Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/05/2009 R March 5, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA Revised /I COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 28,2009 RSLA, JANUARY 30, 2008 RSLA, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 RSLA, FEBRUARY 5, 2009 REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 24, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13661. Center Point Community Church, represented by Matthew McLean, P.E., of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and Doug Lewis, Esq., of Roetzel and Andress, is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District for a youth ministry sanctuary with supporting offices and youth member social activities relating to the existing religious facility, as specified in Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.58-acre subject property is located in Tract 85, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 29, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) B. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Florida Community Bank, NA, represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., are requesting a rezone from the Residential Single-family (RSF-1) Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which would memorialize the existing church uses and would permit redevelopment consistent with the Master Plan to allow a maximum of 80,000 square feet for a house of worship, including day care facilities, a Pre-K through third grade school, and various accessory uses for Tract A; and an additional 20,000 square feet of house of worship including children and adult day cares, Pre-K through third grade school and accessory uses for Tract B. The 15.93-acre 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) C. County Planning Commission report and suggested text changes in response to the review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Committee report. 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320. Sembler Family Partnership #42, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezoning from Rural Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as McMullen MPUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed-use development. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 122,000 square feet of medical office and medical support facilities, and up to 48 multi-family dwelling units, with allowances for modifications of commercial activates and residential uses for additional permitted commercial uses. In no case shall the commercial square footage exceed 185,000 square feet. The subject property is generally located one-half mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Extension, the south one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 14, , Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) READVERTISED FROM 1/15/09 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/5/09 cepc Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr ., March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, good morning. This is the March 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. We need to get underway, so if you could take your seats. Well, and while you're taking your seats, please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, by the way, had a business conflict this morning, so he wasn't able to make it. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll go into the addenda to the agenda. I don't know of any changes. Does staff have any? MR. BELLOWS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, then the agenda is -- we'll move forward like it's written. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Let's figure out that mess. We have some dates to look at for the redo of the sign ordinance. And staff has provided a list to me for discussion today. We have a couple dates in April, we have three dates in May, and then two dates in June. After I got the list, I called staff and asked what they thought would be best for them. And it turns out that actually the date in June might be best, because it gives more time for the Doctor and the County Attorney and everybody to review everything and get together. We're not under the time pressure that we had originally started under. The date in June that everyone is talking about is Tuesday, June 2nd. And I want to know from the Planning Commission how you all feel about that date. Page 3 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns with that date? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know the schedule, but let's go with it and see what happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no objections then, Ray, if you don't mind booking the June 2nd. It's an all day opening in this room on June 2nd. That's a Tuesday. And if we go with that, then we're good to go. MR. KLATZKOW: That's 8:30 to 5:00, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, 8:30 to 5:00. Or do we have to post an ending? MR. KLATZKOW: You're just trying to book the room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think anybody's going to-- okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Called dibs is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I didn't want to put anything on the record that would have to cause us to end at 5:00 if we only needed a little bit to finish up. So Tuesday, June 2nd it is for that one. Our next meeting -- trying to figure out, it's two weeks from today will be the 19th of June (sic). Does any member of the Planning Commission know if they -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Not the 19th of June. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 19th of June? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of March, I'm sorry. Of March. Does anybody know if they can't make it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr.. Midney's got a conflict. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, then we'll still have a Page 4 March 5, 2009 quorum. And we'll move forward from there. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 2009, RLSA; JANUARY 30, 2008, RLSA; FEBRUARY 5, 2008, RLSA; FEBRUARY 5~ 2009~ REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The approval of minutes. We have one, two, three, four sets of minutes to be approved. I have to take them one at a time. I look for a motion to approve January 28th, 2009 RLSA minutes. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Thank you. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 30th, 2008 RSLA (sic). Same action. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 5 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 5th, RLSA, same action. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Schiffer. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last one is February 5th, 2009 regular meeting. Same action. Page 6 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Schiffer. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries again 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - FEBRUARY 24~ 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report recaps of February 24th. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, during the board's last meeting they heard the PUD amendment for the Sungate Center PUD. The board approved it subj ect to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations. And they also had some additional transportation commitments added. And that was passed 5-0. The variance for the mobile home park in -- for the mangrove impact, that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The addition for the traffic impacts for the first one, do you know what those were? What did we miss? Or were they new things introduced by transportation between the two Page 7 March 5, 2009 meetings? MR. BELLOWS: It just says the CCP (sic) recommendations and transportation commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would be good to know so if we miss something we can do a more thorough job in the future. So if there's a -- if transportation's here, maybe they can tell us. Or maybe they can't. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PODCZERWINSKY: As I recall from Sungate Center, and of course I don't have a copy of it in front of me, there were some dedications on the land that were occurring for expansions of Green Boulevard, the intersection there with County Road 951. So -- and I think some of those were slightly amended, based on the location of the sidewalk on Green Boulevard and the easement for the sidewalk on the north side there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that information that wasn't known at the time it came before the Planning Commission? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. Because the plans were not complete at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only thing we're striving to do is make sure we send a package forward that is complete as possible, so that's the reason I was asking. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, John. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. Well, I had a nice phone call yesterday. Sharon Phillips. She wanted me to express to the entire Planning Commission how pleased Page 8 March 5, 2009 she was and happy she was about the letter that was sent to her on behalf of this commission and how much she thought of us in working with us in the past. So she was very excited about it. She has -- I don't know if all of you know, she broke her ankle, so she's sitting down a little bit more now than she used to. But she's going to be back on her feet soon and all looks well. So it was very nice talking to her and she wanted me to sincerely express her appreciation to all of us for that letter. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13661, CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we will go into our consent items. First one is the Petition CU-2008-AR-13661. It's the Center Point Community Church. We heard that I guess a week or so ago. Does anybody have any issues with the consent matters on that one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And John, it's on number eight, which is the -- it states that there's going to be a unified plan. Does that require a unity of title joining the two lots together? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', I'll try to remember that. Usually we don't have discussion during consent, so -- at least with the public, so -- MR. MOSS: Mr. Schiffer, if you didn't see, the applicant's attorney is shaking his head no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that will still be a Page 9 March 5, 2009 property line. So the building code issues I was worried about aren't going to be solved by -- in other words, you're building a building right on the property line, which means you could sell one property and not the other, correct? I mean, I don't want -- it has nothing to do with land use, it just has to do with a nightmare, if the building department pays attention, you're going to have. But I'll let it go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad and J.D., on number eight it says any SDP for the site submitted to Collier County for review and approved shall be a unified plan. That includes the Center Point Community Church. Now, the question you asked is does that mean it's a unified plan of development? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, obviously you really couldn't sell one property without going back and amending the SDP, correct? MR. MOSS: I wouldn't think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have to sell enough of the other property to have the setbacks contained in it. So it wouldn't be a straight line necessarily. It would work its way and meander around the building, like many properties are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, my concern is that there is a property line essentially on the face of one of those buildings. And there's some issues. I'm not sure if Joe's building department is going to catch it or not. But we've had to deal with it at the state level and it's a nightmare if you're not careful. But in terms of land use today, I have no objection with the wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments then on the consent agenda item for that particular matter? MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, J.D. Page 10 March 5, 2009 MR. MOSS: -- I have a comment I wanted to make sure I get in. The applicant asked that we clarify number nine where it says, in lieu of a masonry wall or fence an enhanced Type B buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe that was the intent through discussion with the Planning Commission. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that will be part of the 'approval process. Okay, with that in mind, with that language change, is there a motion to approve on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8-0. Item #8B Page 11 March 5, 2009 PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, THE COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC AND FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK, NA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Naples, otherwise known as the Heavenly PUD. It's PUDZ-2007-AR-12097. And I don't know if it's necessary for the public to speak, but if and when they do, we will be entertaining -- they will have to be sworn In. I have a list of corrections that are needed on that document that I've collected from various people. Some from Richard. I think they were in conjunction with remarks from Tony Pires. So let me walk through those with everyone first. If you turn to Page 4 of 17, which is the Exhibit B, the maximum actual height in footnote two. If you all remember, it was -- we had a total of 90 feet. So that number should be, instead of 30, should be 40. The top 20 of it is for a religious symbol, and everything below it is for different forms of the cupola and the main structure as Exhibit G provides for. Now, I'm going to ask when this is all done being discussed -- and I notice Tony was here. COMMISSIONER CARON: He's here. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, you've just got to sit on one of those booster seats so I can see you or something. And Richard. And after we get done, I'd like to ask both of you to come up and concur that the changes follow the intent as you heard us discuss it so that there's no dispute at the next level. And it's my understanding these have already been worked out between the parties. So if the Planning Commission hasn't got a problem with that particular change, then we'll move on to the next one. Page 12 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one is on Page 6. This one is a tough one. It's E, the third paragraph, they have the word though the proj ect, and it should be through the proj ect. I can bet that Tony found that one. So that change needs to be made. On Page 11 of 1 7 is a little more extensive change. The hours of operation. There should be another item added to that. It was added to Page 17. And the one on Page 17 under Tract B is number four. It says, outdoor music is prohibited and indoor music shall only be allowed when windows and doors are closed. There shall be no live, recorded or amplified music of any kind prior to 8 :00 or after -- it says 9:00, but my notes and the notes that I talked with -- both of these gentlemen agree it's 9:30, not 9:00. And then there was suggested language to be added that says, the limitation on the time for live, recorded or amplified music may be exceeded by up to two times per month for accommodations for special worship functions. That was part of the discussion. I think we had thought maybe it was covered by I, where it says that -- basically the same language. So that entire item four on Tract B, if it was moved to -- as a new -- it would be E-J. And then you've got a new section there, instead ofB. Is that -- Tony, and Richard, is that -- I read your e-mails and I'm trying to decipher what you had in the e-mail. Does that meet what you guys had discussed? Because I know the Planning Commission's intent was to move in the direction that we all had talked about. And if clarification is needed to this, that's fine, we just can't change the intent of the Planning Commission. Go ahead, Richard -- oh, you've got to be sworn in. We might as well catch Tony while we're at it. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's swearing in on the fly with Tony. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, and it should become item number Page 13 March 5, 2009 1-5 on Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that is correct, that was what was discussed. And I think Tony and I agree that that was the intent of the motion. MR. PIRES: That's correct. That way it won't get buried in the language and it's in a more appropriate location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to make them equal on both sides; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was just Tract B. That's all we discussed at our meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so Tract B is going to be more restrictive than Tract A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because of the location of the buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's closer to the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, the concern is that there is a clause in here that if you merge the two tracts, then Tract B takes on the development standards of Tract A, thus essentially you could move those hours onto B at that time. On page -- let me find it. Page 9 of 17, number eight. It says that if Tract B and A are owned and controlled, the development standards of A will be utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's A for B, not B for A. So wouldn't they then have to abide then by the setbacks in A, and the structures on B would probably be problematic at that point? MR. PIRES: I guess the concern, if I may, is that up until the time that B is redeveloped, that's when the new setbacks would come into play or expanded. Then you have the existing facilities that this Page 14 March 5, 2009 could apply to, you're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, actually A states that B will then take on the development standards of A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would mean it would get those hours, which would mean it would be less restrictive. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it would also meet the new development standards, which would actually probably move the building either -- on the new building, would have to meet the new development standards. MR. PIRES: But uses of the existing structures arguably-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. PIRES: -- you're correct, Commissioner Schiffer, that that restriction would go away, as to existing facilities. In other words, the development standards would apply, but if you're not relocating, removing, demolishing or expanding any of the facilities on B, arguably that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine, if we need to clarify. It was not the intent to all of a sudden make those hours for the music go away. I read this footnote as talking about the development standards for new buildings and not really -- not operational standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we could make it -- I'm fine with clarifying, because that was always the intent. So whatever everybody feels is comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we suggest where parenthetical eight footnote is that after the added sentence we just refer to with the exception of those operational restrictions found on -- in I, in section 1. Does that get there? MR. PIRES: Correct. Because that ties in with the other exclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that work? Page 15 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, as long as -- I mean, Richard's development standards does add a couple of feet, but it's not going to stop the noise, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be with the exception of operational restrictions in I for Tract B. Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what again are the exceptions? What is it, two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two times per month. COMMISSIONER CARON: Twice a month? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. For accommodation of special religious functions I think it's worded as. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's related to the special worship functions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Special worship functions, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you had a Christmas Eve service that started at 10:00 at night, this language could be read to prohibit music with that service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next change is on Exhibit F, which is Page 16 of 17, item six. The last -- the second to the very last line there is a parenthetical called the base, trying to define what CFPUD refers to. And the suggestion was to move that up to the reference on the second line where it's talking about the entire CFPUD. And Tony, why wouldn't you just do it on the first line? MR. PIRES: On the first line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, where it says, one year after the seating capacity of 853 for the entire CFPUD, parenthetical, the base. MR. PIRES : Well, it's also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right, so it would be the second CFPUD. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's a positive change. Page 16 March 5, 2009 Anybody have any problem? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We already talked about on Page 17 we're moving number four. And that's the notes that I had. There's one that's kind of fuzzy, I don't understand it. It's on Page 17 and it's the top of the page in the continuing paragraph, second line from the bottom. Tony, your notes had said the 220 should be changed to a different number? MR. PIRES: Correct. And I think Rich is in concurrence with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the number, 347? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you get there? MR. PIRES: 1,200 minus the 853 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes sense. Anybody have any problem with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure I understand it, Mark. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, me either. MR. PIRES: Part of the discussion was for purposes of the traffic count the argument and position was, I think concurred by all, is that the existing facilities that are there today have equivalent traffic gener -- 853 seats. And so it's one year -- and the idea, the concern expressed by the church was after they exceeded that base, the 853 and the 110 person daycare, they only wanted to be accountable for traffic impacts occurring after that base. So if you have the 1,200 seats which is the maximum capacity on the site under this PUD, minus the base of 853 seats, you get 347. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the additional capacity, the 347 would be all additional capacity. MR. PIRES: Over the existing. Page 17 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And both of you agree to that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that get-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I have in my notes. Do you guys have anything else that's been missed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one thing, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's Page 9. It goes again back to that number eight, which is if the owner owns both Tract A and B. The impression I got during the hearing was that if the owner bought both of those tracts, he would move the development of Tract B into Tract A, into the campus plan of Tract A. So why are we adding this last line or why are we leaving behind developable square footage on Tract B? Again, I don't want to go back into -- but I have a lot of concerns on Tract B, concerns enough to vote against this. But not this consent item. But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your concerns by voting against it, you mean when we had the original motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you hear the -- but I remember in the -- my recollection of the testimony is that if they ever were mixed together that they were going to take the rights that they were given on Tract B and move them onto Tract A and pull them away from the neighborhood. This -- I mean, I'm not sure eight is doing that. Are you concerned about that? I mean -- MR. PIRES: My understanding is that there's no commitment by the applicants that if the church is to be the owner of all the property Page 18 March 5, 2009 that they would shut down the existing facility and then relocate those uses to Tract A. I don't think there's any such commitment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but what I thought footnote eight said is if Covenant buys the bank parcel or whoever owns it at that point, the development standards applicable to Tract A would then apply to any new buildings for -- on Tract B. Which would mean we now would have the 200-foot setback from right-of-ways, except for Trail Boulevard. So the effect of that is to move any new structure 200 feet from Ridge and 200 feet from West, which if it doesn't get it totally off of Tract B, it gets it pretty darn close for new structures. That's why I thought footnote eight was talking about development standards and really not operational. However, if we decide to do an expansion, we'd be limited to the 10 percent that is allowed, and it would meet -- but we could never get above 20,000 square feet. So there was no transfer of intensity, if you will. And maybe that last sentence isn't even necessary, because it couldn't happen. Do you understand what I'm saying, Tony? MR. PIRES: No. I mean, for right now I think the -- it's not limited just to new buildings, it's limited to -- it's everything, all the development standards. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. PIRES: And you're correct, that the language as to the expansion and having to meet new setbacks for expanded portions is similar in both A and B. In new structures it's much more restrictive, so new structures wouldn't even exist on this building on Tract B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tract B. MR. PIRES: Correct. But once again, Rich, I think this applies to everything, you know, current as well as any new. Page 19 March 5, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- MR. PIRES: You know, when you talk about development standards, it does not include existing uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What am I missing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you modify the building or try to replace it, then your development standards apply. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you leave-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Tract A standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you buy Tract B -- what I'm seeming to understand out of this, if you take Tract B and you buy it and you leave the existing buildings in place, the standards for Tract A apply to the extent that they fit. Because you're not building a new building -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tract B standards still stay in place because they're existing buildings, with the exception of the operational standards that we now just said we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to add to that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that where you're going, Tony? Is that consistent with your line of thought? MR. PIRES: Yeah. And that's what the concern was, you know that it's total square footage of all structures on B don't exceed 20,000. Because once again, the development standards for A say you can have 100,000 square feet, and it had other various uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But see, you couldn't put 20,000 on there if it was combined as Richard kind of alluded to, because that would be new construction. New construction, you'd have to abide by the new rules, so you wouldn't get there. Page 20 March 5, 2009 MR. PIRES: But I think the focus was on the development standards of A come to being on B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, let me ask you this: Did you put this line in? Is this your line? MR. PIRES: The exclusionary -- no, that footnote eight was there from the inception. In fact, I think it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the additional wording on it. MR. PIRES: The exceptions? Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the underlined nIne. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's your wording. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm more comfortable. If Tony wants it, then I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, be careful now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's scary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we're past that one. Are there any other comments -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: This has been just like pulling teeth on this thing. I certainly wish that we had been able to come to some sort of compromise on Tract B, Mr. Yovanovich, between what Mr. Schiffer wanted at 10,000 and what your client -- or the bank wanted on Tract Bat 20,000. Ifwe could have compromised somewhere around 15, you probably would have gotten the votes you needed to go forward to the BCC. It's just sad. But then that's what happens when we don't really have unified control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Page 21 March 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on Page 2, if you could turn to that, please, of the consent item. B-4, where it reads, the combined cumulative total of220 students. My recollection, which might be wrong, but I don't have my original notes with me, it was that that was 200 rather than 220. Can you confirm that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's always been 220. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's been 220? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's always been 220. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What my other concern that I expressed at the meeting was this statement of individuals enrolled/attending. And my response that I received was that that meant that was the total of what's enrolled and what's attending. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that would mean then you could have 220 enrolled and zero attendance to stay within the maximum cumulative 220. That would require you, say if you have 220 that enrolled, that you can't have any attending because they're already up to the maximum accumulative. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's not correct, is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can only have 220 individuals, either in the school or in the day care. And you would attend the day care, you would be enrolled in the school, and I think that's why we used that phraseology. But we can never have more than 220 in any combination. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So if we had 220 students, we could have nobody attending the day care. We'd have 220 students. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other clarifications Page 22 March 5, 2009 from the Planning Commission? Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Just one clarification. Sometimes my 40-watt light bulb brain kind of kicked into gear in the conversation with Commissioner Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It took a while. MR. PIRES: It's a slow fluorescent tube sometimes. In note eight, in relooking at the development standards, perhaps also there should be an exclusion for the height standard so that the height standards and the development standards for A do not apply on Tract B. So perhaps a parenthetical reference on the second line of note eight at Page 9 of 17, after the phrase, the Tract A development standards (excluding the height standards), and go on with the language that we talked about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think it was the intent of anybody here to allow the heights in Tract A on Tract B. MR. PIRES: Correct. It was never the intent, and I don't think Rich has any difficulty with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I actually felt that if they merged the tracts, that all new development would be on Tract A to begin with. That's what I would like to see. There was a lot of sentences that started with, well, you know, it's too bad we don't own the whole thing and stuff like that. And the intent of that is that you could pull all that new development onto A into the campus where I think it belongs. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If Tract A buys Tract B and decides to remove the structures that are on Tract A -- I mean on B, then the development standards that would kick in, which would be the 200- foot setback, which I believe gets it off of Tract B. Page 23 March 5, 2009 However, if the owner of Tract A buys Tract B and wants to keep the existing structures and use them for, you know, related to the Tract A, they can continue to use the existing structures. MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's only when they decide to raze those structures that the new buildings would then move off of B because of the new standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern is in other cases that A buys B, A's got existing buildings on B. You know, it'd make a great parsonage, by the way. And the new construction on B is what I'm concerned about. And I would like to see if any new construction, if A does buy B, is solely on A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can't change the -- MR. PIRES: The new construction for B -- the development standards for A would require a 200- foot setback. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which gets it off ofB. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's going to happen -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's how it works. We talked -- we discussed this. That's how we had that requirement added, was because we knew the new standards would get the -- the A standards would get the new buildings off ofB. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. Fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments on the Heavenly PUD on the consent agenda? Go ahead, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Just to follow up on Commissioner Caron's suggestion. F or the record, if the building was reduced to 15,000 feet, would we have a unanimous vote? Commissioner Caron? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern is that the Page 24 March 5, 2009 neighbors have never seen the scale of the numbers that are shown in this application. Would 15 be better than 20? Yes. But I do think that's still a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question, though, is if it was 15, if 15 had been offered originally, would you have voted in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. But can we do that -- we can't do that anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's just asking -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just asking for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's not part of the consent, it's just a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then the concern -- I don't want to answer, because I don't want something to be misrepresented to the Commission that, you know, at this hearing somebody said that if it was 15 it would be okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron didn't get a chance to comment, in case she wanted to. Did you want to respond? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think I already made the comment. I made the originally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With hearing no more, if there's no other comments, we need a motion to approve as modified at this consent meeting, and then for approval. Is there a motion? Nobody wants to do it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not from me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I've got a question. Jeff, can I vote on this consent agenda, seeing as I abstained in the beginning? MR. KLATZKOW: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll make a motion recommending approval for consent Item PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, with the Page 25 March 5, 2009 modifications as discussed here at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Midney. 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 CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -- did you abstain, Mr. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I abstained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1 -- no 7-0, with one abstention, and that's Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it's unanimous. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your patience in helping us through this one. It was a tough one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an enlightening subject. Go in peace. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just go. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Never to return. Item #8C COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AND SUGGESTED TEXT CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW Page 26 March 5, 2009 OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA COMMITTEE REPORT (RLSA) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on today's consent agenda is the Collier County Planning Commission report and suggested text changes in response to the review of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Committee report. Now, that one is item -- is all marked up with the large word consent shaded across each document. There are two documents there and there are changes needed to the second document, because the person that put it together in haste pasted from one piece to the other and missed changing some of the words in the pasting process. So I'll go through those. COMMISSIONER CARON: What? I can't imagine. MR. SCHMITT: The person who put it together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Can't blame this one on staff, can we? David Weeks did it. Okay, let me walk you through those changes, because they were simple enough. On Page 14 of the recommended GMP language, the new policy added 3.15. The sentence starts out, any development on lands not participating on the RLSA program shall be compatible. Well, that was a cut and paste from Policy 5. Well, Policy 5 is for lands not participating in the RLSA program. The intent during our meeting was to include the policy in each section. So basically on this one we'd have to just say any development shall be compatible and drop the words on lands not participating in the RLSA program. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a concern with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you turn to Page 23, the identical cut and paste scenario occurs there as well. And the same Page 27 March 5, 2009 language should be struck from that one, because Policy 4 does not pertain to the lands not in the RLSA program. So those two. And then the last one that I found is on Page 16. If you recall, Policy 4.7.1 had changes in the underlined section down at the bottom in black where it said, town shall include. Well, we had added the words towns and villages greater than 500 acres shall include. Well, when the suggestion was made that references to villages ought to be put in 4.7.2, when I cut and pasted that underlined line, I took out, and villages of 500, changed the word towns to villages and forgot to put 500 or greater in the cut and paste. So on Policy 4.7.2, the red underlined on the bottom should read, villages greater than 500 acres shall include an internal mobility plan. And that then would be consistent with the discussion we had at the meeting. Those are the three corrections I had found in reviewing the documentation -- or actually I shouldn't say I had found, I had been reported to by different entities. So I'd like to get them on the record today and make sure there's no objections from the Planning Commission. Okay, is there any other items that need to be corrected on these two documents for the RLSA program? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we talk about attachment C a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. Attachment C. And let me explain that one before you do, Brad. When I sent that to you, I thought you were going to change all the corrections in attachment C. I notice when your item got circulated by Mr. Greenwood, you had only changed the one in the typical characteristics column. So I went back in and tried to fix everything that was approved or discussed at our meeting. I hope it was right, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I did change it. But Page 28 March 5, 2009 then when I looked at it -- first of all, you know, what I had commented during the hearings, that we put it up with residential units. But that really started to mess up the concept of base density, so I took it out of there. Now, I see that you want to -- and it's transient lodging we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that was your first motion was to put it up there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the more I thought about it, I actually thought it made sense where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because with the concern I had with the FAR was that it wasn't clear that it was per use. It's extremely clear in the LDC. And I think just by adding -- when I was all done with all the moving around, just adding the words per use made that clear so nobody would confuse the fact that there was a maximum floor area. Like for example .5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think it's fine in there. The base density's one thing. And then these other uses are additional uses on top of the base density. So I think keeping transient where it was might make more sense, just to make it clear that like retail and manufacturing is something additional you can put where allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got no problem putting it back there. To me it didn't really matter either, but I wanted to make sure we addressed all the issues raised. Does anybody else have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think up in base -- the more I stared at it, the more trouble I thought we could get into with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I can make that change and get that document. Mr. Greenwood? Page 29 March 5, 2009 (Mr. Greenwood was duly sworn.) MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood with Comprehensive Planning Department. And I've also been serving as a liaison with the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee. And I wanted just to make three brief statements. I know you have another item that may take a lot more time. First off, the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee met on Tuesday, and they are in the process of reviewing all your comments. And from a staff standpoint, I'm pleased to report that most of what you recommended, they are likely to accept. Secondly, on the meeting on March 3rd, the committee decided to postpone its report to the Board of County Commissioners until April 21 st at 9: 00 a.m. in this room. That's a Tuesday, April 21 st at 9: 00 a.m. in this room. And the reason for the postponement is that they have not had an opportunity to review all of your comments yet, nor those of the Environmental Advisory Council's. Thirdly, and it's a personal thing, I wanted to just for the record thank the Planning Commission for the many, many hours of public vetting that you've all put into this. And I haven't tolled the number of hours, but usually underlying those public vetting hours are a lot of additional hours. I do know that this is the sixth meeting that this has been discussed. And should the Board of County Commissioners decide to go forward with Growth Management Plan amendments, this is a very, very wonderful step in the direction. So I wanted to thank you personally for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. We appreciate it. And I have one comment about your first statement. You had said the committee is postponing the Board of County Commissioners hearing on this matter to incorporate possibly changes from either us or the EAC. Page 30 March 5, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: They wish to review the comments and provide some responses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The concern I want to make sure is -- I mean, I know that many of our corrections, comments, were well received. They were things possibly that they acknowledged even during the meeting that oh, that's a better idea. But there are some that were very controversial. Now, when the Board of County Commissioners gets their final report, whenever it is, I'm assuming that I'll clean this based on today's vote, whatever it is, I will go ahead and finalize this and take the words consent off of it and send you a document complete. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN~ That document's going to be, like this is, about 45 pages. In the process of presenting this to the Board of County Commissioners, what I would hate to see is our work diluted by them acknowledging that we had done a lot of good work and they incorporated most of them, but a few of them they didn't. Because the ones that I understand they don't like are the most major issues involving this whole document. And I wouldn't want our efforts diluted because of maybe a tactic that makes it appear as though everything is cooperative and we're just down to a couple of items, and all of a sudden the BCC because they're rushed don't read 45 pages of our document because it's been acknowledged that most of it's been incorporated into the new RLSA language. Now, I see that scenario playing out and I really wish it wasn't. I really wish it was going forward like it was. Our corrections were standing on their own. The committee could go there and say that was a good idea, we'll accept it or not, and the BCC would have a much more legitimate way of approaching each item. And knowing that they're only accepting ones that were easy and the two hard ones we're still at odds with but our reasoning for our odds need to be read in full context. Page 31 March 5, 2009 MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a statement I want to make, because I'm very -- I heard that they were doing this, and I thought well, okay, that might be -- for some people that might be a good move. But I'm not sure it gets the point across to the extent that the Planning Commission's concerns are properly aired. So that's just a cohunent for the record. I understand your comments, and I do appreciate everything you said to us this morning, too. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. And the Planning Commission document, as well as the EAC's document, will go to the BCC exactly how it's, you know, approved by each group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tom, and it really seems like this is going to be difficult for the BCC to see it. Are you going to prepare like a master strike-through that would I guess show different committees different comments and different colors or something? Because how would they -- MR. GREENWOOD: That is something that the committee will have to decide upon. I'm assuming that there will be presented to the BCC the Section 2, Phase II, with all of the comments included. But again, that detail of presentation has been -- not been decided. But we're going to try to make it as clear and easy for the BCC to understand as possible. And the other reason for again moving the BCC meeting back about a month, actually five weeks, is to give them a little more time to review the documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern is it would be difficult for someone to read three different documents. MR. GREENWOOD: I agree. And I think it has to be kept fairly simple and straightforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, the EAC isn't doing Page 32 March 5, 2009 a document, are they, Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, they're not doing an exact document of the GMP; aren't they just providing comments? MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct, yeah. Theirs is going to be somewhat more generic in general than yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The Chainilan has made a very good and thoughtful point. Perhaps you could coach that committee to -- if they want to make reference in some form, a notation that they either exceed or they are compatible with our views, but to have them modify the language to be representative of what we concluded -- MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. That I think is the direction that the committee is going to take is they're either going to accept or accept with maybe a minor change a couple of policies, they've already decided on that. And others they will simply not agree with. And there will be a few points where I guess they'll agree to disagree with perhaps the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then this has got to -- if the Board of County Commissioners moves this forward, it comes back to us for transmittal, so I guess -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have a shot at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we further disagree with their agreement or changes, we can take them up again. MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we'll just -- whenever that comes back, figure another five days. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, I wonder, do you have any suggestions to address the issue that you raised? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. If the Planning Commission Page 33 March 5, 2009 feels strongly about the report that we have provided, as I know some of us do, you all have Board of County Commissioner members who appointed you, I suggest you speak to them and ask them that they particularly pay attention to our report as well as the RLSA Committee's report, regardless of how it's put forward. Y .? es, sIr. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I get to throw in to the Board of County Commissioners a bone. Would you like a report from the County Attorney's Office highlighting the differences between the committees? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be nice. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That would be wonderful, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Jeff, if you could do that, that would be great. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, we will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: It will be just right down the line, you know, these are the differences between the various committees, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm assuming then you would do that after the RLSA Committee decided whether or not they were going to accept each one of our recommendations. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll do that anyway. I mean, you know, if you took the time and the EAC took the time to hear this, the board should know what each particular one of their boards felt on these issues. And then the board can make a decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be very much appreciated, thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? (No response.) Page 34 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend with the changes mentioned this morning the consent agenda item for the RLSA report that will go to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Okay, we got through the consent which has been longer than normal. So all those of you waiting for the next item, we appreciate your patience this morning. Item #9 A PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-11320, SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one item on the agenda. And we're going to be taking this a little differently. But first let's get past Page 35 March 5, 2009 the introduction part of it. This is for Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11320. It's the Sembler Family Partnership, number 42, also known as the McMullen MPUD. 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 Planning Commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had conversation with Bruce Anderson, who is representing the petitioner. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had discussion with Randy Johns regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? I had discussions with Randy Johns, who is with the swamp buggy group, I had discussions with Bruce Anderson who is with the applicant, and I had discussions with Bob Mulhere, who is with the applicant. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had a discussion with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we get into the meat of this issue, there's -- in reviewing this, I've found -- first of all, it was a complicated application, and it has gone through various staff people because of the changes in county staff. The lady that has ended up with it unfortunately wasn't the one beginning with it, so there's been paperwork moving around that not everybody has been aware of. Also, I found since I was on this commission when the original GMP amendment came through, I wanted to understand how we had approved something at the time as complicated as this. Because it Page 36 March 5, 2009 didn't recall that way. And in reviewing that process, I pulled up old GMP references, and I pulled up sections of the GMP that seemed to provide for requirements in which this should be submitted during the rezone stage. And they are under the mixed use activity center subdistrict. And there are a dozen of them. And it says, the factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a proj ect or portion thereof within an activity center are as follows. And if you know, during the amendment process this process was brought into the activity center at the request of the applicant. That was the whole purpose. Well, now that they're in there and those dozen requirements are there, I had asked David Weeks, where are they. And so David, I'd like you -- before we get going into this thing, I'd like to firmly establish what documents we were supposed to have or what the bearing or weight of those documents are in order to know how we should move forward. If you could -- and I think part of the complexity is the fact this is not only what was presented during the GMP amendment, but they've thrown in some other uses that I'm not sure everybody understood, or at least I didn't, including the residential component that is pretty difficult to see in this particular proj ect. So could you tell us about the GMP applications I've referenced here and fill us in a little bit? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department for the county. First as to the rezone factors to be considered. That appears to be an omission from your staff report packet. Ordinarily when the comprehensive planning department reviews a rezoning petition within the activity center, be it mixed use or interchange, the same criteria apply, those same factors. We would include within our memo, which then carries over into your staff Page 37 March 5, 2009 report, an analysis of each of those dozen or so factors. In this particular case the applicant responded to those appropriately, responded to all of those, and rather than staff also preparing the response, we instead placed in our memo, and I think it's in your staff report, that we simply acknowledge it by reference to the date, you know, the applicant on such and such a date addressed all of those factors. While staff doesn't completely agree with each one, we do believe their response is adequate. So I'll say we took a shortcut in this case. And then more recently, yesterday, we -- staff, in group discussion, realized that the applicant's factors to be considered how they address them was not provided to you. One in particular, which is noted in the staffreport, is a commercial needs analysis, or market needs analysis. Some type of analysis to show that yes, there is some demand, some need for this commercial rezoning to occur. That was not provided. Staffhad corresponded via e-mail with the planning agent for the petition in which that agent asked to be, so to speak, excused. Well, asked not to have to submit that data. And the rationale was that for the most part the uses within this proposed PUD are very limited, matching the language in the Future Land Use Element activity center subdistrict that is very specific for this piece of property. And that use limitation is that the uses are restricted to primarily -- excuse me, the commercial uses are limited to contractor, offices and warehouse space for contractors and some personal self-storage uses for the most part. And then there are some additional related uses such as architect, surveyor, land planner, attorneys and so forth that are allowed as well. Because of the specialized nature of the types of uses that are allowed within the Growth Management Plan provision, which had just been approved in 2003, the agent was asked, and here it is four Page 38 March 5, 2009 years later in 2007, nothing's really changed. The contractor type uses, the bulk of those uses, are restricted to industrial or C-5 zoning, and there's been no change to industrial or C-5 zoning. The inventory hasn't changed. So the thinking is well, if there was a demonstrated need in 2003 and there's been no change to the inventory of available properties, why do we have to go through and demonstrate again what we did four years ago? Staff, I, responded, and I believe that was a rational argument and said in my opinion it's not necessary to submit that needs analysis. You do need to address all the other factors, and as I just stated a few moments ago, they did so. Do you want me to give more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but let me start commenting on some of the things you just said. In the permitted uses request, there are 26 separate line items. Three or four of those line items are groups of uses. Groups 0871 through 8099. There's no telling right now offhand how many uses are within those groups. So I know that the GMP amendment was I think you just said restricted in the amount of uses. But there's a lot more uses in this application than meets the eye. In 2003, the world was different. We were moving up. The bubble was going higher. 2005 was the peak. In 2003 I can tell you right now, we needed more of everything. We needed more roads, more water, more sewer. Well, guess what? The AUIR last year said we don't need more of everything. We've got too much now to last us for the next 10 years. So our capital improvement elements come severely reduced. I would understand that the same number of zoning uses in different areas are allowed right now as were in 2003. We had so much industrial in 2003, we probably still have it today. We have so much that could be used in 2003, and we have probably the same Page 39 March 5, 2009 amount that could be used today. But we don't have the bodies, the people, the economy or the buildings or the contractors to fill those slots. And then when this thing comes in with new uses like care units, hospital and medical, residential in this heavier use, I don't know if the report, the economic report that you received back in 2003, addressed these. In fact, I've seen, I've pulled the economic report. It addressed the original application, the one that was presented that was withdrawn, or I should say completely rewritten in objection to staff. And you rightfully so said, wait a minute, you can't do this at the last minute, approaching these boards, and they threw into us instead, instead of the breakdowns that were previously provided that the feasonomics (sic) report was written on, they provided a different series of uses with 185,000 square feet. And the report that they had for the first go-around doesn't apply to the uses in the 185. Specifically, in fact, I got -- we can get to it here later today. I've got specific language in there that says how it was to be applied and what it was for, and it's not what it was here that we're here today about. So I know they submitted a report, I know what the GMP says, I know where your feelings were at with this. And to be honest with you, had the time frames been different, had the economy not changed, had the uses that the report was written for not been modified at the last minute by a late submittal to these boards changing everything that your department objected to, I would say okay, it might be logical that that first report still holds. In today's world, I'm not sure it does. And especially with the uses they're asking for that are beyond what I think we anticipated in the scope. And the other thing I want to mention, just because they get a GMP amendment that says that they can have all these uses in the Page 40 March 5, 2009 rezone process doesn't mean they get all those uses lumped together in one lump sum. I think there can be some compatibility analysis done in parts of the public process; otherwise, we don't need a rezone process, we already have done that in the GMP. So there has to be some kind of common sense inserted into the picture somewhere. That's where my concern is, David. Besides the market demand and service area analysis, there's supposed to be in existing patterns of land use provided, all the uses and types within two road miles of the property and things like that. Now, I understand that it happened, some of these were responded to, but unfortunately we never got the paperwork. And based on the complexity of this application, that paperwork is pretty important. And from a legal perspective, if the GMP has these requirements and I believe it was the Germain dealership up on -- one of the others where this' -- we had run into this before and we made them continue and come back with a report, I don't want to make exceptions. We have to be consistent in the way this board applies things. So I need to turn to the County Attorney and ask what your thoughts are on this from a perspective of is it absolutely required or what kind of flexibility do we have? And since we've not received this until-- and I think Nancy tried to get us an e-mail last night, it was 22 pages, so I didn't get to print it all out. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say, I didn't get COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I didn't even see it. MR. KLATZKOW: This is where -- and I've said this before, I dislike when the comprehensive plan is so specific, because it sort of ties our hands on this. Now, we have a very specific GMP requirement on this. And it says that the factors to be considered during review of a Page 41 March 5, 2009 rezone petition for a project within activity center are as follows. And it includes: Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. It requires you to have this. 2003 is a different -- I'll show you my portfolio. 2003 is a very different world than 2009 is right now. And I think they're required to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's kind of where I'm -- I would rather see the documentation. And I know in the past we've had these feasibility studies produced. And this panel has questioned them. And rightfully so. They had -- if you recall, one of them was doing a commercial study in a market area near the Vineyards but they wouldn't count the commercial in the Vineyards because they determined it to be regional and not local. Well, we all know the Publix there is a local Publix. It's stuff like that I think we need to understand and see. And so it's a little disheartening that that data was not supplied on time or refreshed to this board. But I think we have an obligation to do it right. And I don't know if proceeding today with this one the way it's -- with its complexity is the right way to proceed. And I wanted to get it on record up-front what was missing, what we should have had, and then let this Planning Commission decide what they want to do. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I'm as uncomfortable as you are. I think at this point we should -- we don't have a choice, according to legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and as far as what's been provided, some of the documentation has been provided, we just haven't all got it. And like I said, late last night I saw the e-mail. I didn't get time to read all 22 pages, because I was working on some of the issues we have here today. But some of it is out there. I just think we need more time to digest it. Page 42 March 5, 2009 I do think that a study responsive to C is still needed, updated, compared to what was supplied in 2003. They're asking for uses in this that weren't addressed in that study. I think this study needs to address the uses they're asking for. They're asking for more medical than what the GMP would allow. And most of that's basically a deviation from the GMP. It's at the discretion of the BCC to allow it. But, you know, if I was the applicant, I'd want a study to justify the allowance of that additional acreage into a medical. And being as they're close to a new hospital, they might be able to successfully do that if they had the right backup for it, but I didn't see it in this document. What do the rest of the board wish to do at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think postponement is appropriate. Given that these facts have now been revealed, I don't think we have a choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, I do know there are people here from the public who wish to speak on this issue. And certainly the applicant can come forward, request a continuance or do whatever they want at this point, but the board will eventually make its own mind up. So David, thank you for your input. And I'd like to ask if there's -- this most likely now will come back. But I don't want to take away the opportunity for members of the public to speak who are here today who possibly could not attend in a future meeting. So if you would like to address this, you're more than welcome to, and in the end I'm going to have applicant, after he hears everything, he's more than welcome to address this and ask for a continuance, if he'd like one. You need to state your name for the record, and I believe you were sworn in so we're all set there. MR. JOHNS: My name is Randy Johns. I'm here in regards to Swamp Buddy, Incorporated. Page 43 March 5, 2009 We have three issues with this proj ect, and one is the noise ordinance. We've read the noise ordinance, and I can't see where Swamp Buggy is protected. In some of the other fairgrounds and the drag strip and stuff in Immokalee, they've been exempted from that noise ordinance. And I wanted to request that maybe Swamp Buggy gets exempted from that. Because in the principal uses, the first thing they have on there is the residential units. And we know that once these residential units gets moved in next to us out there, that there's going to be a lot of complaints coming back to you guys and they're going to want to try to shut us down with our activities. I know you guys have discussed this and you've talked about it. And there's been talk about us being three or four times a year. But we use that facility out there every weekend, and we don't want to be restricted by these guys want to come in that, hey, you can only go out there three or four times a year. That's not what our PUD allows. We have the rights to use these things. And we want to be protected on that if we can. I know in their PUD they've asked for a 14- foot wall to separate us, but they're also -- their building heights are allowed to go 40 feet high, and you know that. And so that's not going to protect us in the future. I have talked to those guys with Sembler and put some requirements on the decibel levels of the type of construction that they use there to help protect it. But I think really to protect us, we need to be exempt from this noise ordinance. And so I just wanted to see what we could do and how we could get protected there for Swamp Buggy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the noise ordinance is not part of the discussion of this item. I know it relates to it, but you have to go to the Board of County Commissioners to initiate that action. We can't do that. ' What we can do is assure you that if residential goes in there, the Page 44 March 5, 2009 restrictions on this property might be pretty exhaustive in how they can be compatible with your operation. The last thing we need is someone moving in like they do when an airport's built and then start complaining about the airport. MR. JOHNS: That's what we're worried about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're very much aware of it. We probably won't get into that today, but we will stay on top of it. And I think the residential component is a very problematic component of this whole thing. So if that helps you any for the next time you come before us, we more than welcome it. MR. JOHNS: I have two other issues I'd like to bring up before you and just to see what we can do. We have a sign that's existing there now. When they build the bridge to go into that area, they're going to remove our sign. We want them to be required to put our sign back once they take it out of there. And the other issue we have is when they build a road and a bridge, it's going to be quite a bit higher than the existing road that's there now. And in their first round of construction, they're only going to go in 300 feet or so. So it's going to be two or three feet higher than the existing road, then it's got to go back down, then it's going to go back up to the power lines and back. We would like them to be able to resurface the road -- the length of their first proj ect they're going to do in there, if we could be protected that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a neighborhood information meeting, and I noticed -- I don't think anybody attended it. MR. JOHNS: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would have been a good time to bring these points up. Because then the applicant is aware of them and they can try to work out their differences. If this gets continued today, I would suggest before this comes Page 45 March 5, 2009 back to us you get together with the applicant and talk about your concerns and see if you can work with them. Because one of the best ways to get something accomplished is to see that there's attempt to work with neighborhoods. And that would be a good thing for you to try to do before it comes back to us agaIn. MR. JOHNS: We have met with them and they have been amenable to helping us with this, so I think we can work something out with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And no matter what process it goes forward under, if you could keep coming to the meetings, you'll have ample time to talk, and we certainly want to hear your concerns. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else want to address us at this time? MR. HORNBACH: Commissioners, my name is Kim Hornbach, I'm one of the volunteer directors at Swamp Buggy. I'm also their attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hornbach -- I forgot to mention, Mr. Hornbach provided us with a copy of the Swamp Buggy's PUD. It was left in our places early this morning. So if you see that document entitled 84-26, that's what it is. MR. HORNBACH: And not to belabor the point, but directing the commission's attention to Page 151, which is -- should be paper clipped, it's also 4-1 of the document. And it talks under 4.2 about the permitted uses and structures that we're allowed to have at the Swamp Buggy facility. I point out the number there, obviously the Swamp Buggy racetrack, county fair and similar expositions. This was done in 1984 before the county fair found its current location. Pointing to item number five, we're allowed to have target ranges. To my knowledge, we've never had archery ranges out there, Page 46 March 5, 2009 but we have had skeet shooting as regular -- as well as regular rifle ranges and pistol ranges out there. We don't currently use the property for that, but those are permitted uses. Stock car, racetrack, motocross. Those are some of the uses that we're allowed right now 365 days a year. And I just want to make that clear to the commission that although we currently have four major events a year, that's not what we're restricted to under our current PUD. And my concern is that our racing season right, our event season pretty much runs from the end of October to the end of April. And if someone were to be looking at residing in a residential area, residential community less than 200 yards from us during that six-month hiatus from April until October, they may not be aware of the amount of noise that we do create and have created at this facility for 25 some years now. And I'm just concerned about the compatibility of putting residential this close to an existing use that's been there for decades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the residential was not part of this process, was not part of this application, would you have as grave ofa concern? MR. HORNBACH: No, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Anybody else want to comment before we move forward? MR. KREYE: My name is David Kreye and I'm the CEO of the hospital that's just adjacent to this piece of property, Physicians Regional Medical Center, at Collier Boulevard. My take on this is I would love to see more medical office development next to my hospital. We have one building that sits behind us which currently is about 60 percent occupied. As we recruit physicians, it's important for us to maintain open office space to recruit physicians into. Our hospital's expandable to 400 beds, but we don't see that Page 47 March 5, 2009 happening in the next short time period as we move forward. Over the next eight to lO-year, l2-year plan, we envision additional beds being added to the hospital. It's very important as we attempt to recruit physicians and add them to our medical staff to expand our services to serve the community we have the ability to put these physicians into class A office space. Hopefully some will be very close to the hospital. This is advantageous for a variety of reasons. We think it's reasonable that this concentration of medical office space would be in that spot. Number two, the practice patterns of physicians are a very important factor as we talk to them about the recruiting process and where they would like to locate, as well as physician and patient convenience to our hospital. So as we attempt to grow our business and move forward, we think something like this would be definitely a positive for us, as far as the medical office space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the quandaries we have with their request for medical office is that they're requesting a quantity of medical office that goes beyond the limitations of the current requirements in the GMP. Those limitations can be modified. The best way to do that is through an isolated event, meaning if we make an exception for one proj ect, it all of a sudden becomes justification for all. Now, if this proj ect is unique because of its locality around your facility, the needs of your facility and things like that, and that justification can be provided to the Board of County Commissioners who make an eventual policy change in the way that is reviewed, from the language at least I read in the staff report, it might be something possible. , So it might be to your advantage to contact the applicant or them to contact you and ask for a letter of support from your organization. It would be probably helpful in getting this issue resolved when we Page 48 March 5, 2009 finally get to it. MR. KREYE: I appreciate that advice, and I look for them to contact me. MR. KLATZKOW: Again, this is where a market study-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: -- would support the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We -- Jeff, I think we've driven it home, thank you. Sir, thank you very much for your time. Anybody else at this time? Because this will have another opportunity . Bruce, do you want to come up and suggest a solution? Other than flat-out approval and walking away here today. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not living in a fantasy world. I want to address first the gentleman that was just up here. You just received some expert testimony about market demand. Now the Swamp Buggy folks. I have with me -- I have an excerpt from a Planning Commission minutes when the noise ordinance was considered. And Commissioner Murray specifically asks about an exemption for the swamp buggy activities. And he was informed that they are in fact exempt as an entertainment event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I know you know this. The noise ordinance isn't up for discussion today, but I realize what you're saying. I think what they're concerned about is just like airports and like anything else, people will complain. And I think that's where the long-term concern is if there's residential there. So I appreciate your comments. Myself, I didn't see the swamp buggy grounds being problematic for noise. But if they do and they want to expressly have their exemptions written into it, they got the BCC to bring that up to and it can be done. But that isn't quite the issue here today, as you know. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. But I did want to point out for the Page 49 March 5, 2009 record that when you could have put an exemption in', you were told it was not necessary, that it was already covered. And last but not least, we would request a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this board has any problems with your request. In fact, it be better coming from you than us. And as far as the timing goes -- and there's a pause in the sentence. They're conferring. The timing is more in your ballpark than ours, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that was what I was conferring about. Sixty days? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to have to readvertise anyway, so whenever you -- Bruce, whenever you're ready to come forward with something you think will be approved by the Planning Commission, we'll come forward with it, whether it's 60 days or six months. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you request an indefinite continuance at your discretion, and when you resubmit and everything is in order and staff and you and the people in the neighborhood all work out the differences -- and actually, it sounds like you could have a very -- better compromise that will serve you better if it's handled properly. So I know you're good at that so maybe you need more time. I would suggest an indefinite continuance, if you'd so request. MR. ANDERSON : Yes, I do. And I also -- one other thing before I leave this morning. I don't want to leave it unanswered or unrebutted (sic) that we believe that medical uses are in fact allowed on this property under the existing comprehensive plan, and we'll go into that at the hearing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there might be a more easier way to Page 50 March 5, 2009 resolve your issue. You get more with sugar than you do with salt. So anyway, with that, is there a motion to accept the request for a continuance indefinitely. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Murray. All those 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, thank you for your cooperation today, we do appreciate it. Thank you everyone for attending. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item on the agenda is old business. There's none in there. Item #11 Page 51 March 5, 2009 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business, none listed. Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment -- oh, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We had discussed the possibility of meeting once a month rather than twice a month to help out with the budget and tying up staff. Did we get anywhere with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I just think it's a matter of staff moving through with the process when they have to. And if it can be done, we've already expressed our willingness to do it. So I don't know if it's anything that we have to do, it's just something we've offered as acceptable to us. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right, we're waiting for staff then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one other item I'd like to mention. There's been some talk that the court reporter for the Planning Commission isn't necessary and it's a budget cut item. Now, that's been at a CDES level. I would highly strongly suggest to each Planning Commission here to talk to your commissioners when this issue may come -- as it comes forward for make sure that that doesn't happen. Our record is much more detailed than the BCC record in regards to these issues. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: If I could put on the record, there's no proposal Page 52 March 5,2009 to cut the verbatim minutes. What we're looking at is passing that cost off to the applicant, the cost of the recorder and attempting to prorate or share that cost to the applicant. Because it's -- some petitions go on for eight hours, others are 20 minutes. And it's a matter of cost, but it's a matter of cost in passing that cost off to the respective applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, as you know, I think it would be hugely detrimental to the public for -- not to have that verbatim minutes. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: It's not an issue of eliminating it, because we find it useful as well, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if this gets passed on to the applicant, can we look at two things: Giving a raise to the court reporter and giving a raise to Kady. So how's that? MR. SCHMITT: But I do have to say that I believe the county is looking at its own contract for all the court recorders that they hire, or they have -- I think it's through the clerk's office now, and they're evaluating whether they should go under their own contract. But that's something that's being done at the manager's level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we've had very good work with , Cherie', and we certainly appreciate all the effort she's done for us. So the status quo is great in that regard. Anything else? (No response.) Item #14 ADJOURN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 53 March 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. .CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:46 a.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 Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 54