. MR. KLA TZKOW: It's revocable at will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's what? MR. KLATZKOW: It's a license. It's revocable at will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, I was about to argue with him about that. It is revocable. If it's on your client's property, there is no issue. But if it's in any other way on somebody else's property, you do have an issue, a serious issue to be concerned about. You probably want some kind of help on that one as well. That's the reason I raised it. MR. HANCOCK: This property has no other use. It can't be used for anything else. If Horse Creek Partners wish to revoke it, we would have to remove the sign. And I guess that's a risk that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you acknowledge that. Page 33 December 4,2008 MR. HANCOCK: -- we're willing to take. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as you acknowledge that. I understand where you're going. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You say the sign is lighted. Is that just the upper portion or is that also the six-foot wide 12- foot high portion? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, just the upper portion. And that's the way the original sign has been for decades. It's just the upper portion that would be internally lit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Then my next question would be: Do you have any intent on that tan portion in the left picture to put things like rooms, efficiencies and so on, similar to the one where AAA was on the one on the right? In other words, are you going to use that post as a signage also? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we'd be prohibited from doing so. We're limited to the sign copy area that you see. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's where I was going. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I have one. The two signs you have on the picture here, why would you want to put a solid 72-inch wall that would create a lot of wind loading and structural requirements to carry that in high winds, compared to the simpler blow-through method that you've used on the pole sign next to it? That doesn't make any sense to have all that blockage there. Is there any reason for that? MR. HANCOCK: Because our Land Development Code tells Page 34 December 4, 2008 me I have to. You have to have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you care? MR. HANCOCK: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you care? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we made a recommendation to let you go to the two-pole operation that you had, to me that's visibly more appealing, you don't have a wall blocking out what's behind it, it's not -- I don't understand why we would have a code that would require you to make an uglier sign than a simpler one. MR. HANCOCK: It was a move away from the old pole signs where the steel pole underneath would rust and look unattractive, so pole covers in essence are required by the Land Development Code at a minimum width ratio based on the copy size of the sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So under this column that's there now, do you have a requirement in the code that says you have to maintain it, you have to repaint it, you have to take care of the stucco pealing and the block cracking, anything like that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, it has to be maintained in a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we have that in the code for a pole? And if we did, why would you not then want a pole? It's simpler and goes up a lot easier and looks a lot better. Anyway, I would suggest that maybe when you come back, that might be a discussion we'll have as well. That doesn't make any sense to me, but we'll go from there. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. There are certain dimensional standards that can be applied through a variance. This isn't a dimensional standard, so you can't vary from a code requirement that says these things have to be encased. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're telling me the BCC couldn't say Page 35 December 4, 2008 that the poles are okay and the wall isn't? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the BCC can act in any manner they chose, but the code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we make a recom-- MR. BELLOWS: -- is the code, and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if we make a recommendation that is more practical to do something to the right than it is to the left, is there a reason they couldn't do that? MR. KLATZKOW: I guess what you're saying, Mr. Strain, is that you think this LDC requirement is not in the best interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not this case. I don't see where it does any good to anybody. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I don't know where it would do any-- if that's your opinion, I don't know how this would differ from anybody else's property. I mean, you may want to recommend that we relook at this particular provision. MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see the sign code come to you. There are some changes. There was no intent in changing any architectural requirements. This -- and I was not here when this was vetted through the public. This had extensive vetting through public committees in the late Nineties, early 2000 when this sign code was created to create these monument type signs or appearance. And as Mr. Klatzkow alluded to, these are required all over the county. We have made many, many gas stations and others create these type of signs. Now, again, that's -- I'm not criticizing, nor am I intending to criticize. All we're trying to do is enforce what the standards are within the sign code that has been adopted by this community and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not criticizing your department. I'm not criticizing anybody. I'm just simply saying, if you look at these two signs, which one is more appealing, especially when you can see Page 36 December 4, 2008 through the other one and get landscaping instead of a solid block wall 18 feet or whatever high it is. It doesn't -- I don't know why we'd want to put people through that. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think that's an excellent idea you have. And Joe, because we're going to allow this thing to be taller, can't we -- one of the concerns we would have is that the monument sign doesn't look good that tall. Essentially we're allowing this thing to be located because of its historic nature. I definitely think we should try to recreate the image that it had historically. I think that's -- MR. SCHMITT: And that's fine, if that's the way you want to propose this. I just have to point out to the board that it is not something that is subj ect to a variance, as Ray pointed out. It is a complete, I'll call it, disregard for the code or waiving of the code requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not true, Joe, it's not a disregard for the code. The code isn't right in all cases. There's extremes. I mean, putting a 20-foot high solid block wall up there because the code says you got to versus two simple poles, let's look at the practical side of things and practical application. The one on the right is a lot simpler and more appealing to the public driving by than seeing a massive wall going up. And especially one that's got to withstand wind loads to that height. I mean, it's just absurd what they're going to have to do structurally to make that work under the foundation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, one thing is why can't we -- since we're being asked to allow this sign to be taller, why can't we shed that requirement of the thing? Because the monument sign does not look good that tall. Mark, I agree with your point. MR. KLATZKOW: I really don't have any issue with that being a recommendation. Page 37 December 4, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: I have no issue with-- MR. KLATZKOW: And then the board could either accept or reject it. MR. SCHMITT: It's not a dimensional standard, we'll have to point it out to the board as such, and the board can approve it as you recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As an alternative, could we recommend landscaping that would be maintained in front of that six-foot wide stanchion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, then you're talking about another easement, you're talking about irrigation, you're talking about a lot of things that may not be needed now. Why would we want to make it harder? I mean, I don't know if that -- I don't think that helps, I think that makes it worse. MR. SCHMITT: Nancy can answer that landscaping is required around the base of -- MR. HANCOCK: There's a 100 square foot minimum requirement, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not 20 feet high. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, not -- it's fairly small. Shrubs, as opposed to bushes or whatnot. We're happy to go either route, whichever is the pleasure of the Planning Commission. We appreciate this discussion. We just, you know, hopefully can get this issue with the legal description resolved and move forward on the points that have been raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll hear staff report. That's you, Nancy. I saw you looking at Tim and I thought wait a minute, you're staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who am I and why am I here. Page 38 December 4, 2008 MS. GUNDLACH: I'm sorry, I was thinking about something. Staff is recommending approval of this sign petition. And we do have some conditions that we are recommending. And the first condition is that the sign size shall be limited to 80 square feet and that the sign height shall be limited to 20 feet. That is what's shown in the graphics that were presented to you this morning. And also, our recommendation is that the leading edge of the sign be located no closer than three feet to the Immokalee Road canal property line. And with that, if you have any other questions, it's my pleasure to answer them this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will just simply continue this discussion until the end of the last item today, which would be after Item E. And I don't believe we need a motion because it's in the same day. We'll just do it that way. And Tim, if you could please clarify the legal description in the letter of permission, that would certainly help us by the time this comes back to us this afternoon. I'm not sure it will be this afternoon, but we'll see what happens. Thank you. Item #9C PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13568, ROBERT OSTER TRUSTEE Next item for today is Petition V A-2008-AR-13568, Robert Oster, Trustee, for 540 Bald Eagle Drive. It's another variance request within the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Page 39 December 4, 2008 All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item -- and I'll wait till Clay sets his book down -- please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I called Mr. Brooker up and had a discussion with him about the issues, nothing of -- nothing I don't think's going to be not discussed here today. So we'll go forward. Clay, it's all yours. MR. BROOKER: Thank you, Commissioners. My name, for the record, is Clay Brooker, with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I'm here on behalf ofMr. and Mrs. Robert Oster, who are sitting here in the second row. They are requesting a variance for a pool and a deck that has existed for over 25 years, long before the Osters purchased the subj ect property. I put on the -- I guess we call this ELMO -- on ELMO, the visualizer, the location map and the zoning map for everyone's help here on the location map. My pen represents roughly Airport Pulling Road. And this is Pine Ridge Road. The subject property is located within the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. The zoning map is a blow-up. This is essentially in Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Airport Pulling Road again on a north-south orientation there. This is an aerial photograph with the subject property highlighted in yellow. If you could actually back out, I'm going to try -- perfect, okay. What I'd like to try to do is give you a little bit of a perspective of the land ownership characteristics that are involved, as Naples Bath and Tennis Club is not exactly seen every day. Page 40 December 4, 2008 The single-family residences you see are actually in a land condominium. It's a condominium form of ownership created back in the Seventies. There are 36 units in what's called Naples Bath and Tennis Club Unit B. And those 36 would run around here. The Oster's property is what they call legally family living unit number 20. But they are in all essence -- if you drive down the road, they look and operate just as single-family homes. The lake and the shoreline areas and lake bank areas all throughout Naples Bath and Tennis Club, this is just one of several, are also in another condominium called the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Commons Area. Each of the units has a proportional share of ownership into the common areas, so everyone gets to enjoy the lakes. It's a little bit strange situation -- not strange, but that's I guess the way it was set up some time ago. This was the site plan that was located in your package. I'll spend some time to go through just to clarify exactly what we're asking. This is the subject property here, family living unit number 20. If you see here, I'm going to outline the existing deck of their patio that exists and has existed for some 25 neat years. The dimensions -- this is the rear property line here. So the dimensions here at the northeast corner, the deck extends to within about 10 and three quarters inches from the rear property line. Here it's about three-and-a-half feet in the northwest corner. The actual setback requirement in the PUD for Naples Bath and Tennis Club under these circumstances is 15 feet. And that line is indicated here. And as you can see, it cuts through the existing pool. I have a few photographs for you to help give some perspective. This is standing on the existing patio deck on the west side looking east. Page 41 December 4, 2008 Here's the opposite angle looking the other way. I'm standing on the east side of the patio looking west. This is essentially in the middle of the patio looking north out towards basically the backyard. That is the lake that exists behind the property. This is actually behind the property line, or north of the property line. I'm not standing here on the Oster's property, but this is on the lake shore, again, on the west side of basically the northwest corner behind the northwest corner of the Oster's property looking east. And the opposite view. Now I'm on the northeast corner looking west. Hopefully that gives you a little bit more -- a better perspective of what we're dealing with. The variance request before you today simply asks the county to recognize what has existed for 25 years without complaint. When I first received this, the obvious question came to me, well, how did this happen? How was an existing pool built with a fairly significant encroachment into a setback? I can tell you that as I mentioned, this existed for 25 years. The Osters are the fifth owners since the house was constructed back in the early Eighties. A couple by the name of Pullman, the Pullman's purchased the home from the builder, which was Coastland Building Corporation in 1982. The deck, pool and screen enclosure were all constructed by the Pullmans in that '82 to '83 time frame, so about a year or so, year or two after the Pullmans purchased the property. So how were they able to get the permits to build this deck where it exists with the encroachment? I can't tell you exactly. I can't reconstruct history precisely that far back. But I can show you some documentation that might shed some light on the subject and let you draw your own conclusions. This is the application for the building permit submitted by the Page 42 December 4, 2008 Pullmans contractor back in late 1982. As you see, I've highlighted some of the key information. It is the 540 Bald Eagle Drive. You see there the contractor's name is Climatrol, Inc. This was a permit here to build a screen enclosure. And you can see here expressly stated right on the building permit application itself in two different locations is the applicable IS-foot setback. So how did the contractor overcome the problem? Well, I don't know exactly what requirements were in existence as far as supporting your building permit application back then, but this is labeled a sketch. So I assume there at the top -- I assume that's what was required back then. I can assure you today, this would not fly. And as you can see, if you needed a IS-foot setback, you simply draw it on the sketch. I really have nothing more to say. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Life was simpler. I bet they only had pole signs back then, too. MR. BROOKER: Part of the building permit application. There you have the county signing off, the zoning department signing off on it in early 1983. Now, I'm not criticizing county staff in any way, shape or form here. They probably simply relied on the contractor's representations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think any of them are left who might have been involved in this. Ray, that was before your time. MR. BELLOWS: Way before my time. MR. BROOKER: Continuing on on our historical journey here. This is the actual building permit that was issued by the county for -- again, this was the screen enclosure. And as you can see again, the 15 foot is expressly stated. So after the building permit was issued, the screen enclosure was installed and a certificate of occupancy is issued for it. And this is the CO. The date is down here on the bottom. It's hard to read, but it says Page 43 December 4, 2008 March 1st, I believe, of 1984. Again, the contractor's name is Climatrol, Inc. I know some commissioners in the past have inquired into the builder or the contractor or tried to explore what recourse if any we may have against the builder or contractor for these kinds of circumstances. I have looked up Climatrol, Inc. This is the Department of State records as of a little bit ago, just recently. You can see the company went out of business in 1991, about 17 years ago. After the Pullmans owned the property, the home was sold four more times, the last purchaser being the Osters, the applicant before you today. They purchased the property in 2006, two years ago. Apparently no one new about this encroachment all these years, and the Osters themselves didn't know about it and didn't find out about it until they applied for a permit to reinstall the screen enclosure about a year or two ago. And I say reinstall, which means at some point in time the screen enclosure came down. I haven't been able to determine exactly when that occurred. Word on the street, asking the Osters to ask their neighbors, property manager for the condo associations and so forth, the screen enclosure was removed by the previous owner to the Osters within the last few years. But I don't know the circumstances under which it was removed, whether it was a hurricane, simply voluntary removal, whatever the case may be. But that is part of the application today is if in fact this variance is granted, it will allow the Osters to reinstall their screen enclosure. As I mentioned, the Osters tried to get that permit to reinstall. The county staff caught it this time. So we've improved in that regard, I guess. But they refused to issue the permit, appropriately so, and that's why we're here today. Under these circumstances, we would request that the variance be issued for the many reasons that I've already mentioned, and I'll run through again. It's existed for 25 years without complaint. The Page 44 December 4, 2008 applicant before you, the Osters, are entirely without blame. There's no recourse possible against the builder or contractor, since they've been out of business for 17 years. No one objects to this request. The next door neighbors have sent in, I believe you've seen in your package -- these are the immediate next door neighbors. They support the request. The condo associations, both for unit B, all the family living units, as well as the commons area, they support -- the board of directors adopted a resolution of support. And in addition to that, under the code I had to notify other property owners within 150 feet of the Oster's property. That captured another three or four property owners, and I've not heard a word from them. I have confirmed with the property manager, and this coincides with my review of the documentation as well, that no lake maintenance easement of any sort exists across the back of the Osters property. There was concern that if in fact a maintenance easement exists, you have this pool deck there, how is the common area association going to maintain their lake. No such easement exists. There's enough room, and it was designed that way, I'm told, enough room to maintain the lake behind the property line. So this variance request would not impact that at all. And when discussing this issue with the property manager for the condo associations, he said that was an issue taken directly into consideration by the boards, and they still support it, because no such easement exists. An enormous financial and practical difficulty would result to the Osters if the variance isn't granted, because they would possibly have to remove an existing pool and patio. Oh, with regard to the screen enclosure, I'd also like to add -- the installation of the screen enclosure, I should say the reinstallation of it, will cure some sanitary and health problems that the Osters have. There have been some incidence of animals coming on to the property Page 45 December 4, 2008 and doing their business in the pool, depositing feces, however you want to say that. I do have pictures of that as well, but I'll spare you. But obviously the installation of a screen enclosure would hopefully stem that from occurring in the future. Mrs. Oster also has an allergic reaction to certain insect bites. She recently was stung by a wasp, ended up in the emergency room and now carries an epinephrine shot for emergencies, but she'd prefer not to stab herself. So a screen enclosure would hopefully keep those insects out as well and let them enjoy the patio area. For these reasons we respectfully request that you recommend approval of the variance request, as the county staff has. And with that, I'm finished and we'll try to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are there two variences involved here, Clay? MR. BROOKER: Yeah, that might be a legal question. If you grant the variance for the pool, the existing pool and deck, by definition it would allow the screen enclosure to be installed. So it's -- I would take the position that it's one variance request. And the reason for that is the IS-foot setback requirement applies in the PUD. If you read the PUD document for Naples Bath and Tennis Club, the normal setback is 20 feet. But for screen enclosed pools it's 15 feet. So in order for us to ask for a variance from the IS-foot setback, we would necessarily be talking about a screen enclosed pool. So in my opinion, one would go with the other. But I don't think from our standpoint, if you want to make it to two variance requests, I have two different variance resolutions or ordinances. We don't -- we take no position with regard to that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I guess my question hammered around is it possible that one of the requests, one of the variances might be approved and one might not? Or what would be Page 46 December 4, 2008 your response to that, if it's been treated as two different variances? MR. BROOKER: I mean, I guess a possibility -- to be honest, to answer your question, a possibility would be able to say a variance for the existing pool is granted, but that does not carry with it an approval to install the screen installation, the screen enclosure. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the pool has been there for 25 years, but the screen enclosure now is not yet up. MR. BROOKER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Has the construction started on the screen at all? MR. BROOKER: No, it has not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do you have any idea what the trend is out there in that development as far as number of pools that are enclosed and those that are not? I mean, there are both types, but I'm just curious as far as what the percentage of the trend had been. MR. BROOKER: I haven't personally surveyed the properties, but from that aerial, you get an idea. Pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool, pool. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No enclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you need to be recognized before you talk into the rnic. MR. BROOKER: But as far as a trend goes, I couldn't tell you. I just know that a lot of pools exist in the community. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, have both the neighbors on the south and the north expressed support for this? MR. BROOKER: It would be the east and the west, but the answer IS yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They both have. That to me is very important, because it's so close in there that that would be adverse -- if that adversely impacted a neighbor, it would certainly be worth consideration. Do both the neighbors on the east and west meet the setbacks as Page 47 December 4,2008 the moment that they have (sic), or do you know? MR. BROOKER: I don't know. I have not done my own review of that. Based upon the aerial itself, and I don't want to throw anyone under the bus, but based on the aerial, the property to the east may look like it has an encroachment issue. Property to the west may not. But I have not -- and this again is the property appraiser's aerial photograph, which we all know sometimes is not all that -- doesn't always accurately portray property lines vis-a-vis structures. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Your aerial in the report indicates that there are two houses noted on the aerial that have received variances already. I think they're identified as number 18 and number 14. Do you have any idea what the amount of encroachment was in those cases at which the variance was granted? MR. BROOKER: Yes. It was in the staff report. I can give you the exact measurements. But I can go off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's not much up there anymore. MR. BROOKER: Sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There's not much up there anymore, the top of your head. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that inside or outside he's referring to? MR. BROOKER: The 18 -- living unit 18 has a variance that was granted to them. And I believe their pool comes within about four feet of the property line. So doing the math, that would be an II-foot encroachment into a 15 - foot required setback. 14. This property also has received a variance for the pool structure. But it's only for a corner -- my understanding, it's only for a corner right in this area. But that variance was in addition to, from the rear yard, also the side yard setback. But that was less of an encroachment. I don't have the number right off the top of my head, Page 48 December 4, 2008 but is less an encroachment than the number 18 family living unit here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But they were significant encroachments, both cases? MR. BROOKER: Well, I would certainly say family living unit 18 was significant, because it's an II-foot encroachment. Family living unit 14, it depends on what your definition of significant is. But it was in the single digits of feet of encroachment. It wasn't to the 10 or 11 area. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, I missed that. What are the land-related hardships involved in this case? MR. BROOKER: Well, the land-related hardships would be the fact that the property exists. The property is there. The best I can tell, the house was constructed prior to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD being adopted. The PUD was adopted in 1981. The house received a permit to be built in 1979. I did not -- was unable to go back that far to find out exactly what dimensions were required back in '79. But the house was built where it was, allowing a certain amount of room left over for the pool, and the pool was built where it is. So from that perspective, I would suggest that those are the land hardships because of the existing structure, where the house was built initially. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The intent of variances to alleviate a hardship inherent in a piece of land; personal hardships are not inherent in the land and cannot be considered to meet the hardship as contemplated by the LDC. You're not contemplating a personal hardship here then, you're contemplating that it's a land hardship, land related? MR. BROOKER: Well, perhaps both. And these are all -- what you read is I think the introduction to the variance section. And those considerations are repeated later on in the Land Development Code for the factors to take under consideration. Page 49 December 4, 2008 One factor is, is there any land hardship not created by the applicant. Another factor, is there any practical difficulty the applicant would face if the variance is not granted. So from that perspective I would say both; we're proceeding under both criteria. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Clay, could you please put that stack back on the ELMO there. MR. BROOKER: Which one? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The whole stack that you had there before you moved it. Now, could you take the top sheet off. I want to go back in history just a little bit. I saw something that caught my eye. What -- is this subdivision Marco Island? MR. BROOKER: No, it's not the Bald Eagle Drive in Marco Island. It is in Naples. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. And I notice several of these documents said Marco Island, which made me think that maybe staff at the time may have been looking at some setbacks, even though it said 15, to suit Marco and not this particular development. I don't know but, I mean, I just looked at that and I went something's funny here. MR. BROOKER: Well, I can tell you that the permit number, although it's illegible here, the original you can actually read it, it matches up with the building permit application. And the name of the owner here is misspelled. Here it says Pullen, but the actual name of the owners were Pullmans. So we think it applies. Whether that's a source of the confusion, I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Many, many years ago I helped a friend start a pool company as a salesperson, and I know how that goes. You know, so anyway, that's what made me think that it may not Page 50 December 4, 2008 be -- something might not be accurate here. Thank you, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Clay. We'll have staff report. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal planner with zoning. And you have the staff report that was submitted to you dated December 4th at the bottom, and it goes into the information that's been presented. It talks about the requested action and the location of the project, the description which briefly tells you what has already been testified to now. It shows you the surrounding zoning and land uses. It tries to show you what was also provided in the aerial photographs. Actually shows some aerial photographs going back to 2001 as well, to show you some historic significance. And addresses the compo plan issue in that variances aren't normally addressed as part of the Growth Management Plan. It does provide an analysis of the findings that are required. And staff, without going into the details, unless you have questions, is recommending that this does meet the requirements of those findings. And we have provided responses to those. And we are recommending approval with the condition that recognizes the site plan. That's the only condition. It just ties the site plan that's been provided to the approval. And I don't have anything else. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, did you check to see if the removal of the old screen enclosure was due to a code compliance Page 51 December 4, 2008 issue? MS. DESELEM: I've been unable to determine why it was removed or how it was removed. I don't know. And I don't think the applicant's been able to find out either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Commissioner Wolfley's point is good, this does show Marco Island. Did anybody ever check to see if that permit was for 540 Bald Eagle Drive on Marco? MS. DESELEM: There's been some confusion in other aspects of this, in fact in posting the sign, because staff had to post the sign. Because there was some discussion as to whether it's Bald Eagle Drive, Bald Eagle Road. And in fact, our code enforcement people, when they were first approached to post the sign said we can't post this, it's on Marco Island. So I can see where there's been confusion. Because it's the name of the road that's caused the confusion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in this case, if you look what's up there, it's also the subdivision's Marco Island. So do you think by any chance the permits they're showing us are for Marco Island? MS. DESELEM: In actuality, no, I do not. I think it's just part of the same error that we've had because of the name of the road. Most people associate Bald Eagle Drive with Marco Island. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Kay. Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, do you want to rebut any of the public speakers? MR. BROOKER: No, thank you. Page 52 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I recommend a motion to approve and send on to the BCC with our recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to staff stipulation? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Vigliotti and seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed -- are you opposed, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I'm for, but I would like to make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to vote for it, but one thing I want to put on the record was that granting variances after the fact most assuredly results in an adverse effect on the community, simply because with each variance granted casually, respect for the Page 53 December 4, 2008 letter of the law erodes in ever larger increments. So I am concerned on our variances, we do review these, that we do not casually advance too far in making approvals. But I'm voting for the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And just so you know, had this been a modern day PUD, most likely the setback and the property line would have been allowed to be zero. And we allow that routinely on this board. So they're not asking for anything more than what normally would have been given in a modern PUD. So I certainly don't have any objection to it, and I did vote in favor. So with that, we will end that one 8-0. Thank you. And we will take a break to 10:15. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. And I just noticed Mr. Bosi's in the audience. That means we're in trouble for something. I'm not sure what. Oh, boy. Item #9D PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-12930, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT - BA YVIEW PARK BOAT LAUNCH Okay, lets go on. Next petition is Petition RZ-2008-AR-12931O. It's the Collier County Coastal Zone Management, which is really I think in this case Parks and Recreation in regards to the use of the Bayview Park property or some property in that neighborhood for boat launch, or boat trailer parking. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Page 54 December 4, 2008 Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Gary McAlpin called me, asked if I had any questions, and I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Laura and Gary. We went over quite a few issues. I met with Mr. Litow and a series of other citizens that are in that neighborhood, and we went over a lot of issues there too. And everything that I went over with all parties will be brought up here today, to the best of my knowledge. So, okay, Laura, it's all yours. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. For the record, my name is Laura DeJohn, I'm a planner with Johnson Engineering, in Naples. I'm here today representing Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department, which is within the Public Services Division of Collier County. With me today is the Coastal Zone Management Director, Gary McAlpin. Also with me is an engineer from Johnson Engineering, Chris Hagen, to give any answers to engineering questions that you might have. We are here today requesting a rezone of 1.33 acres to community facility zoning. Your agenda did reference the rezone of 2.13 acres, and as a result of ongoing negotiations through the process, we've down-sized the area for rezone to 1.33 acres. You're all probably familiar with the location we're talking about. Bayview Park is actually within the City of Naples along South Naples Bay. It's been there approximately 25 years. Leading up to Bayview Park is Danford Street. Terminates with the entry into Bayview Park. Neighborhood of Naples Bayview subdivision. Lines the streets of Danford and Bay Street near Bayview Park. Page 55 December 4, 2008 In the larger area you see that the context of this neighborhood is within some larger PUD approved developments, Windstar to the north, a residential PUD. The Naples Botanical Gardens is to the east. And then to the south, Hamilton Harbor commercial uses and Sable Bay residential and conservation uses as well. Zooming in to the site location, you'll see that the Coastal Zone Management Department owns property within the Naples Bayview subdivision. These -- like I said, there's approximately one acre of property proposed for overflow parking at the southeast corner of the subdivision, and a strip of land proposed for a connector road within the subdivision as well. The property is zoned RMF-6 primarily. There's also C-3 zoning applied to the eastern portion of the site where it fronts now Hamilton Avenue. To give you the context of why this application is even before you, number one, Coastal Zone Management Department is tasked with providing safe access to the waterfront throughout Collier County through the provision of new facilities, as well as the improvement of existing facilities. Back in 2003, the county issued a Boat and Beach Access Report that was approved by the county commission in May of 2003, and that document was in your backup material. That report included inventory and analysis of the existing facilities and the needs for future improvements. Noted in that report were deficiencies in provision of access to particularly boat launch facilities. The facilities under county control were listed, including Caxambas, Cocohatchee, 951 boat ramp at Bayview Park. All of those facilities showed deficiencies of parking spaces based on the methodology used at the optimum number of launches per ramp lane; significant deficiencies in parking were shown. Page 56 December 4, 2008 The findings of that report were, number one, that six -- relative to boat launching facilities, number one, six new boat lanes would be needed to accommodate the recreational boat owners in the county. Plus parking was found as one of the limiting factors at providing adequate level of service to boat launch facilities in the county. The recommendations included capital improvements. And one of those capital improvements was that the county should consider purchasing available residential lots along Danford Street to be used for overflow trailer parking. So subsequent to that 2003 report, the county went into action with capital improvements, including improvement plans that are now underway for the 951 boat ramp facility that would greatly increase the number of parking spaces there. There's a new Goodland boating park facility that's going through permitting that would provide two new boat launch lanes for the county -- for the public and the county, and adequately parked with 75 trailer spaces. Bayview Park is also subject to an improvement plan that's going through permitting. The existing two lanes and 16 trailer parking spaces at that facility are proposed to increase to three lanes and an increase up to 40 trailer parking spaces on the Bayview Park site itself. That still leaves a deficit of 68 parking spaces, according to that methodology of optimum use of those proposed -- the proposed three launch lanes. The overflow parking areas have been purchased as a result of the directives of that boating report. The BCC approved in April of 2004 that real estate incentives are allowed to aid the purchase of vacant and developed home sites to provide boat launch parking for Bayview Park. Between the years of 2004 and up to 2008, the county has purchased 15 total properties, 12 of which are within the Naples Page 57 December 4, 2008 Bayview addition subdivision. The cost to the county thus far has been $2.6 million. Hopefully you can see on this exhibit, the red outlines of property are county owned property. Again, between the areas of Danford Street that leads to Bayview Park and Bay Street, just south of Danford, 12 parcels are now owned by Collier County for the purpose of providing overflow parking. To bring you up to date with what the need is -- how to justify the need for additional parking at Bayview Parking. You can see that it continues to be a popular facility for boat launching. Trip counts were taken in October of this year. And a weekday average of 56 users, that's only measuring those vehicles that are a vehicle plus a boat trailer, using the park was 56 during weekday average and then Saturday and Sunday an average of 100 users frequent that park. Currently, as stated, there are two ramp lanes and 16 available trailer spaces on the site. Clearly there's a deficit. Even with improvement plans to go to three lanes in 40 over double the amount of spaces, there's still going to be an obvious deficit. The consequences of this high usage and not enough parking results in some road conditions around the neighborhood where overflow parking occurs on the neighborhood streets and as well as some conditions where overflow parking occurs along mangrove habitat. I have pictures of that to give you a better idea. These images show parking along approximately 400 feet of mangrove flanked Danford Street, as you approach Bayview Park. The boat -- the trailer parking usually lines up there on the weekends. Approximately 20 vehicles can be accommodated, lOon each side, and that's where historically the overflow parking occurs. It even occurs on now Hamilton Avenue. You can see in the bottom left-hand picture, that's Hamilton Avenue where the vehicles Page 58 December 4,2008 line up as well. And pedestrians who park over half a mile away from the park itself, then make their way down the streets that have no pedestrian facilities to get to the park at all times of day. This image is provided to give you a better idea of the constrained nature where the mangrove habitat exists at the end of Danford Street. Once the vehicles occupy the paved shoulder in that area, there's approximately 18 and a half feet remaining for two-way traffic, for emergency vehicle access or for pedestrians to occupy and move along Danford Street. This is substandard to a typical local street section where the county and emergency access vehicles require 20- foot unobstructed dimension to move through a standard street. The result of this condition is shown in these pictures. If you look at picture number one, a westbound vehicle approaching the park stops once he reaches the constrained area where the parking occurs along the mangroves. He must stop to allow an outbound vehicle to pass through that constrained area. And number two shows how the outbound vehicle can then pass him. He then proceeds west to the park and basically along the center line of the road, because that's how that area is functioning now, due to the lack of adequate dimension. Of course a pedestrian in that case where I was taking the pictures has to wedge themselves between the parked vehicles. Environmental issues are raised by the current conditions as well. The county would like to alleviate by providing adequate off-street parking for these vehicles. These are images you could see almost any weekend where the boat -- the vehicles and trailers occupy the shoulder of Danford Street into the swale and the mangrove -- the wetland habitat and the mangroves along that street. There's more images of that. So how the county approached this issue was to develop a Page 59 December 4, 2008 parking plan using the 12 properties they own between Danford and Bay Street. This original plan was the first submittal and that's why your agenda item described 2.13 acres of rezone. Due to neighborhood concerns at the first neighborhood meeting, the plan was adjusted to eliminate the parking that was in the central piece of property on this plan. That was done to address concerns that the neighborhood was being infiltrated with parking and it was taking the neighborhood character away. This still left the neighbors unsatisfied. And the final plan that's before you today and that went to the neighborhoods in our third neighborhood meeting is a plan that concentrates the parking in one location, the southeast corner of the subdivision fronting Hamilton Avenue where C-3 zoning already exists and would by right allow parking or up to 90 other uses commercial in nature. And then fronting Bay Street to the south. The connector road remains on this plan to improve the circulation of the vehicles to and from Bayview Park. Pedestrian plan was a critical part of this proposal. And a pedestrian plan is provided to accommodate those who walk back and forth once they drop their vehicles off and then need to retrieve them. A six-foot sidewalk will be provided where none exists now, connecting the parking areas to the park. An image of those proposed sidewalks are shown here. You kind of need to look from top to bottom. First an image of Bay Street is shown with an illustration of how sidewalks will be accommodated in the existing cross-section. At the request of transportation staff, we can provide bollards and guardrail for safety of those pedestrians. The image to the right is again that Danford section where vehicles occupy the shoulders currently. The goal would be to eliminate the parking in those locations and provide adequate pedestrian access as shown in the illustration. We can kind of summarize that the rezoning criteria have been Page 60 December 4, 2008 fully addressed in the application and been well addressed by staff in the staff report. Almost all the rezoning criteria are met. The one variation we have with staff is that they find the request to be incompatible with the residential neighborhood. Specifically the incompatibility is defined in the staff report to say that public boat trailer parking and public boat launch access is inherently not compatible with residential uses. And we need to -- you know, I ask you to consider how compatibility is really judged. Of course, a same use next to a same use would be an easy way to define compatibility. This location, an urban location, is by nature going to have different uses next to each other. So I suggest that the defining of compatibility is more on how those different uses interface with one another. Granted, parking is not an equal use to a residential use. However, the proposed parking has been designed and structured to address compatibility on the levels of buffering, hours of operation, noise, odor, glare, dust. Those issues are the way that compatibility is demonstrated through the application. The application is also consistent on many levels of the Growth Management Plan, specifically the future land use element and the designation of the urban coastal fringe sub-district does allow for water dependent and water related uses due to the proximity to the water. The coastal high hazard area actually seeks to limit residential density and balance environmentally sensitive conservation areas that are sought to be protected in this proposal. The conservation and coastal management element policies are met in that the proj ect does provide access to waterfront and protects sensitive habitat. The recreation open space element policies are met in that it improves public recreation facilities and provides accessibility to these facilities to the public of Collier County. Page 61 December 4,2008 The transportation element policies are met in that the project does provide for safe motorized and non-motorized travel, and given the condition that is unsafe now. And the capital improvement element is met, which specially states that the county shall support public access to waterways and expend funds in the coastal high hazard area, including for park and recreation facilities. To summarize, the issues that we've tried to address through neighborhood meetings, we have held three neighborhood meetings. Being a small neighborhood with an established community there, there's been very vocal opposition to this proposed parking plan. We met on June 5th, 2008 with the original plan that I showed. July 10th again returned with an adjustment to the plan that, as I said, was not -- still not acceptable to the neighborhood. And finally, on September 30th the final plan went to the neighborhood. Improved buffering options went to the neighborhood. Some fencing was added. The issues primarily that we heard of safety, hours of operation, lighting and consolidating the parking to limit its impact on the neighborhood were all sought to be addressed. Example of the buffer plan that we provided is enhanced in -- along the Type D buffers along the right-of-way to provide up to six feet of opaque vegetation to limit views into the parking area. And all native vegetation is proposed. The Type B buffers that would go between the parking area and the residential neighbors would also be of course six feet in height and opaque, plus a vinyl coded fence is proposed, chain link fence is proposed for the -- to provide for the safety considerations. It was a request of the neighbors. We acknowledge that staff has recommended denial, like I said, based on the compatibility issue. Staff also listed conditions. Should the project be forwarded with a recommendation of approval, we could address each of those conditions maybe once we've moved Page 62 ~,,-~--,.. ,.,-----_.,_.._-~_._.__.,---_.._-"-_..._._-,_._-,,--~,,_.--~_.-_.- December 4,2008 through the procedure and see how you want to handle conditions, if you recommend approval. That concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, I've got a few hundred. Go ahead, Mr. Murray, after you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have that many. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm being a little facetious, but I have quite a few. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couple of things come to my mind. There is a question of safety for the boaters as well. These will be locked; these gates will be locked. Will egress -- in other words, is it possible for someone to come after hours in any fashion with a code or anything to be able to open up that gate to retrieve their trailer and to go and get their boat? Because if they're out in the water, that's not a good thing either. So is there egress, even though you have a time that you want to close the facility down? MS. DeJOHN: Right. Staff did recommend a locking gate to be secured. That was staff recommendation number five. We would suggest that a traffic actuated gate arm be installed so that an outgoing vehicle would activate the gate arm so they could exit. However, no entry would be allowed after hours. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I'm asking. And entry would be a manned gate, so to speak, or a man door. In order to take the vehicle out, you have to be able to get in. MS. DeJOHN: Well, a pedestrian would walk -- yeah. So pedestrian access would be provided. However, the vehicle access would be blocked going in and would be allowed going out. Page 63 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so let's make it: If it hadn't been considered, it probably ought to be considered to have a man gate, I call it a man gate, a pedestrian entry so -- so to allow the removal of the -- okay, fine. When this is all -- assuming that it were complete, what then will stop people who will overflow the overflow from parking on Danford? MS. DeJOHN: Well, we've involved the Sheriffs Department in these discussions. The Sheriffs Department would like to be able to enforce traffic, you know, parking restrictions on those vehicles once adequate parking is provided, as demonstrated by the needs of this facility once adequate parking can be provided. We have a total of 40 spaces at the site and 39 off-site, a total of 79 spaces. Then it would allow some more enforcement to occur on the road right-of-ways. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand the principle. Is there a form of arithmetic that's used to calculate the total number of uses in a given day which would then represent the total traffic that could be sustained and therefore the total overflow potential? MS. DeJOHN: Yes, there's a formula in that boating -- Boat and Beach Access study. According to the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide, there's a number of 36 launches per day that's assumed -- per lane -- per day per lane that's assumed to be the carrying capacity for a typical lane. So 36 is the ultimate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have two lanes? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Two-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're at 72. MS. DeJOHN: Right, two currently, which would need 72 spaces. The proposal is to go to three lanes with an improvement plan that's still in permitting that would require 108. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that then precipitate overflow on the street access, as opposed to where this is going to be Page 64 December 4, 2008 accommodated? MS. DeJOHN: In that mathematical sense, there would still be a deficit, yes. But there would be at least a better provision of parking there, not such a gross deficit, that the provision of other facilities, like Goodland Boating Park coming online could also alleviate the need to launch at this facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Going into another area, historically we have some data, I assume, that show us what numbers are generated during a typical weekday and during a typical weekend. Is it a fairly constant or is it seasonal that we get a major overflow? MS. DeJOHN: Can you speak to that? MR. McALPIN: For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management. We did traffic counts, and we -- the traffic counts were taken in October during a non-peak time. And there were 56 during weekend in terms of boat use -- week days in terms of boat users using the facility and 100 on the weekend. Now, we expect that that traffic count is going to go up for a variety of reasons. One is we haven't taken into account peak season and we haven't taken into account holidays either. And then also we haven't taken into account the increased uses as a result of the Hamilton Harbor development. They have a fueling facility there and they have other amenities there which will attract more users to this location. So we expect the usage of this park to continue to rise. This is one of our busiest parks, and it offers the quickest access to the Gulf. So this facility will continue to see increased uses as we move forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that information. I guess my problem will revolve around the notion that while there's a great effort and I respect this effort, it seems, you know, a desirable Page 65 December 4, 2008 thing to try to accomplish. While this effort is going forward, while it may satisfy some, it would seem that it will precipitate other. And I'm just -- I'm not against the theory of it, but I'm just wondering if we're a little too early with this process. If, and I make the assumption that there may be other parcels that ultimately may be secured, which would expand, if this is the final product that we expect for some time to come, then I just wonder how we can do the arithmetic and expect that we won't still have a problem on Danford. MR. McALPIN: We looked at all the surrounding neighborhoods. We looked at if additional parking parcels could be acquired. We're boxed in in terms of conservation on a lot of the existing neighborhoods. So this offers us -- this neighborhood offers us the only solution that we could see at this point in time. Our intent would be that we are trying to solicit willing sellers. And as we are -- more willing sellers step up and as we can gain more critical mass, we would like to expand the parking in this area. So what we look at is this is a continuum. And the continuum may be extended over a period of time. Ifwe get this rezone now, we have 39 off-trailer site parking. Five years from now we may have acquired enough to have another critical mass and then we would move toward rezoning that at that point in time. Ultimately our goal is to secure enough off-site parking to satisfy the needs of the park community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understood that. That seems implicit in it. And the question then arises, is there a suspicion that as a result of the introduction of these parking facilities that property values will rise or property values will fall? MR. McALPIN : Well, there's been a lot of discussion about whether property values will rise and property val -- or will fall. We have not addressed that in any of our analysis moving forward. What we're trying to do is to provide a safe amenity to the Page 66 December 4, 2008 public. And we have a health and safety issue right now. We have a deficit for parking right now and we have clearly a demonstrated need with the facility that we have in place right now. So what we're trying to do is to solve those problems with this approach, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I would -- perhaps it's not your responsibility to do that, but I would think a real effective analysis would have included the conditions that might be negative. But we have the public here, and if they're unhappy I'm sure they'll say something. Thank you. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My question is why didn't Parks and Rec. consider the parking needs of this park, of Bayview Park, at the time that it was planned? MS. DeJOHN: Bayview Park dates back to about 1981. And I think over time the increasing demand and population growth and recreational boater use has generated an increase in demand over time. The original plans, a typical LDC parking requirement for a boat launch is 10 spaces per boat launch lane. So there's a disconnect between how these parks have actually developed to be very popular and being used versus the kind of county standard and parking standard that goes along with them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that at the time the park was established, it did comply with the parking standards? MS. DeJOHN: Well, it's actually in the City of Naples. The City of Naples doesn't have exact -- doesn't enumerate requirements for boat launch lanes in their code. I used the Collier County example as a point of reference that typically 10 spaces per lane is required. The county -- the city executed the development plan approvals Page 67 December 4, 2008 for Bayview Park and it was built according to plan. MR. McALPIN: If I may, one thing I would like to add to that is as our population continues to grow, we see more boat usage. We typically -- up to 2000, our boat usage, registered vessels within the county grew at 1,000 per year. From 2000 to 2006 it grew at approximately 500 per year. During that period of time you saw a lot of the public facilities close down. And certainly with environmental regulations and zoning issues we have approximately 9,000 wet/dry docks. So the balance -- and we have approximately 24,000 boat users right now, a little bit more than that, boat users within Collier County. So the balance of those users is increasing. And then the way they have access to the water is through our boat park facilities. So that's what we're trying to accommodate right now. We know that this facility is at a deficit from a parking point of view currently as we stand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It just seems as though that there was not good planning when they designed the park, that they didn't include enough parking spaces at the time. MR. McALPIN: The park was designed in the Fifties, and I think that it's -- it would have been difficult to see the current growth that we've experienced, the economic conditions that we've experienced, the shut down public access to the waterway and the need for boater access. Weare trying to move towards the direction of the county commission to provide more access to the waterways. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Laura, there's restrooms at the boat launch, correct? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the C-3? Have you researched why that exists there isolated like that? Page 68 December 4, 2008 MS. DeJOHN: I don't know how the C-3 came about, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the shared easement, the intent there is that the property owner to the south of that area would like to also have access to that. Wouldn't that not present a problem when you start gating that entrance? MS. DeJOHN: We would have to negotiate those terms. The conceptual idea of an easement agreement has been reached, but we do not have all the formal details arranged with the adjacent property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it his intent to do commercial development on that site; do you know? MS. DeJOHN: Do you know? MR. McALPIN: The property owner is Hamilton Harbor, and Hamilton Harbor is holding that lot for the future. They're not quite sure what they want to do with it at this point in time. So we'll continue to work with Hamilton Harbor on joint access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do they own the lot to the north? MR. McALPIN: No, they do not. That's owned by a private individual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not a commercial use at this time, right? MR. McALPIN: It is not in commercial use at this point in time, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Laura, can you show me the landscape elevation from the neighbors to the north? Which one is it? MS. DeJOHN: It would be the lower elevation, Type B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And there is a concern about a wall in that buffer. What's your thoughts on that? MS. DeJOHN: The county staff has interpreted the fence and wall section to apply to community facility zoning adjacent to Page 69 December 4, 2008 residential. The -- we contend that that should not be applicable to community facility zoning, because the section of the code regarding that is under commercial and industrial zoning districts. So we've suggested that the fence is an adequate structure between the two properties. Do you want me to reference the exact section of the code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. Actually, what I really want, what do you think in your professional judgment would make the best buffer between the residences and that -- MS. DeJOHN: Right, the fence would make the better buffer between the residences and this facility. Because the wall -- by trying to soften the edge and minimize the impact on neighbors, a wall is, you know, like was brought up this morning with the sign, a wall is much more of an imposition visually along the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you say fence, what are you describing, a chain link fence? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With vegetation around it so hopefully it becomes like an armature for the vegetation? MS. DeJOHN: Correct, it wouldn't be visible necessarily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the site plan you located away from the neighbors property line; isn't that right? It appears to be up against the edge of the -- MS. DeJOHN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would the neighbor who was fencing their backyard be able -- what would they do there? They'd have to run a fence across their rear property line then, wouldn't they? If, for example, let's say they wanted to fence in their yard for a dog or something, they would not be able to count on that fence where it's located, right? MS. DeJOHN: Right. The only reason for that fence location Page 70 December 4, 2008 was the existence of a utility easement that runs between those properties. So the fence was shown to have the least obstruction to the utility easement, which was closest to the parking area as it's shown there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question: Do you think you'd be able to adjust this site plan -- not number, but move things left and right -- to try to get better islands in the center of the thing such that you could put bigger trees in the center of the parking? MS. DeJOHN: We can make adjustments that maintain the number of spaces. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, just slide them a little bit each way to make sure that -- the goal being to get as much area into the island as you can to put as big a tree as you can. And that might help soften the transition to Hamilton Harbor from these backyards to have large -- MS. DeJOHN: More trees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- trees and -- yeah. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In making your projections of usage as far as the boats and the parking, do you consider that boats that are going to possibly be built and go to slips in the county at the same time, or look at just boat ramp traffic? In other words, we have the county water access with building a slip, in-water slip, those boats all use the same water that the boats could come down on the cars do, on the trailers do. And I want to make any projections if you crank any factor for that and what that loaning ( sic) will be and that will relate to you. MS. DeJOHN: There is a -- can you speak to that? I think there is a factor for that. MR. McALPIN: When we look at typical usage of our boat Page 71 December 4, 2008 park, it is based on the capacity of the lanes. And then what we can do from a manatee protection program point of view -- and that's typically the criteria that we use. We do have at this facility, we have a fixed dock and we have a floating dock. But typically those are going to be used for after an individual launches his boat to tie up against. So to then load and unload material, children, whatever. So we don't anticipate any rental of wet slips at this location whatsoever. I don't know if that answers your question, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, but you're projecting in the future that what is going to be a demand for more boat launch area, because the boat population is increasing as far as people interested in boating. That's covering the type of boats that come down on the ramp like you have here. MR. McALPIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But in addition to that in the county, there is people building slips to moor their boats in the water. Now, if the number of slips that they were going to build would double their projections there might be for the future, would that have a negative effect on the number of ramps that you might need or vice versa? MR. McALPIN: The projection that we're using for additional wet/dry slips in the county is 120 a year. And typically in the past it's averaged 180 a year. But we've ratcheted that back down because of the environmental considerations, the cost of land, a lot of the access and the good spaces, the easy spaces have been already taken up. So we see it much more difficult to deal with wet slips as we move forward. When we look at our projection -- and we're updating our beach and boat master plan right now -- we continue to have a deficit in terms of parking, in terms of launch sites moving forward of at least one to two a year, and we have a significant deficit on parking for boat Page 72 December 4, 2008 trailers. So we factored it into our overall long-term plan for the next 10 years and there's still definitely a deficit moving forward. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you don't account for anything as far as slips that would be built on private property? MR. McALPIN: We do. We do. When we do the master plan, when we have done the master plan and we look at the total growth of boats throughout the county, it's in the range right now of about 24,000 -- registered vessels in the county, 24,700, thereabouts, okay. We have approximately 9,000 wet and dry slips, of which that will grow at about, we're projecting, 120 per year. So when we take the difference between those two numbers, then the balance of that goes to the facilities we have to provide for boat launch facilities. And on average there's -- per boat, there's 20 launches per year. So that's how we figure out the capacity of our boat launch facilities throughout the county. We compare them to population projections and we see what the deficit is, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff -- or the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, let's start with the plan you have -- well, first of all a statement you made earlier. I need to understand the legal reasoning behind your statement. You said that in response to Mr. Murray's concern about additional off-street parking, even after you get done creating possibly 39 spaces. Then you said enforcement can occur after there are adequate spaces. Why is the Sheriffs Department limited to enforcing the law after someone, who knows, maybe a deputy in the field or a person walking by determines there are adequate spaces? MS. DeJOHN: Unfortunately the Sheriffs Office isn't here to Page 73 December 4, 2008 respond to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did, so I want to understand why you responded that way. MS. DeJOHN: I was relaying the information provided by the Sheriffs Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Sheriffs Office said they can't enforce the laws until someone tells them that there aren't adequate alternatives to the overflow. MS. DeJOHN: There -- they've allowed the parking to occur on that section of Danford for years, and there's no trigger to have them start ticketing those vehicles at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking them to start ticketing, I'm asking them to enforce the law. And if there is a law on the books that allows them that discretion, I think that's okay, if that's what it is. I just want to know that it is. And I'm wondering who on county staff can respond to this in the future and let us know at a future follow-up meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: I think the question is really best directed to the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not here. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will be an open question. I guess Sheriff Rambosk, when he -- yeah, J.D., do you have an answer? MR. MOSS: For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I recall this question being posed at the neighborhood information meeting when the sheriff was there. And he said that the only reason they weren't ticketing is because they never had any complaints. But if people started to complain, they would certainly ticket, because that is the law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not encouraging them to go out Page 74 December 4, 2008 and ticket, I just want the statement for the record clear. If they're not enforcing the law, then they need to have a good reason for not enforcing it. And if it's because they haven't got complaints and the neighborhood doesn't mind at this point, then that's fine, too. MR. MOSS: He conceded that was the only reason they weren't ticketing, because no one had complained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then even if the 39 spaces were created and there was overflow parking, it still doesn't necessarily mean it would be ticketed or stopped. MS. DeJOHN: Unless the traffic safety condition, you know, encouraged the sheriff that it was an appropriate thing to stop. Because there's not adequate dimension for two-way traffic down that street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the parking of the overflow along Danford with the 39 spaces in place, say it still needed it, would it be any safer then that you believe it is -- to now? If not, then you have just done the same thing again, you've interjected a criteria that I don't know how anybody could adequately understand it. Who makes that decision that it's safe now but not safe when it's done because 39 spaces are there? So I don't -- MS. DeJOHN: I don't make that decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- follow your reasoning on that issue. MR. McALPIN: If I may, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. The parking on Danford as we move forward doesn't meet county standards. Okay, we have parking on both sides of the road, it doesn't meet county standards, it's substandard parking, there's no pedestrian access and there's -- emergency vehicles cannot use that road or it would be a hinder to that road. The Sheriffs Department, my recollection from the conversation with the Sheriffs Department, and we certainly can get this revolved Page 75 December 4, 2008 with the Sheriffs Department, was that they would not ticket until adequate parking was available. And that is the basis that we are moving forward with. But in any event, we do have a substandard condition as we move down Danford Street. It is not per our ordinance, and we cannot continue to allow parking on both sides of the road there, even from an environmental point of view where we're in the mangroves. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm still not clear on this issue of why it's illegal after the parking's put in place versus why it may not be now. I don't think that the Sheriffs Department's response was legally justified or is legally balanced, so that needs to be cleared up. But let's talk about environmental issues. Danford -- could you put that cut on showing the parking on Danford Street? The colored one. Well, you just passed one of them. Okay, that's one of them. Now could you put the road section cuts you had on there earlier, showing the section of Danford? MS. DeJOHN: It's going to take a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were two, one on top, one on bottom. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, I'm going there, it just takes a minute to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, right there. Where is it on this particular plan that those cars are parked? MS. DeJOHN: The five-foot, four-inch paved striped shoulder-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the right-of-way -- MS. DeJOHN: -- into the limerock shoulder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the right-of-way is 60 feet, right? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you have six feet of lime rock and eight feet -- five feet, eight-inch ditch, and then something outside the ditch before you reach the outside of that right-of-way. Page 76 December 4, 2008 And the mangroves are where, in the right-of-way? MS. DeJOHN: Yes, they're hovering over the ditch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we wanted to go in and widen that road, we would take the mangroves out. It's in our right-of-way. I'm just wondering why the mangroves that are in a road right-of-way all of a sudden become an environmental flag for someone to make an argument on. I don't see it. And that's my point in trying to point out that these cars are parking on areas that are improved or in areas that could be used for road right-of-way. So I'm not sure the environmental argument is as good of an argument as you believe it is as far as being detrimental. Could you put on the site plan again, please. The one that's real. There you go. I use Bayview Park. I've been in this community over 30 years, and I've used Bayview from early days. I've seen it change. And I go there quite frequently. It's a great park to get quick access to the beach -- or to the Gulf, actually. I've never had to park in the overflow outside the park. I've always parked in the space, I've never found that to be a problem. Maybe because I get up early. But when I come down the road, I go down Danford Street, I launch my boat and I park my trailer. If I were to park in the overflow, I'd drive out to the overflow and park it there. Now what you would have is you'd come down Danford Street, launch your boat, drive down Danford Street to get back to Hamilton Ave. to get back to 39 spaces, drive out of the 39 spaces and either go up the new road you're proposing or left on Hamilton and back down Danford. And after you pull your boat out you go back down Danford. Has Danford got sidewalks down both sides of it? MS. DeJOHN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the boat traffic and Page 77 December 4, 2008 trailers -- and you've shown some pretty wide boats -- would actually increase on Danford Street. He just told you to say no. So do you want to explain to me why he told you that? MS. DeJOHN: No, I'm trying to follow your logic. Currently Danford is the primary access for the Bayview boat launch facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DeJOHN: When vehicles either park in the Bayview Park itself or along the mangroves or along Hamilton Avenue, there's differing trips being made there. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the most logical is the straight line. You're going to go straight so you can avoid with a trailer on the back making as many turns as you possibly can to expect people to go down that connection street with one right, then a left, then go back down Hamilton, make a left, make another left to get back in the parking lot is far more complex than just driving down Danford, making a right, then a right and you're in. Rights are a lot easier to make with a boat trailer than a left. I am concerned that the traffic pattern here would increase problems, not decrease problems in that regard. MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. McALPIN: -- if we look at the connecting road right in through there, the connecting road will alleviate traffic on this portion of Danford Street right in through here. Currently all the traffic on Danford comes in through this way, comes through the park and comes back out. If we have the overflow of parking at this point in time with the connecting road, it gives us the ability to have parking that come that would use Bay Street and eliminate this portion of Danford right in through there. So our contention is that as a result of putting in this parking -- this cross-through street right through here, it would eliminate and Page 78 December 4, 2008 solve some of the traffic problems on this portion of Danford. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a boat on a trailer? MR. McALPIN: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you used it on Bayview Park? MR. McALPIN: No, sir, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The landscape buffer that you showed, Laura, could you put that back up, please. On that bottom one, the six feet, where does that start at FEMA-wise? MS. DeJOHN: It was existing grade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Existing grade FEMA-wise. What's your survey show? MS. DeJOHN: It's in the range of three feet. Three to five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's say five feet. So at six feet you'd be 11 feet at the best with your hedge and your chain link fence. Do you know what the FEMA is for habitable structure in that area? MS. DeJOHN: It's high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So do you know what the neighbors will be looking over? The six-foot hedge. Because they're going to be starting at probably 11 or above. And that means their homes are higher than the hedge and -- the wall you're putting in. I've been down there. I've been in some of the homes so I know that to be a fact. And that's why I don't see the compatibility issue being accomplished by a hedge that's below the level of the homes adjacent to it. MS. DeJOHN: That's why the trees were provided, to add to that blocking of the views. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I see the spacing. The property that you're talking about using as a parking lot, aren't there two homes there C.O.'d, occupy-able (sic) if they wanted Page 79 December 4, 2008 to be or may have been at one time? MS. DeJOHN: There are two homes, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that development? I'd say they're developed, would you not? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I met with you, Mr. McAlpin, I mentioned to you, why didn't you utilize the 15 spaces at Hamilton Harbor, and you didn't know what I was talking about or what I was referring to. And I said, well, it's in the staff report. And you had a staff report and I pointed it out to you. And at the time we met, you didn't have an explanation as to what that was about. I believe you since have found out that Hamilton Harbor at one time had a requirement for 15 spaces, and at some point the county gave its authority over to the City of Naples to negotiate with Hamilton Harbor on parameters involving their facility, and the 15 spaces have disappeared as accessible to this community. Is that a fair statement? MR. McALPIN: That is correct. They originally had an agreement in '99 that -- and we entered into an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples that City of Naples would work on the county's behalf, represent the county. Subsequent, in April, 2000 another agreement was -- the original agreement was struck. Another agreement was entered into with City of Naples and Hamilton Harbor and the 15 spaces for whatever reason were eliminated, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in your department was in those meetings and helped with that -- MR. McALPIN: I can't comment at that point in time, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be my questions until we get through staff. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Page 80 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would staff like to make their presentation? MR. MOSS: Thank you. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. At noted in the Comprehensive Planning portion of the staff report, comprehensive planning staff found the project to be consistent with the majority of the provisions in the comprehensive plan. However, they left the determination of the project's consistency with future land use element Policy 5.4, and the recreation and open space element Policy 1.31, which deal with compatibility, up to the determination of Zoning and Land Development Review staff. Staff looked at these provisions and found the project to be inconsistent with them. Staff also found the project to be inconsistent with the Land Development Code which had analyzed the provisions in Subsection 10.03.05. (1)(2), which begin on Page 7 of the staff report. Staff has also received 19 letters of obj ection from 16 different property owners. Two of these letters were received after the packages had been distributed to you. So I gave them to you this morning; you should have found them on your desk. I also received this morning two petitions of objection to the project from two different residents of the community. Staff is recommending denial of this project. As noted in the Boat and Beach Access Report that was attached to the staff report, 56 spaces were requested or determined to be needed for Bayview Park, 40 of which are going to be provided on the park side itself after the renovations are complete. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the 16 spaces that are the shortfall should be provided in the C-3 zoned portion of the neighborhood, Page 81 December 4, 2008 which would not require any sort of rezoning action, and especially not the 39 spaces that the applicant is requesting today. Staff also feels that if this petition were approved, it would just be a snowball effect, like Mr. Murray pointed out and Commissioner Strain followed on. At some point these parking spaces are going to get filled up. The location of this park makes it extremely popular; it's one of the closest ones to the city. And staff feels that if this is approved, this parking lot's going to get filled up too and we're going to have more parking on the street. So it's really more of an enforcement issue. However, if the Planning Commission is going to recommend approval, staff recommends that it does so subject to the conditions that are stipulated in the staff report. And to address your question earlier, Commissioner Schiffer, about the wall, it is a requirement of the LDC that a wall be located between residential and nonresidential development. Mrs. DeJohn is absolutely correct, in the current LDC it shows this requirement to not be required for community facility zoning, but that's only a mistake. When the new code was created, the section before it was inadvertently merged with it. If you look in the old code, it's very clear that any development that is non-commercial -- or excuse me, that is nonresidential abutting a residential should have a wall located there. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and John-David, I'm having trouble with the logic of what you're saying, that if we build this facility and then it fills up, people are going to be out in the street again. Doesn't that demonstrate to you that there's a need? I mean-- MR. MOSS: There's absolutely a need. Like I said, it's in -- and Page 82 December 4, 2008 Mr. McAlpin said, it's the most popular boat launch because it's closest to the city. But this neighborhood just isn't right for redevelopment. It's not ready for this sort of thing, in staffs opinion. And people are going to continue to come to it. There's no doubt that there's a need for boat launch facilities in the park -- or in the county, but locating them at this park doesn't seem like a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the wall. So you're totally against the concept of an open fence. Do you think the neighbors would rather have a wall than an open fence, just due to the ventilation, stuff like that? MR. MOSS: Actually, I think I recall one of the neighbors saying that they would prefer a fence. But nevertheless, the LDC requires a wall. And so that's why staff has taken the position that it's taken. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any way to show us the old and the new code? MR. MOSS: Oh, I don't have a copy of that -- oh, I might have a copy of that with me in my file, if you give me a minute to look for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, move on. If you get a chance, find that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, relative to that, the fence and -- the question was raised about FEMA. And how much does flooding occur; do we know? And if flooding occurs certainly during a hurricane or a storm, the kind of botanicals we're talking about putting in there certainly have to be salt resistant, wouldn't you think? I mean, I'm worried about it with a fence, all well and good to put something in, it looks pretty initially or it will grow in to look well, you know, nice in a short time. But it can also die off. Did we take it into consideration if we're going to advocate a Page 83 December 4, 2008 fence whether or not that's something that's going to be maintained effectively with the type of plants -- MR. MOSS: Well, I do know that one of the commitments they've made is to provide all native species, so they would have the greatest chance of survival of any plantings. But I don't know if flooding occurs regularly in that neighborhood. This project wasn't reviewed by our stormwater engineering department, so I don't know what the flooding situation is like there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe we'll hear from the people that live there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ray, are there public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have four speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, as you come up, we need you to identify yourself for the record, and use either podium you'd like. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. That isn't an adhered to rule, but just as a courtesy. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Okay, the first speaker is David Kramer, to be followed by Philip Litow. MR. KRAMER: David Kramer, and I've lived at 1870 Danford Street for over 30 years. I'm not only speaking for myself, I'm speaking for four of the neighbors that are seasonal visitors. They've asked me to convey their things to you. We've had letters from them. And I want to state this, too, that when this thing originally started in 2003, we were given letters and told that the county wanted to buy up the property. Now, as far as I know, the only property that has been bought up has been from a developer, from vacant landowners and one duplex from a non-resident owner. None of the Page 84 December 4, 2008 property owners on the street have sold. As far as I can say, if a vote was taken by the residents of this street and even the properties on the north side of the street that nobody wants to take, everyone is against it. We feel that if you want parking down there, there is space adjacent to the park. We understand there's mangroves there, and that it is a problem to have mangroves taken out. But we also were told that with a lot of hard work, it can be done, and the parking could be done by the park where it would be needed, not a block away from the park, five or 600 feet. We also feel that rezoning for parking is basically spot zoning. What it does, it's a back door eminent domain. It lowers the value of our property when the parking is there, and it gives the county a chance to purchase more property from people that get tired of having parking there. I've lived on that street for a long time. When I lived there, I mean, the boats that came down there in a week weren't as many as come down on a Monday now. And I understand the need for boat parking and facilities, but if they would have done this and said, hey, in 2003 we want to buy this up, but it's maybe a 50-year plan when we can get it out of there. There's a neighbor down the street that bought a lot from me that's putting a $400,000 home on it. Now, I mean, does he want a parking lot around him? No. I mean, he's not here because he's on the East Coast. His home should be finished by the end of this month or the first of next month. I just thank you for your time and hope that you'll vote against this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, could I have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There's a question from Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, you've lived there for 30 years. Does the area there flood? Page 85 December 4, 2008 MR. KRAMER: Occasionally. The water comes up -- I have been flooded once in the 30 years that I've got maybe an inch of water in my bedroom. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that freshwater flood or is that saltwater? MR. KRAMER: No, that was saltwater intrusion from Tropical Storm Gabriel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that is a potential then. MR. KRAMER: Oh, yes, definitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the reasons why the homes have to be built out. MR. KRAMER: The new ones, yes. I've been in there -- I'm probably one of the lowest ones down there. There's one other home on the street that I know that is flooded constantly. When they get the high tides, sometimes the nip tides when the moon and everything is lined right. But other than that, most of them don't flood. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you, sir. MR. KRAMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Philip Litow, to be followed by Janet (sic) Phillips. MR. LITOW: Good morning. My name is Philip Litow. I live at 1970 Danford Street. We have a nice, clean, quiet neighborhood there, even though boats on trailers go down the street. It's our opinion that if a nice actually resurgent neighborhood with new homes going up -- as Mr. Kramer just said, there's a 3,400 square foot home going up that will be completed in a month. Several new homes have gone up in the last few years. When this process started, it was a little bit different. We can understand the need for boat ramps and for boat parking; however, if there is such a great need, a real public need to ruin a neighborhood, Page 86 December 4, 2008 we feel this would do. Because in spite of how they would try to enforce everything, they're going to be things falling off of trailers in a parking lot right behind my house. If they have to put up lights, we're going to have glaring light at night instead of night. There's going to be sound. Regardless of any kind of barriers they put up to block the view, there's still going to be sound of trailers going in and out, fumes from trucks, so forth and so on. There's not enough need here to invoke eminent domain. This is not such a serious thing. So therefore, there has to be an extremely serious problem. Is there a problem? Yes. But it's almost always only on the weekends. I would rather dispute the 56 average daily use of this park during the five week days. I would invite you to go there this afternoon when you leave here and see how many cars are parked along the mangroves there. At most, in an average weekday, it's five or six. And that's even with some empty spots inside. On the weekends there's a problem. But for five days out of the week there is no problem. To chop up a neighborhood like this, it's a rather Draconian solution to which mostly is a non-problem. It just doesn't exist five days a week. And if to the extent that it does exist, the plans to increase the parking within the park from 16 to 40 will take care of almost all of that. Now, over the course of time things may change, things may get worse. We feel that the parking along Danford Street, first of all, there are no problems there, there are no safety issues. And even on what used to be Fern and Hamilton, the sheriffs said there are almost no complaints, so they don't ticket. It's not a problem. So this is just trying to, we feel, force our -- force us to try to sell out, which is what the Parks and Recreation Department has wanted us to do. Page 87 December 4,2008 I can't imagine them feeling that our property values are going to increase by putting a parking lot behind. And our elevation to build had to be at least 10 feet. So a six-foot wall is going to do nothing to block the view behind us. And certainly, if they do put lights in there at all, and people will be coming in at night to get their boats out, you know, it's going to -- it's going to ruin the character of our neighborhood. There are kids in the neighborhood, you're going to have more cars and trailers going up Bay Street. You know, again, I would dispute the 56 daily going there. I walk my dog down to but not into the park every day. There's no problem, there's no pedestrian problem there. You could park -- you could pave over perhaps, with very little impingement on the mangroves, that's 20 to 21 spots along the side, plus the 24 that would be included -- or the total of 40 plus 21 along the side is 61 spots. And that would be a better solution than chopping up the neighborhood and ruining it and ruining the quality of life. After hours, if pedestrians can get in there to get their boats out, things are going to happen. If people can walk into an unsupervised park, things are going to be dropped, there'll be garbage. Things fall off of trucks now, and off of boats. It will attract vermin. You know, there are kids living adjacent to this. That's -- and I think that the alternative solutions should be examined rather than chopping up our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Janet (sic) Phillips, followed by Douglas Shaw. MS. PHILLIPS: Hello. My name is Janette Phillips. I appreciate your board and your consideration and the freedom of America that we have freedom of speech. And we would greatly appreciate you considering this. Page 88 December 4, 2008 I live -- when you got on Exhibit B, and the road that goes between Danford and Bay, I live right there on the corner, very close to the road that is supposed to be put there. Now, this is a very -- I see a traffic hazard problem, just accidents waiting to happen going in and out and in and out. I don't see how, if you've got one going here and one coming here, the corner, I don't see how there's enough room for big boats and trailers to turn there in the first place. And the problem is not in the neighborhood that -- the closing of the park. It's -- we don't mind the park being opened. The park is not being used by children. And we would appreciate your consideration in getting rid of the park. Now, you give the Hamilton Harbor permission to cut down the mangroves, but our problem was here before them. And the mangroves can be pulled up and planted somewhere else. And I'm like the fellow, that you're separating the park in front of the park (sic). And the closer the parking lot is to the park, the better off, than doing this to the neighborhood. And the guardrails. That is going to be very ugly in front of our house, to put up guardrails. And you're doing more on Bay Street and, you know, just tearing up our neighborhood in Bay Street. I've been there 31 years, and I don't plan to sell. And we really would appreciate -- I would recommend that you do the mangroves or on Hamilton Avenue widen the street. Don't tear down the new houses that you've -- they're brand new houses. Take the money and widen Hamilton Avenue and let the trailers on the weekend or the holidays park on the road. And if you just widen it, then there would not be no problem. And still, we don't -- there's nobody in our neighborhood's complaining about the boats and the trailers. We understand. And we've never had a problem. And to my knowledge, there's not any wrecks or anything. Page 89 December 4, 2008 But you do all of this, and it's just accidents. I just see accidents just ready to happen. And trash, if you're going up and down on Bay Street, there's going to be things thrown in our ditches, it's going to stop up our pipes, unless you cover it and -- the pipes underground. It's just so many problems that I see better than, making the park and the mangroves and planting them somewhere else, or widening Hamilton Avenue where they can park there. I appreciate my time that you listen to me, and God bless you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Final speaker, Douglas Shaw. MR. SHAW: Good morning. My name is Doug Shaw. I live at 1781 Danford Street, which is about three or four houses from the mangroves, which would be on the north side of Danford. And I've lived there for about 12 years. The boat traffic and my family, it's never bothered us. Actually, it's kind of neat to see people want to go out and go boating and have a great time. The problem I'm having with these people wanting to rezone is the area that they have already, now the people are parking in, as you brought up, Mr. Strain, was the deal with people parking off to the edge of the road. The only reason people stop if there's somebody parked on either edge of the road is because they don't want to move over to the edge. The width of the road is the normal width that it should be for people coming and going to the park. The only reason they stop is because they're not assured of themselves as they need to be whenever they're driving down the road between the yellow line and the white line, because it's the same width as it is on every other road that they drive on. So I've never seen that be an issue to where somebody has to Page 90 December 4, 2008 drive out and around to get over off the edge or drive out in the middle of somebody else's lane, other than they just don't want to stay in their path. As for the parking areas that they have, the C- 3 zoning on the end of Danford and now Hamilton, that property has been for sale for a mighty long time. I'm not sure why they haven't approached them to buy it. Maybe it cost them too much or they think it costs too much. That is already zoned C- 3. The parking that they have, the people that I know that live behind the zoning, the area that they want to rezone, the inconvenience of having, like the other lady was saying, a wall sitting up there, the lights shining. They also want to put in a pourous drive or a pourous parking lot for the runoff of whatever. I'm not sure why they don't want to do it hard stand. As far as I know, that would be a better thing to do. And the cut-through street. I would be staring at the cut-through street that they have on there. That makes me very uncomfortable to be able to see people driving in there; I live in a two-story home. So as you stated earlier, I can see through there and be able to look and watch what people are doing if they're driving through. And you know as well as I do, people getting off the boat, they're going to be coming down there and to be able to make the turn they've got to turn out wide to go over and get into the parking lot. And a lot of people don't know how to drive the boat trailer effectively, because they only do it on the weekend or maybe once a month, or sometimes they wait until they come down and they're only here for three or four months. So they're not really efficient in it. So you've got to be careful as to watching the way the people are driving. The inconvenience for it being tearing up our neighborhood. This is such a wonderful neighborhood; quiet, peaceful. And even though the boat trailers come up and down, it's hard for me to want to see them tear it up, put fences and put walls and make a parking area. Page 91 December 4, 2008 People have plenty of area to park in now, as well as whenever it's coming for the new 40 some odd spaces that are going to be in that park, then having them park there on the edge of Danford Street where the mangroves are at. And it's not impeding on the height of the mangroves, even though they do come out over to the road. People are parking an empty boat trailer there, they're not parking 20-foot tall boats or IS-foot tall boats or trucks on the edges of the road to be able to pull. So it's not caused a problem from what I can see. Well, I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the end of the public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the applicant like to have a final comment? MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. We would just like to summarize a couple of key points. The BCC authorized our Beach and Boats Access Plan in May, 2003, of which they authorized the acquisition in this neighborhood of property for the potential use of off-site parking. Then in April of 2004, they funded that plan. They authorized money for us to move forward. And then for each one of the properties that we have purchased, the 15 lots, we brought those back to the BCC and they authorized them at that point in time. We have demonstrated that there is an absolute need for this parking expansion. Currently we see 56 weekday uses and 100 during the weekend. Our parking is inadequate for that. We're making our steps to expands the parking within the park. But even at that, we're looking at a shortfall of 68 spots. So we have a need. It's demonstrated. The need is now. It's going to be growing because of the impact of season, because of the impact Page 92 December 4, 2008 of holiday and because of the impact of Hamilton Harbor. So the need is real. One of the residents also said that there was a need -- there is a problem out there right now. We've done this as efficiently as possible. We've held three public neighborhood meetings. We've assembled a parking which is a critical mass on the southeast side. We've listened to the neighbors. We've tried to work this as efficiently as possible. We have fencing, landscaping, dawn to dusk operations. We believe we have a better flow of traffic with the access road. And so we've listened to what the neighbors have said and tried to design this to have the least impact on their community. The -- there is a need. And for us to say that we could ignore the need on the properties and ignore the problem with the boat parking at this point in time is inappropriate. We have to address the parking needs and we have to address the problems associated with this site. We have looked at all the other surrounding properties. There are no other options in terms of buying property and parking in other locations. This provides us essentially one of the only solutions that we can see for this neighborhood right now. We believe we are consistent with the neighborhood. Our plan will reduce congestion. If you look at this whole neighborhood and you look at it in its context, it's a patchwork of zoning. We have Hamilton Harbor, which is commercial just directly to the south; we have the park to the west; we have the Botanical Gardens, which is commercial and conservation to the east; we have mixed PUD's. And they're all water related. We have a water related use. And we're piggybacking on that at this point in time. We're providing sidewalks to help solve some of the problems that we have there right now. There is a health and safety issue. Cars are parked on the shoulder of Danford and Fern and creating safety issues in violation of Page 93 December 4, 2008 ordinances, and they're not adequately being enforced right now because adequate parking is not available. That is a fact as we stand right now. The western portion of Danford Road is insubstantial, is a sub-standard road, and the widths don't meet the county's standards for two-way traffic and shoulder parking. There's no safe pedestrian access on the western portion of Danford Road. And parking in the wetlands is a violation ofDEP parking, protecting the wetlands. So we have issues there. That, coupled with the inability to move emergency vehicles into the park with parking on both sides creates problems for us. So we would -- with those considerations, we are trying to solve a problem. The problem -- our solution may not be perfect at this point in time. We see this as a continuing process, we see this as a generational solution. We're willing to -- we need to start at some point. That's what we're proposing at this point in time, and as we have willing sellers purchase more and expand the off-site parking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Schiffer, did you have -- before I close the public hearing, or did you want to comment during the public -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to ask Gary a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead. That's what I was trying to find out. I didn't want to close the hearing and then have you ask a COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Gary, one thing that -- the lights are a concern as to what to do on this. What are the plans for lighting? MR. McALPIN: This is a dawn to dusk park, so there will be no lighting in the parking lot at this point in time. We will close the -- as was talked about earlier, there will be access to the parking lot for trailers to come out. But after the park is closed, access will be Page 94 December 4, 2008 prohibited to cars and trailers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you could make a limitation that there is no lighting on this facility. MR. McALPIN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is, and I'm having a little bit of trouble with the intermediate roadway. If you look at the distance that you're going to walk, I mean, I could make an argument that it's not that much more if you came out onto -- I forget the name of the road -- Hamilton, then went up to Danford and came down, it's not that much more, at least from the eastern end of the parking lot. So is the intent of that roadway to give people a shortcut with the trailers or a shortcut with pedestrian walk-back? MR. McALPIN: Both. Both, Mr. -- Councilman (sic). We're trying to provide more flexibility in terms of the flow of traffic, the flow of trailers, so that everybody is not always using Danforth (sic), so we have an alternate route there. And also we have from the parking lot, we have pedestrian access on that so that we could have safe pedestrian access moving into the park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean the people, essentially they're going to arrive, they're going to ride all the way down Danford and then they're going to come back. I mean, so I see -- I kind of share the feelings the lady has, that make them make that turn, a couple turns, rattling trailers, when essentially they could just drive past and limit the intrusion into the total neighborhood. Would that be a big problem ifthere wasn't that pass-through? I mean, if you look at the -- you know, just play with the graphics, the walking distance isn't that much more. It's a long walk anyway. MR. McALPIN: It is a long walk. And that was not a -- we want to provide traffic flexibility. And we think having that flexibility relieves the traffic on the eastern end of Danforth (sic). And that's why Page 95 December 4, 2008 we have it in there in at this point. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, you know, I'm not quite sold on the pass-through yet. MR. McALPIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think if you don't have the pass-through, you limit the intrusion into the neighborhood, the people on -- let me get the -- Bay Street, it's up at the end of Bay Street, the people who live further down won't have to deal with it. And they have a big enough problem, they have this huge, you know, dry storage across the way from them and then -- anyway, I think the pass-through, I'm not quite sold on the pass-through. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we will close the public hearing, and if you want to have either discussion or make a motion and then have discussion, someone tell me. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've got little to talk about. It doesn't make any difference to me when. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, do you guys -- Mr. Wolfley, if you want to discuss something, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, I'm going to have to vote no on this one. The buffers are inadequate. Since you had said there will not be any lighting along the pedestrian crosswalk, I crossed that one out. I feel that the parking, like maybe some of us, certainly the homeowners, is going to create more use because of the simple supply and demand. And I think we're going to be creating more problems and we're going to be right back to where we were to begin with. And the more we go into the residential area is I think a bigger problem. I think indeed it's going to lower the property values. And finally, I feel that the -- dealing with DEP for a special consideration to relocate the mangroves and move from the existing interior parking, move towards the east is a much better plan. Thanke Page 96 December 4, 2008 you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments before -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Might as well join in. It is very clear that we -- Collier County can use more boating opportunities. That would mean in the case of trailered boats, places to park their trailers after they've done it, launched the boat. And I appreciate and sympathize and I appreciate the direction that the BCC has instructed staff to find ways to support that. However, a gentlemen used the term spot zoning, and quite frankly, we would -- this board would never facilitate spot zoning by a developer. And perhaps some on this board might, but I certainly couldn't support that. I recognize that this is not building the community. I think if there's an alternative, that alternative may be patience and time, and have the county over time, a long period of time, perhaps, secure additional properties so that it can become a legitimate area for storage, but I could not support a motion in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a hard time supporting the project, simply because the neighborhood was there first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I do support the project. I'm not sure about the pass-through, but I support the project in that how could people just parking alongside the road in the neighborhood be more desirable than the ability to corral them down at the other end? Because of the distance, I don't think it's going to be used -- you know, if the sheriff forces them in there, that's the only way I think the Page 97 December 4,2008 thing is going to be used anyway. When it's not being used, when the load is down, there's not -- it's going to be a passive, just an open area. And I would rather us -- although I don't think that's going to be the case -- work on how to make the landscaping and buffers, the thing a desirable use in the neighborhood rather than not be in the neighborhood. But I support the use of the land as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, you had a comment? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I just -- I'm hoping to reduce the chance that the board may send this back, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me a minute to make mine. That might help you reduce it. MR. KLATZKOW: -- so that when I ask when you take your vote if you would set forth your individual reasons, if you're going to vote no, and that you actually look at the criteria set forth in the staff report and base it on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't give me a chance to get there, but I will do so right now. I will be voting against this proposal. I will state my reasons now because they're lengthy and there's no sense of saying it numbers of times. First of all, I want to set some criteria for all of you. I know we all realize, but maybe the public doesn't. The purchase of this land, in my discussions, in my meetings with Mr. McAlpin and Ms. Dejohn when I asked was this on the consent or summary agenda, I was told it was on the consent agenda. Now, if you know anything about the BCC agenda, the consent agenda is one of those massive pages of items that they just vote on in blank. They say okay. And it's not always as openly debated in the public when it's on a consent agenda item. Also, I'm concerned that this is a setup for future buy-outs. Right now property prices are established based on a residential Page 98 December 4,2008 neighborhood. You start putting in this kind of use, no one's going to want to live by it. So guess what? The county gets to buy other properties out at a better price. We would never ever consider this if a private developer was doing it. And government is not above the law and they shouldn't be in this case. There were discussions here today. There's been no proven environmental problem. They're within a 60-foot right-of-way. The safety issue that they keep harping on is going to be exasperated (sic) more by the parking lot this further distance away than it is now. And we also heard that we are still going to have people probably parking on the side of the road. So nothing is accomplished in what they believe are the accomplishments by making this purchase. So I have a series of lengthy discussion to tell you why I'm going to be voting against this proposal. If you want to piggyback on the back of it, that's up to you all. But I'm going to tell you what they are and then we'll be looking for a motion. In the CCME we have Policy 12.2.7; it says the county shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard. Well, this was acknowledged in testimony, it's developed policy. So that's inconsistent with CCME Policy 12.2.7. Recreation open space Policy 1.1.5 states, the correct or improve existing parks and recreation facility deficiencies which are necessary in order to meet the level of service standards. We have not seen anything that says this is the only alternative in which to meet the level of service standards. And I surely think that destroying a neighborhood does not make it necessary. Policy 1.3.1 of the recreational and open space says, county owned or managed parks and recreational facilities shall abide by all Page 99 December 4, 2008 bicycle and pedestrian access where location is appropriate. This is absolutely inappropriate, as clearly stated to us by Collier County staff as being incompatible with the neighborhood. Recreation and open space Policy 1.4.2 states, that Collier County shall continue to coordinate with the provision of recreational facilities and activities with other governmental jurisdictions that own or operate such a facility. Such governmental entities shall include but not necessarily be limited to the City of Naples. I can tell you very clearly, this department didn't even know that they lost the 15 spaces in Hamilton Harbor. So how is that coordinating with the other municipalities? They didn't. So they failed on Policy 1.4.2. If you go to FLUE Policy 5.4, it says, new development shall be compatible with and complimentary to surrounding uses. It is no way there's complementary uses here or compatible with it. Then we have to get into LDC Section 10.03.05(1)(2), and that is all the criteria by which we have to weigh these decisions. Criteria number one -- rather than read the whole criteria, I'm just going to tell you, based on criteria number one, this is not compatible with the neighborhood. Based on criteria number two, again, it is not consistent with the land use pattern. Based on criteria number three, the possible creation of an isolated district, yes, this would be an isolated district. There certainly aren't any others in this district. Under number four, whether existing boundaries are logically drawn: The change does not warrant -- the neighborhood layout does not warrant a change for this kind of commercial parking lot. Number five, whether the changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. There are no conditions unique to this site that make it necessary. They could have bought other sites in the county that could Page 100 December 4, 2008 have provided plenty of access to the water. Number six, whether proposed change will adversely influence living conditions. Absolutely it will. It was testified to by the residents, and it's obvious. Number seven, whether the proposed change will create or successfully increase traffic. Most certainly. Traffic is going to be increased on Danford Street, either by the quantity of votes or by a way to get in and out of that parking lot. I don't believe if someone pulling a trailer's going to use the worst route there, they're going to use the easiest route there. Plus it creates a highly unsafe condition on Danford Street, more so than they currently have today. So we actually are aggravating the situation, not bettering it. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values. No doubt, the property values will be affected negatively. Whether the proposed change would be a detriment to the improvement or development of adjacent properties. Obviously very few people are going to want to live next to a parking lot. And the additional safety hazards on that street will probably make sure people with children don't move there. Number twelve, whether the proposed change will constitute or grant a special privilege. Well, I think it grants a special privilege to government, one way and above anybody in the private sector could possibly have in a residential neighborhood. Number 13, whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. There is no reason. In fact, there are two CO's, developed existing homes on that property, showing it could be used. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the Page 101 December 4, 2008 neighborhood. There's nothing unique to warrant the change. It certainly is out of scale in a residential neighborhood to have a commercial parking area. Whether it's possible to find other adequate sites in the county. We already know there is. In fact, there's been numerous sites proposed to the BCC. Some have been turned down, some have been taken. Most recently they're considering the one at Port of the Isles. Number 18, such other factors, standards or criteria the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important. Well, as staff has said, there would be an adverse affect upon living conditions in the neighborhood. The expansion should be on the county-owned park itself rather than authorized to overflow into the residential neighborhood. In no way should a parking lot be forced into a successful and established residential neighborhood to accommodate an expanded use. Staff finds the proposed parking lot to be incompatible with provisions of the LDC and particularly Policy 5.4 of the FLUE, and inconsistent with Policy 1.3.1. Now, that's as many as I can mention here and try to be brief. Mr. Klatzkow, is that thorough enough? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you've made your position quite clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe when it gets to the BCC, there won't be -- it won't be sent back to us. Anybody else have any other comments? MR. SCHMITT: We'll just add the minutes to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion on this particular matter? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'd like to make a motion on RZ-2008-AR-12930, as a -- sorry, with a recommendation of denial. Page 102 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. MR. KLATZKOW: And is that based on Mr. Strain's discussion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I had pretty much -- not as though I articulated them as well as Mr. Strain, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the second definitely agrees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I will be supporting the motion for denial based on my discussion that I just had. Don't ask me to make it again, please. Is there any other discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to note that I'm going to vote against the motion. I think there is a health and safety issue on Danford right now. And I think that this could be made compatible with the neighborhood if we worked on the positive sides of the design of it. And essentially this parking lot is a passive use. It wouldn't be used during the night, it wouldn't be used during week days. There's a small amount of time when this would be used. And when it is being used it's hopefully eliminating the concerns I had with the safety of Danford. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, ifno other comments, I'll ask for -- did you have a -- are you just ready to vote, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, but I wanted to make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't think I'll ever ask you a question, because that's like asking for a drink of water and getting the Page 103 December 4, 2008 hose put on you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to take that, but -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I do support your position on the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. Okay, with that, we'll call the motion. All those in favor of the motion to deny, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-2 for denial. With that -- thank you. With that, we'll take a one-hour lunch break and we'll resume at 12:50. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back, everyone. It's 12:50, we can resume with our meeting. We're going through our various petitions. Item #9E PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325, SUNGATE CENTER CPUD The next one up is Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-10325, Wynn Properties, Inc. and Carbone Properties of Naples, Ltd. for the Sungate Center CPUD. And it's on Green and 951 in Golden Gate. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to Page 104 December 4, 2008 be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission? Does anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had conversations with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Anderson, who I -- oh, there he is, behind Mike Bosi, okay. And will probably repeat everything I had said today. But before we can start on this agenda item, I need to explain something that has been troubling on this issue that I need the County Attorney's comment on as well once I explain it. I was chairman of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Overlay committee that put the rules in effect for the commercial areas in Golden Gate Estates. That's an overlay. It's different than the broad comprehensive plan throughout the whole county. Overlays are put together by the people in the area and they're more special interest, more focused on the area. And one of the things we were very careful in doing on that committee was to make sure we limited the commercial activities in these centers to C-l, C-2, and C-3. Everybody buying property out there knows the rules. And if one property to finds a way to circumvent them, I'm sure we'll end up with negative consequences in other parts of the county. This one's coming before us with a concern from staff that it's inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan because of the mini-warehouse addition to the former PUD. The former PUD had been in place a long time. It was generally known to the community. This is a new twist to that PUD, which in my book is problematic for this board to hear, knowing it's inconsistent with the GMP. And I don't think there's any gray area there. It's beyond the C-3 uses that clearly are those uses allocated in Page 105 December 4, 2008 the GMP. It's a C-5 use, and a conditional use in the C-4. Now, based on that, I've got to ask the County Attorney's Office, what options do we have to proceed knowing that we're proceeding with something that is inconsistent with the GMP? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think it's a problem. I think that you either have to make a determination that it's consistent in your opinion with the GMP or I don't see how you could rule any other way than to make a recommendation of denial. The case law is clear that the Board of County Commissioners cannot approve an item which is inconsistent with its Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I guess that comes into play from staff -- or Mike Bosi, maybe that's now why you're here today. And if staff is going to testify that there's no indecision on staffs part as far as consistency with the GMP, then I guess the applicant's got to make a decision. Because if it stays in, it makes our meeting a lot shorter, because I'm not sure how it can stay in and continue. But if you want to voluntarily remove it and come back after something's modified, either the GMP or the LDC, to allow such uses in the C-3 use, then that's a different story. But I certainly want to make sure we proceed effectively today and productively, and not go down a trail that we're just going to sit here and have to backtrack on. Bob, you're at the podium, did you have any comment or do you want to let Mike Bosi comment first? MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe let Mike comment first. That provides me another three, four minutes. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning. As Chairman Strain had indicated when we did the consistency review in compo planning on the petition, we found that the language that was in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for the infill commercial sub-district clearly restricted the uses to the C-1, 2 to C-3. Page 106 December 4, 2008 The use being proposed, the 4225 SIC Code for mini-storage was a use that's only allowed for a conditional use within C-4, permitted use within C-5; therefore, we thought it was clearly prohibited by the language contained within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And the distinction that the applicant was utilizing as the justification for the inclusion was a comparison to a 2002 rezoning for Goodlette Corners. Goodlette Corners was on Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road within the urbanized residential sub-district, and they sought commercial zoning through the infill commercial subdistrict. The distinction between that district and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan district both provide for uses within the C-1 through C-3 zoning district. The only problem is in the infill sub-district, the urbanized infill sub-district, it says that you can gain a higher intensity of uses based upon the adjacent or adjoining uses to your property. And at that point in time there was C-4 uses to the west of the Goodlette Corners rezone; therefore, they gained a higher intensity of uses, and that was the justification that the Board of County Commissioners found to include that use within the Goodlette Corners rezone. So the example of precedent being utilized by the applicant to justify the inclusion of a C-5 use within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan infill sub-district to me is not a straight apples to apples comparison, not in my own view but Comprehensive Planning view. And that's why we've arrived at the determination that it could not be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it pretty clear? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bob, I really need to ask you if you want to proceed with a mini-warehouse as part of this, because it's going to shed a different connotation on this review than it will otherwise. I think it's inevitable Page 107 December 4,2008 then what the outcome will be. What do you want to do? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think I need to take to my client. If you want to give me a minute or two, I'll talk to him and see how he wants to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll give you four minutes, how's that? We'll come back -- we'll just break for four minutes, resume at 1:00. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't take your full four minutes. MR. MULHERE: That was very expeditious of us. Without prolonging the discussion and giving you any basis of rationale why we thought it was appropriate -- obviously we did have a basis and a rationale for that. But having discussed it with my clients, given the concerns that were raised, we're willing to remove that use and explore some other opportunities down the road to include that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So today's meeting will proceed with the mini-warehouse item being removed from the number of uses that are listed in the PUD -- MR. MULHERE: Right. And I assume when we come back for consent we'll have removed it and re-number the uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, that works and-- Heidi is that -- will that work with the County Attorney's office? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, it's your presentation, Sir. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think, you know, that this presentation can be fairly brief. I have an exhibit on the visualizer that shows the location. I'll just step over to that for a moment. Collier Boulevard, Green, 15th Avenue Southwest. This is -- property's right here. It consists of 10 acres. This is a postal annex here that's already developed, and there's some water management facilities Page 108 December 4, 2008 developed. This particular plan here, it's probably hard for you to see, but this actually shows the proposed improvements to Green, which will be developed as part of the Collier Boulevard Improvement project, which includes turn lanes -- there's double lefts, there's a right, there's a through lane. And so in accommodation for that, we've got some right-of-way that we're dedicating; I'll get into that specifically in just a moment. And a shared slope and construction easement, sidewalk easement. And we're also going to handle some of the water from the Collier Boulevard project within our water management system. Just a little bit of history. The subject parcel is zoned PUD, but-- and although partially developed and developed, as I said, with the postal annex and with the stormwater management system, it didn't meet the percentages outlined in the LDC for continuation of the PUD, so it was subject to sun-setting. I think that's in your staff report. And then obviously once you've been sun-setted, this project -- this PUD was sun-setted. The only way to remedy that is to come back in and do a rezone to PUD or rezone to some other appropriate district. With that one use being removed, I don't know that there's any other objections. All the uses we went through a -- I'd say a pretty lengthy process with staff of looking at all the uses and ensuring that they were consistent. We've met with transportation staff five or six times to hammer out the transportation conditions. We've agreed to, as I said, provide the necessary right-of-way as well as easement to accommodate the improvements on Green as well as some intersection improvements from Green to Collier Boulevard. And we have also agreed to take up to about an acre of stormwater treatment. And that has been determined to address the mitigation for Policy 5.1 that's necessary. So I think that concludes my presentation. If you have any Page 109 December 4,2008 questions, we're happy to answer them. I have Bruce Anderson with me here, as well as Bill Clark representing Wynn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, one thing. You're going to do a PUD, which isn't the intent of a PUD to do something creative rather than just use conventional zoning? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, this already was a PUD. This was already existing as a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- I'll take that away from the question and make it a statement, as I seem to miss the creative part, because it looks like you're just setting requirements. The setbacks you want to have is 20 feet, yet all the other zoning districts have 25. You're on a major road, which you want to be 20 feet back from. What's the reason for that? MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all I'm not sure that all the other zoning districts have 25-foot setbacks. We have a 20-foot setback in the existing PUD and there are 20- foot landscape easements already recorded throughout the entire -- those three sides where we have 20- foot landscape -- where we have setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't your development schedule -- let me read it. The -- I'm looking at table three. Is that the right table? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at setbacks from the northern perimeter boundary, 20 feet. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From the southern boundary of the 30-foot right-of-way. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So from the centerline of the right-of-way, it's 50 feet. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Page 110 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the setback to the building is 20 feet from the property -- MR. MULHERE: Correct -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- assumed property line -- MR. MULHERE: Could be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where 25 is required in C-1, C-2, C-3 and even C-5. Setback from the southern, same. MR. MULHERE: Well, we're adjacent -- if! could, I mean, maybe in response, we're adjacent to an estates-zoned lot. We've provided a 25-foot setback. It seemed like that would be the most appropriate place to have the larger setback. It's a relatively small parcel. Those setbacks are consistent with the setbacks that were already in the PUD when it was approved previously. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 25 feet you just mentioned is from the western boundary, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The eastern boundary again is 20 feet. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, I think that's very close. Especially the eastern boundary is Collier Boulevard. You can have a building 20 feet off of the property line. Anyway, I'm not sold that that's a good idea. And why do you need 20? Why can't 25 work? I mean, conventional zoning has 25. You're not proposing anything here, so we have no idea why conventional zoning would even be the appropriate way to do this. MR. MULHERE: I mean, my only response to you is that, you know, within 20 foot we can put the required landscape buffer, which will be substantive. Page 111 December 4, 2008 The roadway is being widened. They've already taken a significant amount of property over the years from this parcel for roadway widening. And again, we're getting more right-of-way for roadway widening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you could have a 50-foot building 20 feet from the property line -- MR. MULHERE: Well, and subject to the architectural standards, that will be designed in accordance with those standards and it will be very attractive. I don't think we have an end user at this point in time so I really can't tell you whether it will be right up to the 20-foot setback or whether it will be set back, you know, 50-foot or 25-foot with parking in between the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then why don't you just humor me and go with 25. MR. MULHERE: On Collier? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why not on all of them? I mean, why put the building up on the property line? I mean, all the things we do, that's not a -- I mean, five feet. I mean, it could be trivial on my side, it could be trivial on your side, but -- MR. MULHERE: Well, obviously, again, you know, I'd have to confer with my client before I could commit to that, because it's a pretty substantial impact on this relatively small piece of property. And no one's objected to the setbacks in the more than 10 years that they've been in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, pull that mic. a little closer to you, if you could. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, that's my comment. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the -- if your clients had Page 112 December 4, 2008 moved ahead earlier in time and they would have built to the setback, then the county would have come along and asked for some of that road, what would be the net effect on the setback? MR. MULHERE: It would be reduced by whatever they asked for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could that be five feet? MR. MULHERE: Five, 10. You know, I don't know how much land was taken for Collier Boulevard over the years, but I know it's been widened. So, you know, at some point -- whatever the, you know -- my experience, if! could talk generally, because I don't know the specifics here. But generally all the time you have a situation where the county's widening a road and you've got an existing improved building. And the LDC says that your setback can be reduced by the amount of the take. And -- because you're not causing that problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think I understood that -- MR. MULHERE: Being caused to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that's why I was asking that question. So in other words, what I'm trying to understand or trying to make a point, I guess, that while I don't disagree with my fellow Commissioner that it would be desirable to have appropriate setbacks, my thought was had they been moving ahead all along in the past and the county now needed the property, you would have a net effect of the same or perhaps slightly different setbacks than what you now plan. MR. MULHERE: And if I could piggyback onto that, I mean, I guess my point is that Collier Boulevard's not going to be widened any wider than it is now. It's constrained to six lanes by policy. And Green, the improvements -- the setback is from the improved Green. So you're getting 20 feet from basically a six-lane Green, because there's two turn lanes, there's a right turn lane and there's the through lanes. Page 113 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do those lines that are drawn in there, do they represent potential structures that you're planning? MR. MULHERE: No, they don't. We were just looking at potential out-parcels and sizes. Those are not structures, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, my thought is if you get approved I would hope they'd move ahead, because if you wait much longer they could take some more property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your list of uses, I mean, I know we're now going to now strike Item 39. Would you mind adding a sentence to the uses either in the beginning or end that says you agree that you will not use the property for any sexually orientated businesses as defined in our code of laws? MR. MULHERE: I don't think we object to that. I did have some discussion prior to this meeting and found that because of the proximity of residential and the church across the street, and I recognize those situations could change, so we don't have a -- I'm sure there's no objection to that. But I was just going to say, it wouldn't qualify under the county sexually oriented business restrictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm always trying to cross the T's and dot the I's -- MR. MULHERE: No, that's no problem -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we don't have an issue that -- MR. MULHERE: Do you want that as a sort of a general condition like a footnote or something along those lines? Page 114 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the end -- I mean, anywhere you want to fit it, say at the end of 46, just a general statement that this property will -- no sexually orientated businesses will be allowed on this property. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the stormwater acceptance, Page 4-3.H. I mentioned this, I think to you and-- MR. MULHERE: Yes, you did. I've got -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that can be worded better. MR. MULHERE: I actually found an answer which I think is a good answer. And I think maybe you may also agree with that. The reason -- and we use the word -- Mr. Strain is referring to paragraph H at the top of 4-3 where we talk about in the second line towards the end of contiguous Collier County right-of-way, the word contiguous. Because the concern that Mr. Strain brought up was that really, how do you know where the water's coming from. If it's a continuous pipe it may not be coming from -- but the problem is -- and this was actually worked out with transportation staff. They will be the ones going to obtain the South Florida Water Management District permit when they do the improvements to Collier Boulevard. And for those, the Water Management District will need to be -- excuse me, the water management facilities will need to be contiguous to the area that's being treated. So it's really more for the South Florida Water Management District. We could use the word adjacent I think, but contiguous is a little bit more descriptive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm concerned, as I explained to you, is typical you have humps and bumps in a road to control your water runoff from the asphalt. It goes into catch basins that take it into drainage pipes that take it to a drainage area. Those many times are interconnected. And I just would want to make sure Page 115 December 4,2008 transportation wouldn't get caught into a situation where they've got to isolate a section of the road so that the drainage runoff from that section is all that goes into this property. I understand they're limiting it to 1.02 acres, and that's fine. And my suggestion was just drop the reference to the contiguous. If you're limited to 1.02 acres, what do you care where that comes from, as long as that's all you've got to entertain. Would that be an acceptable idea? Why wouldn't that work? I just -- out of curiosity. MR. MULHERE: There was some concern as it related to the permitting process. So I don't know if Mike -- Michael, do you have any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifthere's a concern from the permitting process, and South Florida says you can't do it because it's not within what they consider contiguous, you're going to correct it anyway, and either way it's not going to have any impact on you greater than 1.02 acres. So I'm not sure why it concerns you. I think it's going to concern the county in how they permit the property through South Florida. MR. MULHERE: Maybe if we use the term -- maybe if we reword it, if this works, to say the developer and any successor owners of the development agree to accept, store and treat in perpetuity all of the stormwater drainage from any section or sections of Collier County right-of-way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just drop the word-- MR. MULHERE: -- adjacent to the subject property as may be selected by the County. I mean is adjacent, is adjacent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But why are you hung up on that? Why does it have to -- MR. MULHERE: What I really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's a mile away -- MR. MULHERE: It's not really that I'm hung up on it, I just Page 116 December 4,2008 don't want to have an unintended consequence because I really was not the one that word-smithed this specifically. Let me ask my client if there's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, Bob, is where I'm coming from is if you're taking water to your property, then you've accepted it to come from a right-of-way. That right-of-way is anywhere, as long as you don't take any more than you've agreed to take -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 1.02, what do you care? MR. MULHERE: -- sounds very, very logical to me standing here, but if you just give me a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wants to stay safe. Nick's gone. MR. MULHERE: Okay, done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll drop the word contiguous, right? On the next page, and I'm probably not going to need you to -- unless you understand this -- you guys agreed to pay traffic impact fees. You're not getting credits for that based on 0, right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all your contributions are great. They're pro bono, more or less, and you don't have to pay -- you're not getting any credits against your impact fees, and I think it's great for the developer to do that, and I'm not objecting to that. But P seems to reverse that. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Bruce on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And P is the one that confuses me. I've not seen it in a PUD before. I'm trying to understand what it means. Because it says developer shall not be held responsible and shall not be charged for any past or future improvements to Collier or Page 117 December 4, 2008 Green Boulevards -- well, impact fees pay for future improvements -- including but not limited to, and it goes into a series of things. Nor shall the developer be required to make any payments in lieu of any of the foregoing. Developer's contributions satisfy all transportation fair share mitigation requirements. I just want to make sure that this doesn't contradict the impact fee credit statement in O. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think he wants to pay it once and get it over with. MR. MULHERE: No, I think that that is that there be no further extractions and not through -- and it was not necessarily directed toward the impact fee process but any other type of extraction. But let me defer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll ask the County Attorney's Office then if that's clear enough for them to derive that out of the paragraph, and if it is, that's fine. But I want to make sure it is. MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams from the County Attorney's Office. And when I read it and read Mr. Anderson's language I interpreted it just as Commissioner Murray stated, is he wants to make his one-time impact in the previous paragraph, and we're not going to come after him for anything else in the subsequent paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you don't have any problem with P having a negative impact on our right to make impact fees -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as long as we get them when we get them. I mean, we're not going for anything over and above what the previous paragraph called for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem with it. If the County Attorney's Office can defend it, that's the key. And that's -- at this time, that's all the questions I have. So thank you. Anybody else have any follow-up before we go to staff? Page 118 December 4, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can we have the staff report, please. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You have received the staff report and all of its attachments that provide rezone findings and PUD findings. Based on the testimony that's already been provided, a lot of what was discussed in the staff report regarding the 4225 SIC Code classification use, staff can now unequivocally change their recommendation to say that we recommend approval now that that has been struck. I won't go into the details of the staff report, since you do have it and a lot of it's changed now based on the testimony. And if you need it to be done, Mike Bosi can go on the record to formally recognize that the use removal does make the project now consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like that, if Michael wouldn't mind. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning. And with the removal of the 4225, the use associated with the C-5 permitted use, with the removal of that from the PUD, compo planning would find this rezone request to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Bruce, did you have a question before we go into any questions of staff? Did you -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I wanted to just ask you to consider this. I know from our conversations you were concerned about the process. And there's a possibility that the Land Development Code may be amended to allow that kind of self-storage use in C-3 or C-2 districts. Page 119 December 4, 2008 Would you have an objection if we had that in there followed by the language that only if it is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district? That way if the Land Development Code does get amended, we wouldn't have to come back here and amend the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't the GGMP, the Golden Gate Master Plan, have to be amended? Isn't that the controlling -- isn't that the controlling? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but it makes reference to allowing uses C-1, C-2 and C-3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought the mini-warehouse was one that was exclusive, that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, in that document we strictly said uses C-1 through C-3. And a mini-warehouse is acknowledged as a C-5. So that's what prevents it. We didn't go back and relist individually all the individual uses in C-4 and C-5. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's why I got confused, because you said you wanted to go to C-3. I thought you said that, right? Did you reference that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Bruce is suggesting that what they could add to their uses is put that SIC Code back in, but only under the provision that should the LDC change in the future that would allow such uses in C-3, they could be then used on his property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I picked up on the C-3 part of it, yeah, allowed in C-3. But that would be a C-5 function in C- 3. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the Land Development Code would have to be amended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would -- okay, I -- MR. ANDERSON: To allow it in a C-3 district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I don't know if it goes Page 120 December 4, 2008 with the spirit of the thing, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they're trying to avoid is -- sounds like an amendment process to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, your issue is consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Would the compo planning staff have any input on that? MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning. No, the Growth Management Plan does not specify the uses within individual zoning districts. The Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan only specifies the uses that are in the C-1 through the C-3 uses. If the Land Development Code was changed through the appropriate process to designate a self-storage facility that is now currently a permitted use in C-5 to be a permitted use in C-3, then it would be consistent with the Growth Management Plan because it was now included within a C-3 use. So Comprehensive Planning from that perspective would not have an objection to such a proposal. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the answer would be you could still make a finding with the consistency of the Growth Management Plan with the amendment proposed by Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Bruce, I mean, for me personally I think that would -- I mean, your use is less intense, it's just a matter of process, that's the problem. I don't have an objection to fixing the process, if we can. And that might be a solution to it that I don't see a problem with. MR. ANDERSON: Ifwe could consider that when you all go into your discussion, we would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have to come back on consent and -- MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Page 121 December 4, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we can refine the language at that point if it's deemed to go forward. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that -- Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that open us up to any item for change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think anybody could suggest anything in that manner, meaning they could say a concrete asphalt batch plant could go on this property, if allowed in the C-3 zoning use pursuant to the Land Development Code. But then how do you get the Land Development Code to change to that use as a C-3, I'm not sure. Bruce? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're talking degree, a matter of degree to acceptance. MR. ANDERSON: But it's not -- a concrete plant would not be allowed by the PUD in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But no, what I'm suggesting is you could add -- just like this wouldn't be allowed by the PUD in the first place. If you wanted some time in the future to use this for a concrete batch plant but you knew it was an industrial use, you could add another line to that saying and a concrete beach plant could be used here if it's deemed to be acceptable by the LDC in a C-3 zoning code. MR. ANDERSON: Well, you'd have to put that in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like you're proposing to put the mini-warehouse in. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: But I'm not asking for concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not. Mr. Murray asked for an example, I'm trying to get his question answered. Page 122 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think what I was trying to do is find out if there was any potential unintended consequences to this. We're being very specific then in talking about a mini-warehouse. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, sir, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's I guess what I needed to understand, very specific. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay we left off with you. Are there any questions of county staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing is I'm really not sure what the advantage of this being a PUD to the county is. I mean, why wouldn't we just go with conventional zoning? Isn't a PUD supposed to demonstrate some sort of creative use of the land, and isn't this just creating regulations for a piece of land? MS. DESELEM: A PUD can be sought by anyone. Staff reacts to and makes a recommendation based on what's submitted. As long as the requested zoning district is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and meets the intent of the LDC, we're not going to necessarily recommend denial of it based on that. And as far as uniqueness and flexibility, design flexibility, things like different setbacks are something you can do in a PUD or at least propose to do that you couldn't do in a conventional zoning district. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to make another point on that issue is that the LDC says it encourages, PUD process encourages, but it cannot mandate certain things that are site constraints. Here we have certain site constraints based on the size of the project that limit how much creativity you can get into it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's no creativity here other than the fact that they're requesting smaller setbacks, and the Page 123 December 4, 2008 height of the C-3 zoning. So I mean, is that creative, you know, let me get a PUD where I can have less setbacks? I mean, I could understand it if they were showing a reason why that made sense because of something creative. But here, this is vacant land, this is a vacant PUD. MS. DESELEM: If I might add to that, in the Golden Gate Estates commercial infill subdistrict of the GMP, it does state, quote, rezone shall be encouraged in the form of a planned unit development, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then why is staff supporting the five-foot reduction in setbacks? MS. DESELEM: I'm just saying another reason why they're requesting a PUD as opposed to a conventional rezone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I accept that. Why is staff okay with the five-foot reduction in setbacks? This is putting a -- could put -- they could say they never would, but the fact is the regulation states that they could put a 50-foot tall building 64 feet to the actual height 20 feet from a property line on Collier Boulevard. Even though it's bad on any street, on Collier Boulevard I think it would even be worse. You're supportive of that? MS. DESELEM: The staff is looking at it from the point of view it was already a zoned PUD. It had sun-setted due to the fact that it had not developed to the intensity necessary to prohibit the sun- setting; therefore, what they were proposing in this PUD is very similar if not the same as what they had originally had proposed and had approved for. And as testified by the applicant's agent, up to this point in time there hadn't been an issue with it. So staff was unaware that there was an issue now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe I'm the first person to notice that as a change. But anyway, you've answered it the best Page 124 December 4, 2008 you can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we leave your issue, though, Brad, I think it's important to the applicant to know where you're going to stand on this during the vote, because it could be five feet could mean the difference between a unanimous vote by this commission, possibly, which means summary agenda, or a split vote, which means they go through a full contested hearing in front of the BCC. So I don't know if you're willing to express your concerns as strong -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, it would be a no vote if they keep it at 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I'm bringing it up is to try to save you guys some effort. Mr. Schiffer's going to vote no if it doesn't get changed. So as in the past, you know how that situation changes things in the dynamics as it goes forward. It's up to you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, again, I think this client has done everything the county asked for him, has several times given up right-of-way. We're talking -- the question was asked, what's five-foot. Well, I can answer that same question back, you know, what's five foot. I don't think we're willing to give up that five foot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other -- Mike, you've got something? MR. BOSI: Just one further thing, clarification for Commissioner Schiffer. One of the reasons, the advantages of utilizing a PUD is this does sit in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and that has special design restrictions and impositions within the site development plan process that you would -- you wouldn't be able to impart to the reader of a straight zoning -- a straight rezone request. So it does have some advantages. Page 125 December 4, 2008 And just one suggestion, and this is probably outside the boundaries of my purview as a growth management planner, but as a potential compromise for the 25 to 20- foot issue, you may want to leave that 20- foot setback but have a restriction, any building over 40 feet would have to be set back half of the distance of the building from the property line. Therefore, if it's over 40 -- if it's over 40, if it goes to 50, they'd have to go back to that 25, and therefore it will alleviate your concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the reason I don't like that is I don't think the PUD process is a process in which you go in, do a vacant -- when I mean vacant, there's no design, there's no intention shown here -- a vacant PUD and then lessen the requirements of conventional zoning. Obviously if you have a problem with a conventional zoning thing in the PUD process, you can request it and show us why you need it. You know, Bob saying that they gave a right-of-way, the right-of-ways are 30 feet on each side. These are 60-foot right-of-ways. These are small right-of-ways. MR. MULHERE: No, we actually gave up more than 30 feet on the south, we gave them an additional, some additional right-of-way for the widening of Green. Significant. Like 19 feet. So -- but that's not -- let me just add one thing, Mr. Schiffer, and I think it's kind of important. You know, the PUD process is a two-way street. We have a whole bunch of stipulations in this PUD that if we came in for straight zoning we would not be obliged to provide to you. So it really is a two-way street. And it was already a PUD, and we didn't ask for really anything different except the one use which we've now eliminated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree it's a two-way street. I just don't want you to get too close to the street. Page 126 December 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have just one clarification. The third page of your staff report, the Exhibit A used there, differs from the Exhibit A in the PUD. I just want to make sure for the record that that third page is not the one we'd be using. We were using the one in the PUD. MS. DESELEM: That is correct. And I apologize for the error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not much of a problem, I just want to make sure we got clear on it. Okay, is there any public testimony, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there any -- well, there's no -- unless you guys want to rebut something that -- I don't know what you would. But with that, we'll close the public hearing and we can entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a recommendation for approval for PUDA-Z-2006-AR-10325 (sic) Sungate Center, be forwarded to the BCC. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? I have a -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- list of stipulations. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to ask -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to go by whatever -- okay, as the motion maker I should have made that statement in the Page 127 _______,__~~_. ~__.__"_,.__.".......,__..._._..'_.k._'_~._~""_.."...,_~~~___.~_.^'_~~~__._.__.___ _ "U"'_'__'.'~_M._"_"_"" December 4,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have just one clarification. The third page of your staff report, the Exhibit A used there, differs from the Exhibit A in the PUD. I just want to make sure for the record that that third page is not the one we'd be using. We were using the one in the PUD. MS. DESELEM: That is correct. And I apologize for the error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not much ofa problem, I just want to make sure we got clear on it. Okay, is there any public testimony, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there any -- well, there's no -- unless you guys want to rebut something that -- I don't know what you would. But with that, we'll close the public hearing and we can entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would make a recommendation for approval for PUDA-Z-2006-AR-10325 (sic) Sungate Center, be forwarded to the BCC. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? I have a-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --list of stipulations. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to ask -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to go by whatever -- okay, as the motion maker I should have made that statement in the Page 127 December 4, 2008 first instance. According to staff recommendations. And we would consider recommendations made by the -- by any member of the commiSSion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll go through the recommendations and you can re-affirm that they're a part of your motion after you decide that you accept it that way. The recommendations of staff were one or two. So I'm assuming because ofthe removal of the mini-warehouse, we are accepting number one but striking number two. And also, when they agreed that they would insert language that there would be no sexually orientated businesses consistent with the Collier County code of laws. They would omit use number 39, which is the mini-warehouse use as it's written today. They would drop the word contiguous from Page 4-3, Item H. And they would re-insert SIC Code 4225 for the mini-warehouse only if it is modified as a use allowed in C- 3 through a change of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Those are the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second agrees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- ones I remember as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker accepts those and the second accepts those? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 128 December 4, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries with a 7-1. So with that, we thank you for your cooperation today, and we appreciate the cleaning up of the document and removing the mini-warehouse. That made it a lot simpler. Otherwise, I had a half an hour lengthy discussion to have on just what you violated. Item #9B - Continued from earlier in the Meeting PETITION: SV-2006-AR-10482 - FAIRWAYS RESORT So let's go back to the Fairways Motel issue, which was Petition SV-2006-AR-10482. That was one we started with this morning. It's on Piper Boulevard and Palm River. Mr. Hancock was going to seek a clarification of what the legal address was supposed to be, or legal description, I should say. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, as much as it pains me to admit that Mr. Schiffer was correct, he was. So he has passed his PLS, congratulations. And you can now survey for profit. But the legal description that was provided was for an adjacent easement. What we have done, and I have copies -- actually, I guess I should provide a copy to the court reporter and Mr. Schiffer, as much as everyone else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the County Attorney, especially. MR. HANCOCK: Ms. Ashton has been provided a copy of what is being distributed right now. And in short, the document -- I'll put it on the visualizer. In short, to ensure that there's no potential for confusion, what we've Page 129 December 4, 2008 done is we've obtained a signed and notarized agreement from Horse Creek Partners to erect a sign on the property. And Mr. Murray, your comments earlier are still valid. We understand that that is a contractual agreement between Horse Creek Partners and Fairways Resort. And what we've done is we've referenced the same area as the parking agreement and attached the OR book and page with that legal description on it. So the exact same area that the parking easement covers is now the exact same area that the sign easement covers so that the two will marry in perpetuity. And we thought that was the cleanest and easiest way to accomplish that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this satisfactory to the County Attorney's Office? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any questions now that this has been clarified? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a slight point is that the site that you show in the application seems to go westward of the right property line of Palm View Drive. So I think you should correct that before you go to the commission. This description does not include the 40 feet to the west of that line. It doesn't matter because the sign's way off on the other side, so it doesn't affect anything, but just the document you show always show that little 40-foot area which is not included in that legal. MR. HANCOCK: The reason it's not included, and I'm not sure why this happened, but the easement to the west of that point and the easement to the east of that point use a southerly extension of the eastern part of that road going down to a meeting point. It's a little unusual. But the parking has always occurred, and the easement for the parking has always occurred to the east of that. We just tried to mirror Page 130 December 4, 2008 it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is don't -- you know, you do have exhibits in here that show land to the west of that line, and just clean it up. I don't think it's going to matter, I guess. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. The two together, the exhibit can't appear like is shows something that the agreement doesn't cover. I understand your point, Mr. Schiffer, and we will have the opportunity -- I believe this will have to come back on consent to this body, so we have the opportunity to clean that up. The only other item I would like to mention in a way of putting everything on the record that may assist this body in making a determination is that in addition to the corrected Exhibit B we do request that the staff recommendation of a minimum three-foot setback for the sign be reduced to zero. We've discussed that with staff. They don't have a particular concern over that after their site visit. And I'll let you address that with Ms. Gundlach as appropriate. The third item is that as recommended by the CCPC, the sign poles be constructed to closely mimic the existing condition due to the historic aspect of this sign. The fourth item, and this is something that is not in your staff report but that was brought by code enforcement. Weare under a current code enforcement action, and we want to make sure that what we do ensures the timely replacement of this sign as soon as possible. And that is the primary concern we have heard from the neighbors, other than their support for the hotel. And that is that to ensure the timely replacement of the sign, the applicant shall apply for a sign permit within 30 days of BCC approval and that the sign must be replaced within 60 days of issuance of the sign permit. We're aware that that 60 days is tight, but quite honestly, the sign companies are a little on the eager side these days, so we feel fairly comfortable that that can be accomplished. Page 13 1 December 4, 2008 And the only concern -- the only objection this petition has had from the neighbors is they're tired of looking at the temporary sign, they want to see the new one. And we want them to have the assurance that we're as committed to that as we say we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Tim, you wanted to go from the three-foot from the canal right-of-way, whatever that is. The sign would then hang over, the upper part of the sign would hang over into that property. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, the actual leading edge of the sign is COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Of the 11-foot portion. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. MR. HANCOCK: Not the pole itself but the leading edge would be the measuring point. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You said the pole? MR. HANCOCK: Let's just stick with the leading edge. Try and keep myself out of more trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You said that the neighbors had seen this sign before in another meeting and had seen what the sign looks like? The sign you proposed had a solid face where the -- not pole part but the support part. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I'm sorry, I may have mis-spoke. We have not presented a sign at a neighborhood meeting or anything to that effect, unless Mr. Mirowitz has. What my point is, is that the sign that's there that was historically there we didn't have any complaints about. It's the temporary banner covering that sign that people are concerned about. We thought bringing something back that looked very much like what is there Page 132 December 4, 2008 would be to the benefit. But I don't have any input from the neighborhoods as to whether or not they'd rather have that pole cover or two poles. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So we're not redesigning a sign that they haven't seen? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Tim. I think the only thing we need from Nancy is a verification that there's no objection to the dropping number three of your recommendations. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach for the record from Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And Mr. Hancock and I did have a conversation yesterday about that zero-foot setback from the canal easement line. And I did visit the site last night. And staff is in agreement that the zero feet is appropriate in this situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Are there any questions of anyone at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we can close the public hearing and entertain a motion. If you'd like, I can go through discussion first to tell you what was just talked about. Obviously we have staff recommendations number one and number two. Number three would be dropped. A new recommendation would be to allow the use of poles in lieu of the wall structure to support the sign. And another one would be the sign Page 133 December 4, 2008 permit would be obtained within 30 days after approval by the Board of County Commissioners. And the sign will be installed within 60 days after the sign permit is issued. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know how important it is to you, but I thought Tim made a good point when he said due to the historical nature of it, the sign representing the poles, based on historical. I don't know if that will have any additional impact or any impact, but I thought that was a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought the other one-- did you -- that's what I thought I was getting at with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You just didn't use the word historic, and I just thought maybe that might be meaningful, it might help to convey more effectively what we're attempting to do. Although my view is more of having to do with safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as historic goes, the only thing I'd hate to see is if staff interpreted historic as being similar in color and nature of the poles that were there versus a newer designed pole, maybe even a singular pole, that would be better supportive than multiple poles, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I was just emulating what he was relating to, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, do you have a concern either way? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, neither do I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, those are the -- I think the stipulations. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would move that we recommend Petition SV-2006-AR-10482, Fairways Resort, for Page 134 December 4, 2008 approval, including the stipulations and conditions you cited previously. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you for your time today, appreciate it. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS We have two items left to discuss today. Next items would be old business. The first one is the travel issue introduced by Mr. Schmitt. I'm hoping Ray's got the information on that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I believe you were mailed or e-mailed a copy of a letter from the County Manager, Mr. Mudd, indicating there's a new form for travel, mileage reimbursement. I'll put it on the visualizer. In case you did not get it, I'll have it re-sent today and -- Page 135 December 4, 2008 with the backup information. This is the new form they want you to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will staffbe verifying this? In the sense -- and I hope they would. It's easy to do a Google map from each person's house to the commission. And that's all the taxpayers are being expected to deal with here. And it's got to be when it's over 20 miles so-- , MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question in that regard. I listened to that meeting, and I thought I heard -- pretty darn sure I heard that they said to a maximum of 20 miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would mean Mr. Midney doesn't get anything. I think the opposite -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He gets the maximum 20 miles, period. That was what I understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy to be wrong -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe that was correct, but-- MR. BELLOWS: Here's the wording, I believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What does it say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excess of 20 miles. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it says on November 18th, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed the resolution 2008-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for advisory board members who travel in excess of 20 miles -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wonderful. Glad I'm wrong. MR. BELLOWS: -- round trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Ray, is that all you needed to discuss on this issue? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. December 4, 2008 Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we need to move into our new business, which is Item one, introduced by Mr. Schiffer concerning boat dock extensions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, what it is, watching that meeting -- and I guess maybe staff is going to do something, but there's a concern I have is that it looks like it's split down to two ways in which people are reading this criteria. One of the concerns I have is that, you know, I think the way that at least I read it, I think by the vote some other people read it, the staff is kind of throwing the Planning Commissioner under the bus and giving the impression to commissioners that we're doing a deficient job. So what are you going to do about that situation with the interpreting of how to do the boat docks extensions? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I don't believe it was intended to imply that the Planning Commission was not doing their job. Certainly the appeal process isn't appealing the decision of staff or the zoning director, but the appeal process is appealing the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission. Whether the executive summary was clear enough on that, I'm not sure. But I will gladly discuss that with the zoning director and see how we can better improve the process. I know we don't do that many boat dock appeals, and it may mean that we need to massage that process a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the problem is -- first of all, the commissioners don't see the ones we pass. There are some of us who believe that Collier has a regulation for a dock Page 13 7 December 4, 2008 distance out and that if you can't make that you, number one, at the beginning of the process prove that you can't make it. If that's proven, then there's conditions that make sure that you don't violate these other conditions and you can have extensions. We've given extensions, man, I think some of them are in the 70 feet in some shallow areas around Port of the Isles or something. But the problem I have is that the commissioners I think are definitely under the impression that you have to vote the criteria. So some of us who believe in a case where you don't need an extension, where you could easily -- or could build a 20-foot dock, we don't need to go through the criteria. And the staff not supporting that, I can remember -- and it's a lengthy meeting for the commissioners, it's a lengthy meeting. We're all wasting a lot of time on this. And the staff isn't proposing that other method. They're definitely saying, you know, like, well, why did the Planning Commissioners do that, why do some of them have only one criteria. And they're just, you know, shrugging their shoulders like they have no idea. But there is a good idea. I mean, some of us don't think that's the appropriate way to do it. So we have to have some form where we actually establish what that code means, and we all behave accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, exactly what you just said was the concern that I came away from that meeting, because we've had different interpretations in how to look at that. And as probably Jeff and Joe will tell you, I spoke to them both after that meeting and said before we bring this back to the Planning Commission there needs to be a consensus from your two departments as to how we're to proceed and how we are supposed to look at it. So I think the answer to your question will be done before we even get that back, because it has to be. We cannot hear it again with confusion on what interpretation to use, and the two departments will Page 138 December 4, 2008 have to get together on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, there's another point I want to make. The concern is I don't like hearing commissioners, in my case, using my name as an example of doing a deficient review when that's not the case. The other thing is, Ray, the 20-foot, nobody knows where that came from. So could we be doing a disservice to the boating community? This is Collier County. Boating is one of the major recreational attractions to Collier. Can you somehow try to figure out why we have a 20-foot requirement? There may be conditions, you know -- in other words, the only reason I'm such a hardball on 20 feet is because that's one of the laws of the land. I mean, it's not up to us to decide whether we like the laws of the land. We shouldn't be doing that as a Planning Commission, certainly. So the point is I would like to see somehow maybe we should start looking out to why is it 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that research could be readily done if you were assigned a staff member to go back and historically look at how the boat dock criteria in the LDC evolved. And you may have to go back into the days prior to transcribed minutes, which then poses a problem to give you a distinct answer -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, if! may interject. We did attempt to do that through the County Attorney's Office through Mr. Klatzkow, and we were able to see that it went back at least to 1965 when it was first applied to residential single-family homes. And there was very little. We were not able to come to a conclusion as to the reason for the 20 feet, based on the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe that's something we could revisit. That's a long time ago. What's happened to boats, what's happened to the boating community -- I mean, you know, the lifts and Page 139 December 4,2008 all that didn't even exist back when that was made. And I think the biggest problem we have is a lot of people want to swing it perpendicular and put it on a lift. So anyway, Ray, maybe one recommendation is you put together a team of people that know boats, that know the industry, and to discuss maybe the 20 feet as a problem, too. Maybe we could have a different kind of default. But I do think giving the impression to the commissioners that you only use the criteria to do a boat thing was a disservice to some of us on the Planning Commission, and some of us went down in vain because of that. And that didn't please me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what staff needs to do is if you could provide a historical perspective of the boat dock transformations to the best you can, and probably use the research the County Attorney's Office has done, that will give us a good idea on how we got to where we are today. And I think the interpretation of the criteria has been a bone of contention for a while now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They actually said that if they used the bone of conten -- or used the criteria that would work. I could use the criteria and put a boat 50 feet across the waterway all the way across the waterway because I meet the other criteria but not that one. And by right you're giving the impression that would be allowed. So you do have problems just using the criteria alone. MR. BELLOWS: So if! understand correctly, you're requesting background information on the boat dock -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Language. MR. BELLOWS: --language for a possible LDC amendment where we could address changes to the current LDC requirements that specify 20 feet as a maximum without requiring an extension -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're trying to clarify how they're supposed to be interpreted. I don't think anybody's making a Page 140 December 4, 2008 decision here today that 20 feet is right or wrong. There is a concern on how did we get there. But obviously, we've just been told that may not be possible to determine that. But lacking that, we certainly want to know that the criteria either has to be adhered to based on other historic discussions of it. When those primary and secondary criteria were formatted there was probably a lot of public discussion, at least several of the board levels. Does any of that public testimony say how that criteria was supposed to then be adhered to? Was it supposed to be adhered to strictly or was it supposed to be there as consideration and then we're allowed to go outside that? I think that's probably part of the issue we want to know. MR. BELLOWS: Well, definitely that came out oflast Tuesday's board meeting on the appeal. And that's what the County Attorney's Office and the zoning director will be working on clarifying, as well as Mr. Schmitt. Now, in regards to the second part of the question, I will be able to do the research, and I'll coordinate with what Heidi's staffhas done and we will get you the background of how we got to where we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think if you get it in pieces and give it to us so we can read it as it's developed, that would be helpful. And then we can finally get to a point where this thing will be rescheduled and we have the background we need then to hear it in a manner that the Board of County Commissioners would like us to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then most of all, you know, respect the opinion of -- you know, we did do these boat dock extensions, we did give it a lot of time. There are some of us that think the code is clearly written that a 25-foot's requirement (sic). And there are situations where you can't do the 20- foot and it comes before this board. But don't give the commissioners the impression, which you did, that those of us who don't believe we have to list criteria are doing a Page 141 December 4, 2008 deficient job. We're not. Those of us who do that realize that there's no problem building a 20-foot dock, thus we don't need to go into the criteria. You should stick with the 20- foot dock, which is the law of the land. Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the point's made and we'll go from there. Mr. Murray, did you have a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question was raised about some of the criteria being applicable, multi docks versus single residence docks and so forth. Is it time for those criteria to be reevaluated for their applicability for whether or not they do convey the proper potential for evaluation? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here, here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at them, some of it is really subjective. They're supposed to be objective criteria, and they do appear very, very subjective some time. When actually-- MR. BELLOWS: Well, view blocking is definitely a subjective component of it. And some of the discussion during the county commission meeting was make it an administrative process and stick with some objective criteria. But there are always going to be some of those cases where there is the subjectivity involved, and that is where the Planning Commission has historically provided a valuable input on determining this -- some of these subjective criteria. And I think that's why there hasn't been an administrative process, because there are these subjective things. Now, we could always design an administrative process that allows for unlimited dock -- or boat size. You've got to limit it somewhere. And historically that was determined to be 20 feet, and it's been used for at least 30 or 40 years. I think the only thing I can tell you now is I'll get you the Page 142 December 4,2008 background information on the boat docks. Certainly -- I watched the appeal on Tuesday, and I certainly didn't come away with the impression that staff was intentionally leading anyone to believe that the Planning Commission did not adequately review this project. And I'll certainly relay your concerns to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm going to just -- you cut me off. I'm going to tell you that I think that the criteria should be objective. That's in fact what criteria are supposed to be. And they should be as tight as they can toward objectivity. And I think some word-smithing may very well be applicable. Commissioner Coyle called into question at least those two that seemed irrelevant, one or the other, depending on the case. So it would make it a lot easier for us to evaluate. But I also ask that the person presenting to us has more commitment to knowledge and more commitment to the actual case at point. Because what I hear often is we got the survey from Joe, we think Joe submitted it, therefore Joe's okay, we go along with that. I'm not satisfied when I hear that, quite frankly. I accept it because it seems to be the norm. But I don't think it's the ideal. Now, I don't expect people to go out there necessarily. But I do think that we have to have a stronger commitment from staff so that we can make a more effective decision. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments before we move on? (No response.) Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item is public comment. And I see there's a public out there. Page 143 December 4, 2008 Doug, I know you've got to be sitting there for a reason. MR. FEE: I filled out my slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't use slips anymore so you can't speak. MR. FEE: Oh, you don't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just kidding. After all that time you've waited, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, this is the first time I can remember public comment. What about you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember one other time. I think Nancy Payton had a comment years ago. No, but you do know we can't have any motions on stuff that isn't on the agenda. So we're just here for discussion. MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'll try to be brief on this. Speaking of boating, and I know you guys are involved in boat dock extensions and Land Development Code amendments and GMP amendments. What I want to speak about today has to do with Wiggins Pass. Just one of our many estuaries and inlets. What I passed out was -- the first page shows you the FLUE, which indicates in the Delnor- Wiggins State Recreation Area as well as Barefoot Beach State Preserve, you will notice that it is green highlighted, which designates conservation designation. The second page, and let me just put this on the visualizer. I don't know that the public would be able to see that, but along the coast there you have a different color than the yellow, which is the urban area. The next thing I want to put on the visualizer is -- it's 11 by 17, it's the zoning map of this area, of the pass itself. And what you have here, if you can read the map, you have conservation to the south and then you have an area, it does say Wiggins Pass, and then you have conservation to the north. And this is Page 144 December 4, 2008 the actual zoning map. What I then want to do is, the next page that I've given you is some text out of the Land Development Code. And you'll notice there's a letter B that says conservation district CON, which matches the FLUE. I'm just going to briefly read this. It says, the purpose and intent of the conservation district CON is to conserve, protect and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier islands, coastal bays, wetlands and habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All proposals for development in CON district must be subject to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. The CON district includes such public lands as -- and I won't read the full, but I want to point out that it does mention Delnor- Wiggins State Park. It then further says, it is the intent of the CON district to require review of all development proposed within the CON district to ensure that the inherent value of the county's natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably altered. The CON district corresponds to and implements the conservation land use designation on the future land use map of Collier County. Then it goes on to say the allowable uses, conditional uses. Now, my point here is right now there's a committee -- there's a subcommittee that has been formed underneath the Coastal Advisory Council. And it's specifically looking into Wiggins Pass and the long-term permitting issues as it relates to dredging and what we're going to do for the future. I had spoken to Gary McAlpin, obviously he's the coastal zone Page 145 December 4, 2008 manager, and I had asked him ifhe had specifically looked at the zoning to the north of the pass and to the south of the pass. This was probably about three weeks ago. He had answered to me, no, I hadn't. And I said, are you going to do that? And he said, well, we probably will do that. And I asked him when he would do it and he said it probably will not be until January. And I said, well, you're expending dollars here at the county level to do some research into this S-curve, or this flood shoal, and shouldn't we really be looking at the zoning ahead of spending these dollars? And he said, well, you've got a point. So I'm coming to you as a public comment. You are the zoning, the Planning Commission here in Collier County. There's obviously an environmental advisory council as well. And I want to attend their meeting under public comment. I'd like to raise the issue. In the Land Development Code it specifically said subject to rigorous review. And you review a lot of things as it relates to water codes. My question would be, is there a possibility that you as the Planning Commission could also review the reports and be a party to that -- you know, so the public has an ability to come here as well as the Environmental Advisory Council? Like I said, there's a discussion of removing S-curve of the pass. And I can point that out. I don't know how many of you know what I'm talking about. I'll point out here Wiggins Pass has a meandering S-curve that comes around here. This is Barefoot Beach and this is Delnor- Wiggins. You can see this portion right here. They call that a flood shoal. It's distinct on this map. The question becomes, is that under the water or is that an extension of land from Delnor- Wiggins? They want to actually remove this and do a straight channel through the S-curve and take the spoil from this and plug up the curve. A point I'd like to make is when we have done dredging, we've Page 146 December 4, 2008 had some erosion on Barefoot Beach. Now the question becomes, is it unacceptable erosion or is it acceptable. And my question would be should we be looking at what the unintended consequences might be of this dredging? So that's basically my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, this is a Planning Commission, we review the LDC and the GMP and apply the rules for planning and zoning in Collier County. We interpret those the best we can and make recommendation to the BCC. We get a lot of new information and new reviews by the BCC. Currently we're reviewing the flood plain management ordinance. We're reviewing the East of 951 horizon study. All those are links to planning, just as this could be linked to planning by simply indicating that this channel will have a load carrying capacity change to it that will affect uplands zoned areas and possibly boat docks and other things that we touch. It's not up to us though to assign that to ourselves. If you were to make such a request to the BCC either through your commissioner or to them directly, I don't know if this commission has any objection to entertaining anything new that would come along. We would certainly give it our best shot to review it as thoroughly as we possibly can. But we're not able to pick what we review, they assign things to us. MR. FEE: So you're suggesting to go to the commission itself? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the only people that-- MR. FEE: And spell out -- and maybe they will-- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to remand the process to us, just like they have with the other committees that have been developed, and the outcomes of those committees are now coming through us. And they're the best sources to get that to happen. They've been very positive in sending items to us, so most likely it might be something they would entertain as very positive. Page 147 December 4, 2008 MR. FEE: Okay. One other quick question, and that is there are NRP A designations on the future land use map, as well as in the Land Development Code. There is a NRP A that is established in the Pelican Bay area. There is not a NRP A up in the Wiggins Pass area. I have gone to the county and have gotten a map of the environmentally sensitive land of Pelican Bay, alongside of a map for Wiggins Pass. I will tell you that that map indicates about a two-to-one. In other words, we may have 50 percent more than the Pelican Bay area. I plan on coming back in January to your committee, as well as the EAC to show you this map. My question to you is, I know you're going through an RLSA program right now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, rural lands -- MR. FEE: -- a review. Does that involve any review ofNRP As out in that area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The NRPAs in that area, we have an ASC overlay, which is an area of special concern, which is sensitive. We have NRP As in the Belle Meade to the south, but I think that's in the rural fringe. I don't recall any specifically in the RLSA offhand, but I can't say for sure there aren't. MR. FEE: Okay. My question would be, if! brought this to your committee and the EAC, is there any way, if you got support at the BCC level, to include that in with any submittal in the future if they deemed that this might be an area that should be considered? How does one go about getting that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Introduce it to the BCC. Ifthey told us they want to study the trajectory of Cape Canaveral's shots to the moon, we'd be studying it. But it's -- really, we have to follow their direction. We're here to serve the BCC in whatever manner and capacity they want us to serve in. MR. FEE: So in most cases it's not the Planning Commission that goes to the commissioners and says we want to look into this Page 148 December 4, 2008 issue, it's they have to say look into it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They remand most of the things that are requested back to us. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, you may also want to check with William Lorenz, the Director of the Environmental Engineering Services -- MR. FEE: Which I have -- MR. BELLOWS: -- see what staff research has been done on this issue and whether they would be willing to look at it further or if they need direction from the board on this. MR. FEE: Okay, that will do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doug, appreciate your time as always. I think we're finished with our agenda today. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Me again. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. All in favor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're adjourned. Page 149 December 4, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:04 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 150