Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/18/2009 R June 18, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 18, 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 J . Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 18,2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330 I l' AMIAMI 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIA TE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MA Y 7,2009 AND MA Y 21, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MA Y 26, 2009 AND JUNE 9, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County through its Solid Waste Management Department, represented by David Deans of PBS & J, is requesting Conditional Uses within the Rural Agricultural Zoning District within the North Belle Meade Overlay and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMU) Overlay for Sending Areas to allow 1) a "Collection and Transfer Site for Resource Recovery," pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.0I.A.l.c.12; and 2) "Public Facilities, including Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Facility" and "Public Vehicle and Equipment Storage and Repair Facilities" pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.AA.a.(3)(b) of the RFMU District for a project to be known as the Resource Recovery Park. The subject property, consisting of approximately 344::1: acres, is located approximately 1,5 miles east of Collier Boulevard and 1 mile north of White Lake Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, A1CP) 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Collier County Sign Code Revisions (Coordinator: Susan Istenes) TIME CERTAIN 8:30 A.M- CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4. 2009 B. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14192, Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Miles L. "Rocky" Scofield of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., requests a IO-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 30-foot boat dock facility that will accommodate 20 additional boat slips for property described as Lots 1 and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Condominium). (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) C. Petition: CU-2009-AR-14137. Sf, Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc., represented by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor, Inc., is requesting two new Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 2.03.0I.B.1.C., in the Estates Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: LDC 2.03.0 I .B. I .C.3, to allow a child care center; and 2.03.0 I.B.I.CA, to allow a private school related to the existing religious facility. The subject property is located at 7070 Immokalee Road, on the south side of Immokalee Road, west of the Logan Boulevard Extension, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4,2009 D. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13967. The Collier County Department of Parks and Recreation. represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, is requesting a Rezone from the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4), Village Residential (VR) and Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) zoning districts to the Public (P) Zoning District for a community park. The approximately 2.62-acre waterfront property is located on the north side of Pear Tree Avenue in Goodland, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (Companion item to 9.E) CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4, 2009 E. Petition: V A-2008-AR-13671, The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department, represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting eleven variances from LDC subsection 4.06.02 regarding buffer requirements and one variance from LDC subsection 4.02.03 regarding standards for location of accessory buildings and structures, with all 12 variances being for a community park in the Residential Single-Family (RSF-4) and Village Residential (VR) zoning districts with a Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). The 2.62-acre subject property is located in Goodland, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (Companion item to 9.D.) CONTIlvUED FROM JUNE 4, 2009 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 6/1 8/09 eepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr 2 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is a lot different than the meeting we had two weeks ago. It was just me. We made a lot of motions; we took care of a lot of things. All today's business is almost done, but -- and Minutes and Records was very nice. They didn't remember me that day, but they made up for that today. So thank you all upstairs. Roll call by the secretary, please. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y:Here. Page 2 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Wolfley. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I always forget your name. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. We do have some changes to our agenda. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Let the record show Commissioner Midney is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The issue about the Monte Carlo boat docks, there was another advertising glitch, and so that has been again requested to be continued until July -- is it 2nd, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Correct, July 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, to the July 2nd meeting. And so I'll need a motion from the Planning Commission to accept that continuance. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) Page 3 June 18, 2009 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. So Monte Carlo, if you're here for that boat dock issue, it has been continued to July 2nd. The other issue that is changed that wasn't on the agenda to begin with is the final review of the sign ordinance that came through on one of our prior meetings. We're supposed to finish that up. That was a time certain for 8:30, but we can't ever have a time certain for 8:30, so it will be as close to 8:30 as we can possibly get to. It will be after the consent agenda item, which is the Solid Waste Department's request for the landfill. And it will be before any of our regular agenda items, so it will be actually the first thing up after solid waste, and it will be before St. Monica's Church. So if you're here for St. Monica's Church or the later Parks and Rec issue for Goodland, those will come after the sign ordinance is reviewed by the Planning Commission. And we're -- it's a finishing up of the ordinance. We've already reviewed 90 percent of it, so it hopefully won't take too long. Page 4 June 18, 2009 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay, with that, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is July 2nd. I don't know whose schedules -- everybody understands it's our regular meeting. Is there anybody not planning to be here? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll miss both July meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's hope we don't have much from Immokalee on those, because we certainly like your input. I just thought I'd give everybody a heads up on what's coming up. On July 27th, we're planning a flood damage ordinance meeting in the evening at 5 :05. That's a Monday. It was one of the few dates available. Does that sound -- for the majority does that sound okay, or does anybody know they can't make it on Monday, July 27th in the evening? Mr. Midney again, okay. That isn't -- from what I understand, that's the ordinance that involves the more or less structural parts of FEMA's requirements, not necessarily the flood plain management where the homeowners associations are involved with the drainage aspect of it. So there was two pieces to that one. And I don't know when the second piece is going to come up. In August we have our regular two meetings. In September, because of the AUIR, we're going to have four meetings. We have additional meetings on the 23rd and 24th of September. In October, it's a dreadful month. We have six meetings. Our regular meetings, the 19th and 20th for the GMP Amendments and the Page 5 June 18, 2009 28th and 29th for the Immokalee area amendments. So just to keep everybody's (sic) in perspective, that's what we're headed for over the next few months. Item #5 APPROV AL OF MINUTES - MAY 7, 2009 REGULAR MEETING; MAY 2 L 2009 REGULAR MEETING With that, we'll move to approval of the minutes. We have two sets. May 7th. Is there -- anybody have any comments on May 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Page 6 June 18, 2009 The second set is May 21 st, 2009. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Ray, you were going to bring hard copies for those of us who need them. Cheri sent out an e-mail saying that she didn't have time to deliver them, which was fine. MR. BELLOWS: Of the minutes? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. COMMISSIONER CARON: In that big stack of things you brought today, you might have -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to look for them. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's fine. I just want to make sure that I do get a hard copy. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I remember she gave them to me. I just have to find out where I put it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve those minutes, May 21 st. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 7 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Ray, we have two sets of recaps? Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 26, 2009, REGULAR MEETING; JUNE 9, 2009, REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On June 9th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the conditional use for N gala. They also approved the PUD amendment for the Wolf Creek PUD and the parking exemption for Midtown Pointe. Those were all three approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what about June 9th? MR. BELLOWS: That was the June 9th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, May 26th and June 9th you wrapped into one? MR. BELLOWS: I believe at the last meeting -- oh, that's right. I don't have that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was just me last meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't have a lot of conversation. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I don't have the recap of that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. Chairman's Report. There's nothing new, but -- at least today, so we'll just move right into the meeting. And that starts with a consent Page 8 June 18, 2009 agenda item. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13245, COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT The first petition up is CU-2008-AR-13245, Collier County Solid Waste Management Department, and it's for the changes to the landfill that we reviewed a month or more ago. There has been -- one of the stipulations, there is some problems or clarification needed with one stipulation in this document. And it involves the number 13 on Exhibit D under conditions of approval. If you want to turn to that page in your consent item; it's just before the fold-out colored 11 by 17 map. The recycling processing machinery shall be enclosed in a building. As you all recall when we heard this, county staff, Mr. Rodriguez and I think even Bob jumped up and said well, wait a minute, there's -- that may be too broad. We have issues with some of the machinery, and one of them that was used as an example was the tub grinder that literally can't be housed indoors. It's almost nearly impossible. And the other one was, that I think they used as an example, was the one that chews up the tires. And that was my understanding that that was -- we under -- I personally at least understood that. And I thought I acknowledged it. But when the stipulation came down and the recycling processing machinery shall be enclosed in the building, my intention at the time was I thought it was for conveyors and typical machinery like that that would be in a building. But since that isn't defined any clearer in this statement, it needs Page 9 June 18, 2009 to be clarified at this meeting to the extent we can on consent. And if we can't do a real good clarification on consent, we need to clearly send a message to the BCC what we intended when we stipulated that in the manner it was stipulated. So with that in mind, I'd like to open the floor to discussion for the members of the Planning Commission on this issue as to what you all interpreted. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do recall Mr. Rodriguez, in his response talked about processing will be enclosed; whereas processed machinery, which you cited a couple of examples were unlikely if at all possible to be indoors. And I understood that to mean that processing would take place underneath some kind of roof, presumably fully enclosed. I'm not sure that you can define it much further than that, because there will be some machinery associated with processing. I'm not sure that by listing the types of machinery that now exist, that might preclude them from getting better machinery at a later time. So I'm not sure that that's a desirable action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other members -- and let me just make one other comment. The issue that stemmed from this stipulation was the noise. In the Estates, or in any rural area, the noise travels much further distances when it's not blocked by urban background noise than if it is along the coastal area. And the neighbors out there complained about noise. And my concern, and at the time I was hoping we were trying to address the noise issue. And if that's the case, there are some possibilities that we could suggest as this goes forward that may help address that. Number one is there's a certain level of noise at that facility now when these machines are out there and in place. Those -- that noise could create a benchmark in which no future noise will exceed. Page 10 June 18, 2009 And the logic in that is that any machinery coming out in the future will be less likely to have more noise. It would be more likely to have less noise. As our science and technology goes -- advances, it tends to want to decrease problems like noise and pollutions like that. And the other option is listing all the machinery that Dan feels might be used on that site that has to be outside. Although we have no way in knowing what in the future may come up as new inventions are brought forth. But I didn't see this as a confusing issue. Although I now look back at it and staff has explained it very carefully, I see where it could be taken as a very confusing issue if people who were not part of it down the road, something new comes in and no one's here with the history on it. So it would be good to clarify it in some manner. And maybe Mr. Rodriguez, if you could have anything to offer in regards to how this could be clarified. (Mr. Rodriguez was duly sworn.) MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. F or the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department Director. Thank you again for the opportunity to come before you. And in addition, I'd like to thank you for your 9-0 vote a month ago on the Resource Recovery Park. Absolutely, Commissioner Murray, Commissioner Strain, the language as it's written creates more challenges for the solid Waste Management department, as well as for the Board of County Commissioners as it relates to bringing in emerging technologies. And Commissioner Strain, thank you for coming out to visit the landfill. I appreciate you taking a firsthand look at our operation. To put in the language that we're -- that's suggested here, for me to make a list of all the equipment would probably be impossible for the simple fact we don't know what's coming down the pike, and we don't want to tie our hands or put ourselves into a box where we can't bring in that emerging technology. Page 11 June 18, 2009 And I know we've spoke at length about the potential of putting in language relating to the noise ordinance, and there's concerns about that that you've expressed. And we worked with community development to help us with some language as well. And we continue to come back to the point that the language creates difficulties for us, because the interpretation, when it's being reviewed at the community development level, if it's not specific, it adds more questions. What I'd like to do, with your permission, Commissioner Strain, is could we address the noise ordinance language potential or make a recommendation to the board that we incorporate some draft language about the noise ordinance about off-site noise, to be in compliance with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we -- this board can add anything they want to discussion purposes. I don't know how far we can go to change the stipulation that's on consent, but I certainly think we're easily able to recommend or suggest to the board our clarification to that stipulation. And I know your argument about the noise ordinance. And when you made that to me -- first all, before I go too far, I hadn't been out to the landfill in at least a decade. And in the old days, we had to find the oldest truck we could find and drag way up to the top of this muddy, smelly mountain and unload stuff, and then hope to get down in one piece. It is so different today. I have to commend you and your department for -- that is -- the way you're running that is just magnificent. If we could ever say a good thing about a landfill, it's got to be that one out there. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And actually the credit goes to our County Manager Jim Mudd, as well as the Board of County Commissioners. Because as we all know, eight years ago, you know, they basically took a stance and said we're going to make this different. And those policies and procedures are in place and we won't go backwards on Page 12 June 18, 2009 them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's an asset now to Collier County. And the reasons in which it was fought so -- and I went back and looked at history back into the Nineties and Seventies on that landfill, and it evolved around mostly odor and in fact that was the primary thing. And that's the day -- we were standing there last week and right after the heavy rains, and there wasn't any odor at all. It was rather nice. I just was shocked at what I saw out there. So it's just a magnificent facility right now in regards to how it's being handled. But as far as the noise ordinance goes, that noise ordinance is useless for Golden Gate Estates and the rural areas in Collier County, in my opinion. Noise travels differently in the rural area than it does in the urban area. So to say that you want to abide by the noise ordinance I think does nothing for the neighbors out there. And so I'm trying to find a better solution, and that's -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And I understand your concerns about the noise ordinance. Currently as we understand the operations of the landfill, 90 percent, if not 99 percent of our operation is currently outdoors, and that's what we're showing here in this picture. The equipment there, you see some back hoes, there's some grinders in the background and trucks and whatnot. All of that is outdoors, just because of the size of the operation. And it is our intent and plan to move this operation to the Resource Recovery Park. So conceptually to move that indoors, one, it wouldn't make business sense or a best value to the community. And currently it's important for me to make perfectly clear that we have not had any complaints from the neighbors about noise. In my three years being with the solid waste and speaking with my predecessor, Dr. Yilmaz, there has been no complaint about noise. Page 13 June 18, 2009 And in the last eight years odor again has not been an issue. We've addressed the odor issue. And we plan to keep it that way from now into the future. So I understand the concern about noise, future development, but the ordinance that's in place now provides protection to the neighbors. It takes one call. One call to my office, one call to my division administrator, to the county manager and of course as we know to the commissioners, as well as to you the Planning Commission, and bells and whistles go off. We stop the operation, we find out what is the issue and we correct it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have something you want to say? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I had an issue with number 13 also, because recycling processing is -- well, it does not include -- well, in my opinion it doesn't include necessarily crushing or sizing. And so, I mean, like you had said, something does need to be reworded there. I mean, what types of work are we going to be doing inside and what are we going to be doing outside? I mean, we had fairly extensive discussion about that, as I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's why we're here today. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, didn't we leave that one where it was going to say wherever possible, recycling equipment would be indoors? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the extent possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or to the extent practical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or something like that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I can appreciate that language, and I know your intent. However, when it goes to the community development group, I'll get six questions why it probably won't work. That piece of machinery needs to be indoors, it's not specific, you didn't name that equipment. You know, you need decibel readings. Page 14 June 18, 2009 And that language would not work to the advantage of bringing in the emerging technology. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I appreciate that, the vagueness. And then the other thing on the noise ordinance, I mean, the private industry has to go by that, whether it's out in the rural area or urban. I don't know why we would want to make the county more restrictive. If they get complaints, they're going to get complaints. I mean, you're moving to new area, so your past history is further away from some of the neighbors. You are coming across the street with some of the recycling. But anyway, I think just let the sound ordinance -- and if they get called before it, then they'll have to deal with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's up to this commission to send a clarification. I don't think we -- I mean, I don't know how -- how far can we change number 13, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what you're trying to do is -- I think there's some confusion here as exactly what was intended and what's written here. That's what we're trying to get at. Because there was discussions on keeping some stuff inside, keeping some stuff outside. One approach might be that to the extent that it's economically reasonable, recycling processing shall be indoors, and leave it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, does that get you closer? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm sorry, if you could restate that. MR. KLATZKOW: To the extent that it's economically reasonable, recycling processing shall be conducted indoors. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And again, I understand the intent, I can appreciate the language. However, we tried a version of that language and asked community development to review that for us, and we came back with five questions, well, who makes the determination and -- MR. KLA TZKOW: At the end of the day if there's a dispute we Page 15 June 18, 2009 have a Board of County Commissioners that will determine whether or not to spend the money to put it indoors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got another solution. The noise ordinance. The problem with the noise ordinance application here is that some of the property that -- your property lines, and the noise ordinance is measured on the property lines, is 2,000 feet away from where you're going to be operating. Now, that doesn't dispel the hum and background noise of these large grinders and things that may be heard past that 2,000 feet. But if you were to agree to abide by the noise ordinance but with a closer proximity to the property's location of machinery, not to your property line in this location, that might work. You understand what I'm trying to say? Instead of 2,000 feet, that you'll abide by the noise ordinance as it applies within so many feet of the operation of this machinery. And that gets us to a level that's compatible in the urban area. Because in the urban area, if you have noise in a neighbor's lot, or an industrial park site, very few have 2,000 feet before their next neighbor. And so I think maybe that would work. Mr. Murray, you had a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah, I wanted to ask a question on -- we talk about recycling processing machinery. But there's other machinery that's directly associated with and related only to landfill activities. And those make noise as well, do they not? What I'm driving at is that where does the process begin and where does landfill operation end? And maybe that's a way of understanding it a little bit better so we can -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- come to -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: And it depends on the material that you bring in. The process may start as soon as it's dropped on to the ground or the tipping floor. That could be considered recycling Page 16 June 18, 2009 process, if you're separating the materials into concrete or metals or things like that, and if you have a machine that processes those so that they're changed into a smaller package. So it could start as soon as the materials drop on the ground, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So for all intents and purposes then we would have to declare everything as potentially recycling. All of the equipment used, regardless. Well, then I think the Chairman's approach is -- and certainly our County Attorney has made the point and I agree. I think -- I don't know how this is solvable without it becoming, you know, a constant argument. You don't know the maximum ambient noise that this machinery generates? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do. We actually have decibel readings on a lot of different machinery. But again, if I put in a dozer, you know, a cat six, and for whatever reason that dozer gets replaced and I now have cat seven or a cat five, CDES will see cat six and, you know, it will be rejected. Then the county spends thousands of dollars on consultants to justify that it's within the parameters, and we just start a long war between -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, boy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, and then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think one thing we did do is they did add that additional 200-foot buffer to the residences. I think if you pulled the noise ordinance closer, you're going to put it on the other side of the buffers and that's maybe not fair. What if we just struck this whole 13? If they do get in trouble with noise, the solution might be the building, it might be something else, like a barrier fence or something. But -- and just see how it goes. If the neighbors start complaining, then you're going to go before the board and the solution might be to put that particular piece of equipment inside the building. Page 1 7 June 18, 2009 MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's a very good idea. We have a -- you know, the draft language I think we shared with you, Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Ifwe could maybe read this draft language, and I think that covers us, because if we do violate the noise ordinance, we address it immediately. I mean, as soon as we get a complaint, I mean, that's kind of the standard here in Collier County. To give you an example, we had the Hurricane Wilma debris operations on Goodlette and Golden Gate Parkway. Remember the large mound of dirt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. MR. RODRIGUEZ: We had three grinders working there. They were working 12 to 16 hours a day. And we did not get one complaint about those. And those were very, very large grinders. And it was a very affluent development next door, as well as across both sides of the street. So it's not so much that we're -- we're not worried about making noise. We haven't had a noise complaint at the Collier County Landfill the last three years that I've been there. And I'm sure my predecessor can tell you that they haven't had any noise complaints that they didn't immediately address. The language that we're considering that we would like you to potentially -- I understand that the process, you can't recommend it because you've already made your recommendation. But if you support it going to the Board of County Commissioners, and basically the language reads, if it is found that the noise or vibration generated by the process or machinery does violate any applicable section of the Collier County Noise Ordinance as may be affected at the time of the testing, Collier County Solid Waste Management -- MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah-- MR. KLATZKOW: You have an ordinance already. Page 18 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the first I was just going to say, this is -- you already have to abide -- you have to do this anyway. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it doesn't do any good to add it as a stipulation. It's a given. I mean, that's what I -- I think that's what Jeff was just trying to say. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, you had a concern that there's going to be noise generated here. And we're just restating what we already abide by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind if that paragraph applied, since the buffers in the narrowest position are 200 feet. If that any noise -- that the noise measurements would be made within 200 feet of the equipment that's in operation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Mark, that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would really be tough, because these things are noisy. And all the buffers we provided are far away. So what we've done is the site plan has put most of these applications far away from residential, have put other buildings, the administrative buildings and a buffer between them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you look on the map and you look on the right side of the map, as an example, you have a 200-foot minimum width. So if they put a machinery right up against that 200-foot line, they only have 200 feet before they get to private property where there potentially could be homes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where my concern was. So if they had to measure on that property line to meet the noise ordinance, which they would have to do in that case, why don't we follow that same width around that entire thing instead of going 2,000 feet to the north, so at least the people to the north then have the same Page 19 June 18, 2009 protection as the people to the east. That's what I was getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is in the northern boundary you'd go 200 feet into the preserve and measure it there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, from the yellow -- go from the yellow color that's on the -- where the red line is that marks the boundaries in which they can develop. And around that -- from the lake red line northward, they'd be at a 200-foot sound buffer in which they'd measure -- measurement buffer I would call it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they're 200 feet into the preserves, essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But 200 feet into the preserves, if the sound ordinance is exceeded, then they have to address the equipment. And less than that, they wouldn't. MR. MULHERE: One way to address it would be to move the equipment further away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I would rather see it at the property line of the person that's having a concern with the sound. I mean, all this other stuff doesn't mean -- I mean, what if you come out of that, you're in the woods 200 feet and you come back and say hey, there's no noise problem, but the guy at the property line says there is? And I think the danger with your wording, by the way, is that if -- let's go back to your Goodlette situation. If somebody, one neighbor did complain, you'd have to stop your operation, and that would not be a good idea in the middle of an emergency. So that wording is kind of dangerous. My suggestion, what if we just strike 13 ? You know, the tPage 20 June 18, 2009 consent agenda is essentially how we remember the things to be -- I don't remember any regulation to put these things in building. Thirteen says that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the minutes. There was -- we certainly discussed it. This is the stipulation we said in the minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We said that it had -- all recycling had to be in a building? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We said that, and then Dan clarified the intent of it. But when we made the motion, we made the motion pursuant to the stipulations listed. That's how it got here. And so the clarification Dan made really never got into the language, it just was accepted as part of the discussion. And my intent clearly was to coincide with Dan's interpretation at the meeting, or his clarification. And I'm not sure -- and the purpose of this is to find out what the rest of us thought. And I -- like Commissioner Murray said, I think we all thought your clarification was acceptable. It just didn't get -- the stipulation didn't get changed in a manner that is clear. And that's the only purpose of trying to get this fixed right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the wording be that would reflect his stipulation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're trying to figure out. We don't know how to get there. Because of the un-clarity of the type of equipment that's being used and what it could change to in the future. Mr. Midney still has been patiently waiting. Thank you, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I kind of agree with Brad, I don't see -- I know this is the consent agenda and we can't make substantive changes, but the way 13 reads, it sounds like all recycling processing machinery shall be enclosed in a building, and I just don't think that's acceptable. I don't know how we're going to get around that. Page 21 June 18, 2009 I have a question now. What recycling processing machinery now is enclosed in buildings? Is any of it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, actually, none of our equipment is enclosed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And so we're like greatly increasing the amount of regulation that we're putting on this. Was that the intent of this board? I don't remember that being our intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think part of it came out as a result of the question concerning the future and possible contract with another organization that may very well be doing processing. That was part of it, as I recall. But I agree with you, Mr. Midney, we really are going way beyond in the regulation of it at this point with that. It's well intended, but the consequences are significant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the idea in the future was that they're going to actually sort the material more closely on-site. They might use conveyor belts and things like that to really sort out the glass from the plastics or however that need is. That's the type of machinery that they would have put in buildings. And that's what this was supposed to be referring to. MR. RODRIGUEZ: And if I may, Commissioner Strain, the technology, the industry itself will pretty much govern that as the equipment's brought in. If it's processing equipment that requires a lot of electronics to move machines, pumps and equipments, they're naturally going to put those inside buildings. If we're dealing with materials, you know, hazardous waste, things like that that need to be packaged, stuff like that, they're going to be put in facilities. Like the pictures I showed you of Marco Island where you have impermeable surfaces, they're going to be enclosed so they're secured, things like that. Page 22 June 18, 2009 So there's a lot of regulation with FDEP that requires us to meet standards, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any outside equipment that is not set up for mobile transport? Your tub grinders are mobily (sic) transported on trailers. MR. RODRIGUEZ: The majority of it is mobile. However, there are large machines that are brought in -- you know, you can pick up anything with a crane and set it on the back of a tractor-trailer, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's mobile then. I'm just -- maybe there's the solution. Recycling processing machinery shall be enclosed in a building, and our intention was not to require mobile -- items that can be mobile -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: rfI could give you another example. During the Hurricane Wilma event -- and the reason I bring that up is because that was a large project -- we had our debris operations sited there, and there was an issue with protected species on that property that we were unaware of from the property owner. And there was a survey that was done three or five years prior where there was a gopher tortoise there. The entire operation that served 50 percent of Collier County for debris processing was shut down for several days. And what I'm trying to say is that if we put language in here that restricts us, enforcement is going to come in and shut down the operation. And basically the language really doesn't need to be there. We'll take care of the property, we'll take care of the neighbors, the community with the current ordinances that are in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe the solution is simply to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners that during consent we're not allowed to remove a stipulation that was added during the meeting, but that after going back and understanding the lack of clarity in number 13, it's best that that not be included in the stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. Page 23 June 18, 2009 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I would be agreeable with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the noise ordinance that this would be governed by would be the one that's evolving through time, correct? When this PUD's approved, it's not the noise ordinance at that date, it's the one in effect in the future. So if there is a problem with noise here, and the place to fix it is the noise ordinance. And if we fix it in the noise ordinance, it will govern the concern that somebody might be having with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like dreamers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, it will never happen in Collier County. But anyway, then let's suggest that when this goes forward to the Board of County Commissioners that in discussion we now reflect that item number 13 does not provide enough clarity to operate under. And that even though we can't remove it as a condition of approval during consent, we would recommend to the board that that be struck from these stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that, if it's a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm suggesting it be a motion. Mr. Murray is making that a motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 24 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Now that's the motion for that. Now we need a motion for the consent approval of the resource recovery plant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion for approval of Petition CU-2008-AR-13245, as stipulated. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said as stipulated, because our prior motion recommended a change to the stipulation. So with that in mind, 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 WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 25 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you, appreciate the time and clarification today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for all your support and help. Appreciate it. Item #9A COLLIER COUNTY SIGN CODE REVISIONS - DISCUSSED AND FURTHER DISCUSSION AFTER ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now Catherine, the next item up is your baby, the Collier County -- review of the Collier County Sign Ordinance revisions. And Catherine or Susan, I'll let you guys take us through that. MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. And we're going to operate like we did for the first meeting, and that seemed to work pretty well. And actually we don't have a lot to go through since we did make it through 100 percent of the sign ordinance changes. So what my plan was, Mr. Chairman, was simply to work from the transmittal document I sent along with your package. It's dated June 10th, 2009. And it's an explanation or a summary of our meeting, your requested changes and the changes that were made from the document. I will not go over those changes that we made per our discussion. I don't think we really need to rehash those. Unless you want to stop or you have a question, of course. So what I'll focus in on is any of the areas that were changed that Page 26 June 18, 2009 we didn't discuss or that we changed after staff got together and reviewed your recommendations or whatever. And I think that will be clear as I go through, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, I just want to make sure we start on the right page of the right document. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there's two pieces to what you supplied. MS. ISTENES: Yes. There's a memo, transmittal memo. And then you have the working document. And what you will see on the working document is a text in the red or merlot color. And that is the subject of our discussion. And those were the -- those are the areas where the changes occurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ISTENES: Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. With that, we'll start walking through like we did before. And we took it a few pages at a time. And I'll ask the Planning Commission like we did before on comments on those pages. So let's take the first pages 1 through 4, which are your definition pages. Does anybody have any issues on the definition pages with the changes that were made? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have an issue. Just under -- Susan, just the way the wording is on animated activated sign. Do you think between the word action and motion should be the word or? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the animated -- can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your mic's a little too far. There you go. Page 27 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you hear me now? MS. ISTENES: Yes, that's better. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Animated activated signs. It's just the way this sentence is worded. I know it's not something we discussed, but I did notice. Involving action, shouldn't it sayar motion? I mean, you have a comma there which doesn't grammatically make any sense. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Sure, we can add that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was Pages 1 through 4. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll start into the actual text-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, Mark. I'm sorry, 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An issue's going to come up, is the last time we were here, we were discussing what a sign is. And there was discussion. And Susan references it. She puts it under wall . sIgn. But there was a situation where signs that are within communities that are not visible from the right-of-way and stuff like that. You know, in the conversation I left, I thought we were going to change in it in there to say that those are not signs. Instead what happened is it was put under wall signs, that essentially if you do have a situation of a courtyard in your building that's not visible from a right-of-way or an adjoining property, you only get additional wall signs. When my intent in that conversation was that that's not a sign governed by Collier County. It's within private property, visible only Page 28 June 18, 2009 by the property itself. So that's the -- the intent was to put it in the definition of sign on the top of Page 4, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did it get put into the text? I can't recall without -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It got put in under wall signs. In other words, essentially what she's saying in that condition, you can have add -- you may have, but we'll discuss the word may when we get there. You can only have more wall signs. And I think the important thing is that the definition of sign is probably the most important definition in here. We have that situation. We also have situations where graphics are showing up and the staffs interpreting it as signs. But essentially it's just pretty graphics on a window. And so I think that that needs to -- somewhere we have to have a clear definition of sign. And it may be the location where it is and it may be what it is too. MS. ISTENES: Okay, let me see if I can take it one at a time as I think I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. MS. ISTENES: The first issue you brought up was definition of sign. And you had -- and again, staff, when we went back and went through our notes, first of all, we weren't entirely clear. And let me put this up on the visualizer. Commissioner Schiffer, you had actually handed this to me after the meeting, I think as a reflection of your intent. We weren't entirely clear that was the consensus of the whole Planning Commission. Nevertheless, we took a look at it. What we did was we opted not to modify the definition, as you had suggested. And again, we were unsure if there was consensus on that suggestion anyway. Page 29 June 18, 2009 Our opinion was that the suggested language would cause us constant debate between applicants and staff on the meaning and applicability of the word visibility. For all signage, not just interior signs. And that's -- we thought that it was just going a little bit too broadly in the definition. Because the definition is what you're going to use to apply to all signage in the document. And so we were very wary of that, because then we get into a debate about whether a sign is actually visible because there's a tree there or there's another sign there or there's a car -- you know, that's where the parking lot is and the car's parked, so you don't see the signage. I mean, the sky's the limit. It really gets creative when you start dealing with these. So we were very cauti -- we were concerned about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think we can, you know, cure that too. I mean, obviously it be visible -- not visible by a building itself or something. But the concern is that in the code right now there's the word exterior signs. And to me that means signs that are on the exterior facade of a building. I think right now it's being interpreted as the difference between indoor and outdoor. So for example, a project that is purely courtyards, you're within a courtyard building, let's pretend it's a circle building. You can't see any of those signs, yet they are being governed by staff right now. MS. ISTENES: Right, and that's being changed because the -- as far as limiting the number of signs, as long as they're in a courtyard or in a mall situation -- we discussed Waterside Shops, for example -- we agreed that there would be no limit. That essentially, I remember our discussion was, it impacts the use users of that site and not the public in general. And so that's what we did do. We just did not change that definition as you had suggested because of the other concern I described. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you didn't do exactly that. What you did is you allowed more wall signs. I mean you didn't -- it Page 30 June 18, 2009 didn't affect any other type of signage, just the wall sign. MS. IS TENES: That was the same as it was in the document previous. So we didn't have a discussion other than allowing it. So are you suggesting now you want something different? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you direct us to the page -- MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where you made the change? Then maybe we can understand what the argument is. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That would be Page 16. And it's D. It's highlighted in the red. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for wall, mansard, canopy or . . awnIng sIgns. MS. ISTENES: Right. Additional wall signs may be allowed on facades located interior to courtyards and shopping malls and the like, provided the signs are not visible from any public property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You struck the word wall, first of all. Then that would apply then to anything that that section governs. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you could have it on canopies, you could have it on mansard and awnings. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that may help. Does that get you closer to where you're trying to go, Brad? MS. ISTENES: Oh, I'm sorry, thank you for pointing that out, Catherine. Actually -- what page? MS. F ABACHER: Fifteen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, 15, thank you. If you flip back to 15 -- I always forget to do this, too -- you have to take it within the context of the main subheading. So if you look at four on Page 15, wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs are all covered under that. So if you take -- Page 31 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, D then specifies only wall. MS. ISTENES: Then you know what? We need to take wall out if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- we want to cover it under that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just say additional signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MS. ISTENES: Okay, works for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but again, that's one category. There are other categories. There's window signs and stuff like that. So the point is I guess we have to address is do we want to have domain over signage in private courtyards? I mean, we can discuss this particular phrase when we get there. I'm thinking that the best place for this is really back in the definition of signs and point out that that's not a sign. Let somebody who's designing the building close the sign ordinance at that point and not have to worry about it. Because you're going to -- you know, you're just allowing one little small segment of signs. MS. ISTENES: But we could do that elsewhere without monkeying with the definition. And that's our -- I really don't -- I can't recommend changing the definition. It applies too broadly. My experience, in 17, 18 years in dealing with sign codes is we're challenged on that constantly when it's in the definition, because COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think one thing-- MS. ISTENES: -- it applies too broadly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you said is true. We should make it such that, you know, when you say not visible it's due to the structures, it's not due to cars or someone standing there or, you know, Page 32 June 18, 2009 a tree, it's due to physical structures controlled by the person that owns that property. It's not like a neighboring structure. But actually that wouldn't occur because the neighboring structure would be an adjoining property, which would -- MS. ISTENES: You would be very surprised at what people argue. Honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. We shouldn't be arguing, though, that's the point. We should make a pretty objective code that's -- it's pretty clean on that. Anyway, that was -- on 4, my only comment was should we work on the definition of sign. There is one concern, Susan, that's popping up. And I guess the reason I know about it is because it's something I know about up at Mercato, but there was some graphics put on a window. And the debate is, is that a sign or is that artwork. And so as a designer, you know, if I come and do a nice, you know, sandblasted window with some pattern on it, am I doing a sign or am I doing graphics? MS. ISTENES: Well, that opens up a broader issue with things like murals, striping on buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. MS. ISTENES: Mercato specially has some flexibility built into their PUD, and we've been working with them on various signage -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want to be-- MS. ISTENES: -- issues like that. But-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- case specific, but I think that's one that we have common ground. MS. ISTENES: I mean, I think if you're looking at like etched glass or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute. I think your definition works, though. If it's intended to advertise, identify or Page 33 June 18, 2009 communicate information to attract the attention of the public. If it's artistic and it's not any way commercialized, then I think that's where you're trying to draw the line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except there is artistic non- commercialized things being interpreted as signs. And here's the problem with that. And it is -- it's not an objective condition, and that makes it difficult for both sides of the conversation. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Then it then comes to intent. For example, let's say I put a mural -- an Italian restaurant and I put a pizza and scenes of Italy on the side of my building, but I don't put any words. Or maybe I just put scenes of Italy, forget the pizza. Then the question becomes is that a sign or not? Is it intended to attract people to my business or not? Or is it just art? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a designer does a beautiful fascia piece, you know. I mean, the joke is, you know, I'm designing the Parthenon, am I advertising the army up in the frieze, you know, with those beautiful sculptures of war, or what am I doing? MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I'm doing art. I'm attracting people to the building. Attracting them to the building brings them to my business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this debate about this kind of issue is basically do we want to err on the side of caution or do you want to err on the side of more liberal review of this? And I'm not sure, I think caution may be the best way to proceed. MS. ISTENES: Well, let me suggest something Diana suggested, and that might work at least in this case for windows. Instead of saying signs, why don't we call it graphics, window graphics. Does that -- because I can tell you this issue with mur -- right now we're just trying to get through the sign ordinance so we can get legal, we can start enforcing signs. Issues with murals and all that stuff is very, very complicated. I Page 34 June 18, 2009 don't think you're going to solve it today. I highly recommend we look at that kind of in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But let's look at it. MS. ISTENES: Does that graphics change/assist with your concern? Because I'm honestly not entirely sure I understand it as far as windows go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I have is the problem that your staff has. I mean, you -- it's unfair to your staff to not have things clearly done. Where some people says it's -- you know, I'm doing a work of art as part of the design of the building. And, you know, if your staff -- how do they determine whether it's part of the building or it's a graphic attracting people to the building which would end up going into the building and buying the product? MS. ISTENES: Right. It exists in our old code and it exists today. But again, this was just to try to get through the legal issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I -- MS. ISTENES: And I'm not trying to slough you off, I'm just trying to recommend you're not going to solve it today, honestly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but -- and I think sloughing's a good idea. But let's not slough and forget. So let's make sure that -- you know, and maybe it's part of the architectural standards, it's mixed in with that. MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's -- if you promise to remember the slough, I think slough's appropriate. MS. ISTENES: Well, we are taking out the animated sign provisions as well, and we will add that to the list of our future issues that we need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, the intent is not to be more liberal with signage; the intent is to be clear so that a designer and a staff member know where that line in the sand is. Page 35 June 18, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Agree. Is the graphic -- the change to window graphics satisfactory to you all? I mean, does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's go through. When we hit the windows, we'll talk. MS. ISTENES: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's been waiting, but just before you do, Bob, Jeff might have a comment on this issue. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the primary purpose of this exercise is to in essence fix the sign code so that we're not constitutional. It really isn't to go into all the issues of whether or not it could be a better sign code or should we be regulating this or regulating that. And that might be an appropriate discussion but maybe for another day when we go through this. You know, these were all very excellent changes, but they're all going to have unintended consequences. And doing something on the fly like this, you know, concerns me. I'd much prefer just to get through the constitutional issues, fix the ordinance, and then we can look in detail at the sign ordinance how could we improve this, and maybe get a better product at the end of the day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate that direction, sir, thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to get into the esoteric, I promise. But I do have to question one item, D, for clarify for my purposes. We say additional, and we've struck wall signs. So we say additional signs may be allowed. And so that's still permissive, a question of permission. If we have no interest in what goes on out of site, why would we use the permissive in there? Should we not be just simply saying additional signs are allowed? Page 36 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or does it come down to these are charged to the total number somehow that are allowed for signage, which I think you've said has not happened. MS. ISTENES: Correct, they're not charged to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So why would we make it the permissive "may", why -- should just we not say additional signs are allowed? MS. ISTENES: We don't have a problem with that. We'll change it to are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think that might be better. It might be -- MS. ISTENES: Are allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- add clarity, I hope. Certitude. MS. ISTENES: That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's now move back to Page 5. We'll take four pages at a time. So let's go from Pages 5 to 8. Are there any comments from the Planning Commission involving the freedom of speech rights issues in Pages 5 to 8? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, on Page 6, it's actually B.l.G, it's the wording you added. Why is less than 10 acres important? What happens over 10 acres? Just out of curiosity. MS. ISTENES: I'll ask Diana to talk to you about that. MS. COMP AGNONE: The real estate signs and construction signs under 10 acres, they don't require a permit for the signs themselves. So that's why we left it for over 10 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this is saying may be allowed on parcels less than 10 acres. The impression I get reading that is that it's not allowed on parcels greater than 10 acres, so -- MS. COMP AGNONE: That wasn't the intent. The intent was we were trying to control when they could put Page 37 June 18, 2009 signs up on vacant parcels. And the exception being real estate and construction signs. So we gave them the clearing permit or building permit for the construction signs, because you didn't want a construction sign up a year before somebody was going to build. And because construction signs and real estate signs less than 10 acres are -- there's no permit required, that's one category. And then one to 10 acres, both for commercial and residential, that category also does not require a permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you see what I mean? If you read this, I could walk away from this paragraph with the impression that they're not allowed on parcels -- real estate signs, I know you isolate that -- are not allowed on parcels greater than 10 acres. I mean, what you're saying is you permit them on a different size, but this is saying permitted. This is -- and I guess does the word permitted mean obtain a permit or permitted as in allowed? The word has two meanings. MS. ISTENES: Permitted as required a permit? Yeah, this is current language, so I don't want to imply we're changing anything. But I understand your comment. It kind of throws you into a different category when you're reading and it's a little bit confusing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a word with two meanings. One meaning of it means -- you know, and again, we're back, we want clear, you know, objective code. MS. ISTENES: Change permitted to allowed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is existing language? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this have anything to do with the free speech issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it does if I own a lot greater than 10 and you're not letting me put a sign on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the same thing applied up until Page 38 June 18, 2009 before we got this free speech issue. So are we here to change the issues relative to free speech, or any clarifications -- MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- within the sign ordinance? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No what? MS. ISTENES: Well, no, we're not changing the current language in the code, the current restriction of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just say this was current language? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's in red. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I didn't -- you know, the way this ordinance is coming down, they're totally striking the sign ordinance and totally adding the new one. So it's not in the legislative format; I wouldn't know. MS. ISTENES: Let me get back to my memo, because that's-- that explains it. Anything in red is explained in the memo. This was inadvertently left out of the June 2nd version that you had. The text is currently located in the prohibited section of the sign code. The text was modified to remove the reference to a principal use and references to content-based language were removed. That's at the direction of our consultant. We clarified that real estate signs on properties less than 10 acres in area don't require a building permit and can be posted on vacant lots and parcels. That's what we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe if -- to me if you just change that, say it's not required a permit. Remember, permitted has two meanings in this case. And unless you tell the people which one to use, it's up to whoever wants to use it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't want to take issue Page 39 June 18, 2009 with my good friend down at the end there, but you have already -- the county has stated that the intent of the word here is permitted as in an official document, as opposed to allowing, which is a synonym for permitted. So I think it is clear. I recognize it's subject to anybody taking issue with it, but if they've pronounced it as being associated with a permit, then that is what it is; is it not true? That's what I would understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll answer. I mean, yeah, once they explained it to us we know which form of permitted, but unfortunately a guy 12:00 at night reading the code to figure out what to do doesn't have Susan standing next to him to tell him not worry about it. MS. ISTENES: We can work either way. If you want to change the permitted to allow it, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a constitutional free speech issue with it, I think we have jurisdiction here today to suggest to you it needs to be changed. But if it isn't under that premise, I'm not sure we're even supposed to be going there, based on what Jeff Klatzkow just -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- told us a few minutes ago. So I'll leave that up to you, Susan. You worked with the __ MS. ISTENES: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- specialist more than we have. Pages 9 through 12, is there any questions on Pages 9 through 12? (No response.) COMMISSIONERMURRA Y: Yeah, let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. On Page 11, I noted on number three, C-3, I went looking -- you have it in bold, accent lighting. But when I went looking for it as a definition, I didn't see it Page 40 June 18, 2009 in your definitions. You might want to define it then. MS. ISTENES: It's in the front of the LDC, I believe; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but it's not in the document you had as your memo or the -- MS. ISTENES: This actually is embedded in the LDC, so if it's defined in the LDC it probably is used -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay by me if that's there. I'm just bringing it to your attention. MS. ISTENES: It's used elsewhere in the code too, so that's why . , It s -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm cool. MS. IS TENES: Thank you for pointing that out, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions through Page 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 13 through 16. Any questions on Pages 13 to 16. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, on 13.F.l, pole signs, I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out the subsets. Obviously number one states that any frontage over 150 feet or combined on a corner 220, that's clearly defined, okay? And you're allowed a sign. Could be 12 or 15 feet high, depending on the road. When you get down to F on smaller lots, "i" under F states that if the lot is between 100 feet and 150 feet -- or less than 150 feet and then the combined of 150 and 222, that's one category, correct? MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then "ii" is another category that's 121 feet to 150, which is essentially a subset of the . prIor one. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a combined of 150, almost Page 41 June 18, 2009 identical. And then the other's 100 to 125. Obviously the remainder of that. The concern I have is in the "ii", what's the height that that sign can be? Because in the latter two you actually change the height of the sign or change some of the regulations. But I'm having trouble figuring out whether a "i" can have a -- what the height of that sign is. MS. ISTENES: For "i"? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think if you don't -- you know, which is essentially -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, that's the heading. "i" is the heading for the A, B, C, D E and F below it. So that sets the range. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: And then the regulation is actually in -- for height and area is actually A through G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the way -- so "ii" and "iii" are a subset of "i". It's just somewhat confusing, but if __ what you're saying is that obviously if you're within that range, you read all the way down to G and then further than that. So I guess maybe in this case since I was -- you know, the in addition might even make sense there, or -- no, leave it the way it is. Okay. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it, thank you. Fifteen, we come upon that paragraph that we decided that we're going to get rid of the word wall for wall signs? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to make it -- get rid of the word may. MS. ISTENES: May be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The interior drive and parking lot, what is the intent of that then? MS. ISTENES: Where are you reading? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on D, I'm sorry. 16.D. Page 42 June 18, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Okay. And the like, provided the signs are not visible from any public property, e.g., street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, interior drive. Would be like a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know what -- but I mean, the intent was that you're on private property. The interior drive, if it's visible from a public right-of-way or an adjoining property. But, for example, take the courtyard building. If I ran a road through that courtyard, now you control the signage, even though it's not visible. MS. ISTENES: Well, it's -- but if you are -- typically those are open to the public is the intent. In other words, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, all of these would be -- MS. ISTENES: I'm thinking of like a main street downtown type of atmosphere where the road -- the access may be private as far as the way it's platted and controlled, but it is actually open to the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think Coastland Mall, which is enclosed, is -- I mean, all of these provide public accommodation. There's no limit to that. MS. ISTENES: But you don't drive through Coastland Mall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you're in your car it's different? MS. ISTENES: You drive around Coastland Mall, but you don't drive through Coastland Mall. Now -- and around Coastland Mall to me would be an interior drive, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me interrupt this for a moment. I had asked Ray before this got scheduled today to look it over and kind of assess how much time this would take and move it to the end of today's meeting from the agenda instead of in the beginning, just in case it was going to disrupt the public's participation, the Page 43 June 18, 2009 hearings that we really had scheduled today. And I would like to suggest, rather than seeing anymore people walk out of here and leave in frustration, that we postpone this entire discussion further until at the end of the agenda today and go back into our public hearings and attain -- get done with the staff and the public that are here for the hearings that we had advertised before this was added to the agenda. Because I know that one gentleman is here from the sign company. I'll ask him if he wants to express anything rather than wait. But this was added on late and I have -- there have been people here waiting patiently. And I can see we're not going to get through this. We're only on Page 15 or 13 out of34 pages. I thought we'd be done by now. So rather than taking any more time on this subject and put the public off, I'd rather this board consider -- and I know that the chairman can make the decision, but I don't like to do such things without this board's consensus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else okay with that? Okay. And the gentleman from the sign company in the blue and white shirt, I know you waited patiently here. If you want to express yourself on any particular point right now and don't want to wait until we finish up with the regular advertised hearings, you're more than welcome to. MR. BOYD: I'll defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, would you mind, just for the benefit of the public, just restating exactly when you want to hear it? Page 44 June 18, 2009 You know, reference after agenda item X, Y, Z or something like that, just so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, after this --let me walk through it. After this particular sign ordinance discussion, we're supposed to have St. Monica's Episcopal Church and then the Goodland Park. I expect the Goodland Park to go fairly fast. The St. Monica's Episcopal Church will take a little bit more discussion. But then we would go back to the sign ordinance after those two things were heard. So I'd like to -- we'll continue the sign code revisions till after Item 9.E, advertised public hearings. And we'll right now prepare to go into our regular petitions so we can accommodate the public and staff members that are here. Item #9C PETITION: CU-2009-AR-14137 - ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH. INC. First item up is No. 9.C. It's petition CU-2009-AR-14137. It's St. Monica's Episcopal Church, Inc. on 770 Immokalee Road. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had conversations with Heidi and with Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, who are the applicant's representative ofthis. We discussed basically the size of the parcel versus the master plan, and we will certainly be discussing that at length here today. Page 45 June 18, 2009 Okay, Heidi, it's all yours. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Strain. For the record, my name is Heidi Williams. I'm a certified planner with Grady Minor in Bonita Springs. I'm here today on behalf of the St. Monica's Episcopal Church. Also with me today -- unfortunately Reverend Schillreff was not available today, but we have the senior warden, Barbara Metcalfe here. I also am joined by Michael Delate and Jim Banks, who are both professional engineers. One is a specialist in engineering, just civil engineering, and one is transportation engineering, for any questions that may arise. Today I'd like to run through some background of this property. Our current request, the conditional use request. Then talk a little bit about the Growth Management Plan consistency and go through staff conditions. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road. It is west of the newly completed Logan Boulevard extension. It's contained within the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan and is also zoned Estates. Previously the site has been subject to two planning petitions: One was a provisional use granted in 1991; the second one was a conditional use granted in 1994. There have been multiple site plans. Notably the one in 1993 approved the existing buildings and very recently an amendment to that plan was approved granting an expansion of the church facility itse I f. The original site plan drawn in blue here is the outline of the land area included in the original site plan. You'll notice that the area of the property along the east portion of the current property was not included in '93. It's also known as Tract 131. But the area in the west was included. Page 46 June 18, 2009 This sort of, I guess it appears, grayed out area was partially cleared but was not developed. So the buildings shown on the conceptual plan were not approved in 1993. One of the conditions of the early provisional use was a 40- foot vegetated buffer, which did remain. The expansion, the recently approved expansion, would allow the building -- also included in the original provisional use area, but granted by the second conditional use for the church, the sanctuary was approved. The only things on the conceptual plan that were not included were a new chapel, that may be built in the future, and a caretaker's residence. Another element of the 2008 -- well, the approved in 2009 -- site development plan amendment was a recorded conservation easement. The conservation easement itself is .91 acres. It extends along the eastern property line and a portion of the southern property line. This is the area that is actually a recorded conservation easement. The entire southern property line, though, is vegetated and will remain vegetated, at least 55 feet wide. This photograph, the white line indicates the general location of that vegetated area. The 55 feet again is a buffer required by the previous conditional use along the south. Eighty feet along the east is also required to be retained as vegetative buffer. So turning to today's request, we are seeking a conditional use to allow the addition of a private school or daycare on this property. The Classical Academy of Naples is prepared to open in August with a small class of students, and they are planning at this time to just serve K through five, but do hope to expand in the future and have an anticipated cap of 100 students at this location. Of course, if this school should be very successful, they would outgrow this site and the church may then turn to either a different private school provider or a daycare operation in this location. Page 47 June 18, 2009 Because daycare students need more space and based on some traffic calculations, the number of students for a day care would be capped at 90, instead of the 100 private school students. In either scenario the site development plan remains unaltered. The buildings that are planned to be built for church use would continue to be built. If this is approved, the private school would be contained within existing buildings. The layout of the property itself would not be altered. So turning to the conceptual plan included for approval with the conditional use. The box outlined in blue now indicates the buildings that are constructed. Everything else is under development. Currently the southern building that is already in place houses Sunday School and office uses. Those would be converted to use by the private school. This green dashed line indicates what we anticipate would be the travel -- the drop-off and pickup travel for vehicles to the site. Basically vehicles would enter from the existing access on Immokalee Road, would proceed to the westernmost drive aisle that is already in place, and would loop around. The drop-off for students is actually located where this yellow star is. I wish you could see that a little better. But basically the intention is there would be no cross traffic between students getting out of a vehicle to get into the school, and the traffic of the vehicles coming in and out of the site. They can -- the vehicles, after kids are dropped off or picked up, will either leave the site from the entrance where they came in or there's a second entrance to the east of the property onto Immokalee Road. Turning now to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. As you know, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan limits conditional uses to a maximum of five acres. We do meet the locational criteria because we are next to a fire station. However, in 1994 the Board of County Page 48 June 18, 2009 Commissioners approved a conditional use for the site for the church on a legal description that is officially 5.5 acres. In discussion they would talk about the five-acre site. The total ownership of the church is 6.09 acres. When you remove the 80 feet on -- the eastern 80 feet that's vegetated, you come up with 5.5 acres. The legal description that is adopted is 5.5 acres, without reference to that number. If you remove the southern 30 feet, which is Autumn Oaks Lane right-of-way easement. It's technically under the church ownership. However, it's unusable by the church. That acreage is just under five acres. So we -- the conceptual plan in 1994 does exclude that road easement for Autumn Oaks Lane, but the legal description is not -- that is something that we'll need to rectify here with the Planning Commission today. I'd like to turn now to the staff conditions. We do appreciate very much the recommendation of approval. And I'd like to just run through a couple of the conditions that we'd like to make a few revisions and alterations to these. Condition one cites the 80 feet that is under conservation easement. And actually, as I showed you, the conservation easement is the eastern 80 feet of the owned property. However, it extends along this southern property boundary as well. So we would suggest revising .91 acres to .53 acres. The .53 is the 80 feet that's referred to. That would just match what the description is. The second condition by staff is this acreage issue. We're amenable to either providing a new legal description that approves only __ approves a conditional use on only five acres. We've got that prepared, it's ready to go. Or if this board would so desire, we can leave it as approved in 1994. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go past that point, Heidi? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Page 49 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you would -- there were two options that you're considering. One is to approve it as a five-acre? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We have a legal description drawn up that removes the Autumn Oaks Lane -- the 30-foot easement for Autumn Oaks Lane. We can just draw the legal description without that land. Everything is contained. Water management, preserve, everything is contained within the five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm questioning that is I've recalculated your property, and I didn't come to that conclusion. So maybe down the road we need to clarify that after we get into our discussions and questions, okay? Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. Conditions three and four are acceptable to the applicant. Condition five requests that we revise the site development plan to show the preserve areas and recalculate. We would recommend that this wouldn't be necessary . We have a conservation easement that was just approved by staff and contains the acreage required for the full preserve amount. We can either accommodate preserve for five acres or six acres. In either case, we feel that that is provided. We would request that that condition be removed. As shown in one of the previous slides, we feel that we do have a safe way to drop off and pick up students from the school. We'd ask that condition six be removed. And the last condition is regarding after-school programs and who is able to attend those programs. Staff suggests limiting it to students of the on-site school. The church would like a little bit of flexibility with that and has suggested the language up here that after-school programs be limited to students of the on-site school and students brought by either some type of public transportation, either a bus or a bus provided by St. Monica's. That would alleviate any transportation traffic concerns. Again, we would suggest the 100 student limit. I think that's a Page 50 June 18, 2009 far distant future reality, but that was the suggested revision. We hope that you would be able to consider that today. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission ? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have just a small one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only concern I have on your site plan is for playgrounds and stuff. And obviously to the south of the building there's plenty of room for little kids and stuff like that. But you do have a play field on the other side of parking. When that field's being used, would that parking lot be used, or is that just for church services probably? MS. WILLIAMS: Let me go back to the site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be the eastern -- I think the answer is that parking will be there solely for sanctuary services, which wouldn't be at the same time. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. It is -- the church use and the school use are at different times -- are anticipated to be largely at different times. The parking on the eastern side was provided as a function of expanding the sanctuary . It makes sense that students, parents and teachers would park on the western side of the property closest to the school entrance. I think if anyone uses that parking lot, it would be minimal during school hours. Obviously there's no way to control where someone chooses to park, but I do think that any interaction would be pretty minimal there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From the southernmost portion, if this is oriented north -- I'm looking at Page 5 of 12 where you show Page 51 June 18, 2009 Immokalee Road and then Autumn Oaks and you show the building from the aerial. From that portion of the building where you intend to house the children, particularly daycare, should it come to that, how close is that to the nearest residential property, which would be south of that across Autumn Oaks Lane? MS. WILLIAMS: I can sort of sum it up in total. I haven't measured the distance to the nearest home. But we have a 55-foot wide vegetated buffer. Then we have a 30-foot easement for Autumn Oaks Lane. Then the property south has another 30- foot easement for Autumn Oaks Lane. So right away you have 115 feet, if my math is correct, distance. And then I'm not sure how much further the homes are. In the aerial it does look like the nearest home is a significant distance south. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree, but I wondered if you had qualified that information. MS. WILLIAMS: I had not actually measured that, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you had no residents complain about any other things that -- MS. WILLIAMS: We did a few things. Reverend Schillreff actually attended a meeting of the Oaks Association, in which they expressed their support. They discussed it as an organization and came to the conclusion that they supported this. We also held the required neighborhood information meeting and had a few people attend. Everyone who attended was in support. One of those was the president of the Oaks Association. Since that time we've received a couple letters from neighbors located on the eastern side of this property -- south and east of this property. Concerned, it seems, about Immokalee Road and what impact Immokalee Road would have on them. We're -- our new activity will be located on the western side of the property. I haven't been able to speak with either of those Page 52 June 18, 2009 residents yet, but those were the only concerns that I have heard expressed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And lastly, I note that there are six other church ministries that utilize the facility from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. And there are community service activities, presumably, something like Boy Scouts or -- is that correct? MS. WILLIAMS: There are a variety of ministries that occur, either -- you know, meetings and things, and those are existing today. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: To your knowledge, has it been discussed, have there been any complaints over the years relative to those activities? MS. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge. And I'm getting confirmation of that from -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are my questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Now the use of the office starts at 8: 3 0 in the morning and terminates at 4: 3 0; is that correct? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I believe that's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, that use will be increased to 7:30 in the morning and go to 7:00 in the evening; is that correct? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, currently the office itself is open 8:30 to 4:30. And then there's a period of time where there's nothing really going on in the church property. And then evening activities do commence. The school would begin an hour earlier, so there would be drop- off for the school a little bit earlier. And they would possibly have some activities in the time that's now downtime. That would end. The normal activities would continue to the regular time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that would be an intensification of the use of the office, wouldn't it? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, the church office will be separate from Page 53 June 18, 2009 the school use, because they're two separate entities, they have different functions. So the church office itself will I assume maintain the same hours, but the school administration may have separate offices, separate hours. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Heidi, could you talk about condition number six and why you think that it's not necessary, about the busing of the children or the drop-off? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we certainly want to provide safe drop- off for students. That's not what we're objecting to. What we don't think is necessary is revising the site development plan to show it. We think that it can be accommodated, as I showed on my Power Point slide, that traffic can be directed so that students and vehicles don't need to cross. And to simply put that onto the site development plan, I'm not sure that's anything that's ever been drawn on other site plans, so we felt that was an unnecessary step in this process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because Immokalee Road, I mean, the traffic whizzes by there pretty fast, and most of the people are going to be brought by their parents. There's probably not too many that are going to be bussed in, since it's such a small school, right? MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. That's our expectation. And so the vehicles would be on Immokalee Road but students wouldn't be. I can't imagine anyone crossing Immokalee Road to get to this school. There's -- the residential development to the north of Immokalee Road is a gated community and there's no easy access there. I would not expect that to be a problem. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Heidi, you mentioned that there Page 54 June 18, 2009 was a difference in calculating -- I guess it's the parking calculations between the school and a daycare. What's the difference? MS. WILLIAMS: What is different is actually the traffic, the anticipated traffic generation. Based on that, we've capped the number of students so that we don't exceed a certain number. 1 could actually have Jim Banks address that in more detail, if you'd like. I just know the way that it worked out, we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm interested to know what the difference in the traffic is between the school and a daycare. What -- why and what the differences would be. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, I'll have Jim Banks just come on up and address that. MR. BANKS: For the record, Jim Banks. To address your question directly, when we started and prepared the traffic impact statement from the get-go, what we did is we came up with an equivalency factor. In other words, a private school generates slightly less trips per student than what a daycare does. And the reason being is when you run a private school, typically there's more car pooling and/or a busing situation versus a daycare which most of the daycare centers, most of the kids are brought individually by their parents and dropped off. So there's a slight increase in the amount of trips. In other words -- let me rephrase that. If we were to compare 100 students for a K through high school private school versus 100 kids in a daycare center, then the trips associated with the 100 students or the 100 child in the daycare would be slightly greater. And when we met with the transportation division and discussed the cap that we were going to put on the development, we came up with this equivalency rate. And it just works out that 100 students for a private K through 12 school generates the same amount of traffic as a 90-child daycare center. COMMISSIONER CARON: So essentially this is a calculation Page 55 June 18, 2009 that somebody's come up with. Because what I just heard Heidi answer Commissioner Midney was that all these students will be brought individually by cars. It would seem to me that you're not going to have a big difference. And if 90 is the appropriate number, then 90 is what it should be, no matter what. MR. BANKS: Well, let me expand upon the answer. Maybe I should have backed up. When we look at what a development is going to generate, we refer to what is known as the ITE transportation trip generation manual. And that's based on historical data on all these different sites. And that's what we use to compute what we expect the amount of traffic to be generated by each particular land use. And again, based on that data it comes out that equivalency rate of a 90-child day care center is equivalent to 1 OO-student private school. They'll generate basically the same amount of traffic. And again, it has to do with the way that the children are brought to a daycare center versus how students arrive to a school. That's where the slight deviation -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I understand the difference. However, it was just stated on the record that because this is a small school that it will actually closer marry -- mirror, excuse me, the daycare activity, not school activity. I mean, that is what, Heidi, you just told Commissioner Midney, that you won't have buses, it's going to be individual moms and dads bringing their kids to school. MS. WILLIAMS: The one thing that I consider is if you have K through five or K through 12, a family is more likely to have two or three children in that broad age range than a day care is one or I guess zero, six months to four or five. A family is less likely to have two or three children in that vehicle. I think the older children also tend to have families that car pool together. And that's where the ITE has that different rate. And we Page 56 June 18, 2009 just had to go by that rate. So I'm sorry if that was a confusing statement. I didn't mean to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of Heidi? Because I have quite a few. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Ijust had -- in clarification, Mr. Midney -- well, and three commissioners regarding the drop-off. You wanted to eliminate number six of the recommendations, but yet we have six other ministries that are operating at the same time. Are those ministries during the day or are they just between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m.? MS. WILLIAMS: The ministry meetings tend to be in the evening. They tend to be meetings and activities for adults. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So it will not interfere with the children coming in and being dropped off and picked up. MS. WILLIAMS: We don't anticipate that they would be. They would have a different entrance. And once the new parking is completed, it's possible they will be parking in the other area, and so we would expect also that, true to other types of schools, during drop- off times and pickup times there will be teachers monitoring, administration monitoring that process so that students are safe. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm just trying to understand why you didn't want number six, what difference would it make if you've already made -- what difference would it make to you? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, it was simply the process. The requirement of having to amend the site development plan to show it, when I first read it I wasn't sure what we would show other than what I drew on this Power Point slide showing where cars would be directed to travel. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have quite a few questions, and Page 57 June 18, 2009 it may take more time than we go past Cherie's drop-dead date of 10:00. So with that we'll take a IS-minute break and then we'll come back and I'll resume the questions then. Thank you. 10:15. (Recess. ) Item #12 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will come back and take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. We're past our break. A few days ago I got a call from a gentleman who was very active in Collier County at one time and it was good to hear from him again. And he asked if he could speak this morning on the resource recovery plant. And I said there were two opportunities: One was during the discussion, which would be early because it was on consent, or during public comment at the end of the meeting. And he didn't make it in for the early part of the meeting. And instead of making him wait here all day for a public comment, because he's got some issues he's got to take care of that are personal in nature, I suggested that after the break he could address us for a few minutes and we could -- he could get on the record what he wants to say. And with that, I'd like to welcome Herb Luntz back to the podium. It's been quite a few years, Herb. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: L-U-N-T-Z; is that correct? MR. LUNTZ: L-U-N-T-Z, that's correct. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your allowing me to address you this morning. This is going to be a pretty unique type of address in that I'm here for one reason and one reason only, and that's to thank the Commission for Page 58 June 18, 2009 support. You folks issued and voted on an event weeks ago where you voted nine to nothing to support the solid waste department and the resource recovery plant and everything associated with it. And I'm here for one reason today, and that's to thank you all for being so proactive in helping put this thing together. It's just the beginning of what's going to be an incredible activity in the future. There is a company that is being formed called Recycled Products Corp. of which I happen to be lucky enough to be the chair and the CEO of this company, when I'm well enough to do what I have to do. And it's made up of about 20 of the most important people in this county, both elected officials and those that are not elected. And it's going to be an incredibly good event. The monies that will be coming forth are coming from elsewhere, they're not coming from county government, they're not coming from local situations, they're coming from outside of the state. And it's going to be pretty impressive activity. We're going to build a facility which is going to be right next to the county landfill. And that is going to be an activity which is going to in addition to everything else crush glass. And it's going to be an incredible thing to watch. And I'm here, just as I said, to thank you folks for your support, your help and all the activities that you're associated with the solid waste people. I'll tell you that Dan Rodriguez and the Solid Waste Department, along with Waste Management, are being super proactive in making all of this happen. And again, thank you for everything that you're doing, and we hope that we can support you folks in the future as you folks are supporting us. And with that, I'm going to say thanks again and I'm going to sit down. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Ms. Caron? Page 59 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Luntz? MR. LUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: What was the name of your company again? MR. LUNTZ: It's going to be called Recycled Products, Corp. And it's just going to -- there's 25 board members on it. It's going to be incredible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Herb, thank you very much. And since your involvement -- since you're so detailed in that, could you periodically come back and kind of give us an assessment of where you're going? MR. LUNTZ: Mark, I will do that. And I thank you for the invitation. And probably in a few months is when all of this is going to take shape. And with that, I'll ask you for permission to address the . . commISSIon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would look forward to it. Thank you very much for coming. MR. LUNTZ: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, with that, we'll move on back into the hearing we had started on the St. Monica's Church. And during break, did anybody think of any other questions they'd like to ask the applicant before I consume some of their time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, in the beginning you had said that the Board of County Commissioners had a legal description that was 5.5 acres, but they kept referring to it as five acres. Do you have some schematic that shows what the 5.5 acres encompassed? MS. WILLIAMS: What I have are the legal description -- the sketch and legal provided in the packet shows the 5.5 acres. The legal description on that document is the same legal description that was Page 60 June 18, 2009 adopted with the 1994 conditional use resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the document in the packet you're referring to is the boundary survey by Bruns and Bruns? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I asked that is because there are numerous dimensional criteria on that boundary survey. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it might be easy to understand why the Board of County Commissioners would have accepted the five-acre discussion. Because your property lines in some cases go to the -- well, in all cases go to the center of Autumn Oaks. But yet the markers, the points in which the surveyor stopped his initial dimension and then continued on after that; go 30 feet in from the center line of Autumn Oaks. So what I would have imagined is the Board of County Commissioners were seeing the property lines outside the right-of-way and not into the right-of-way as the Golden Gate Estates is platted. Is that a fair assumption? MS. WILLIAMS: I think that could be one of the things that happened in 1994. I of course was not here. I don't know if anyone else was working on this project who is here. I know the planner is not with the county anymore. And I think it is easily confused that in discussion they would have not -- they would not have used the Autumn Oaks Lane easement, even though it is part of the ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm asking that is because the application that was submitted in 1994 showed the property dimension without the 3D-foot easement. It showed 295 by 745. And if you -- and that is right off the application. That is 5.045 acres. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the application was for five acres, Page 61 June 18, 2009 but the legal description was for greater than five acres. And that may be where the confusion was on their part. Now, you had suggested, and I questioned it earlier, that we would have to make -- your suggestion was to make a decision to go with five acres or go with what was approved in 1994 at 5.5 acres. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get to the 5.5 acres in 1994 if -- by what legal description would you be using? How are you suggesting we get to that? MS. WILLIAMS: We used the -- the Resolution 94-711 contains a legal description without an acreage list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same one that's on the boundary survey by Bruns and Bruns that I referenced? MS. WILLIAMS: That you've been provided, yes. So even though the board thought that was five acres, perhaps the legal description calculates to 5.5, the application said five. These are discrepancies that were not cleared up at the time. We can either continue that, adopt the same legal description that was adopted before, or we have prepared a legal description that was not provided to you that has 4.996 acres, if you exclude the 80 feet along the eastern boundary and the 3D-foot easement for the right-of-way. And that can be used in this resolution. Or if it is less problematic, we can leave it the way it was. We of course have no preference. We want to do what the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners is most comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you less out the east 80 feet, you don't have any preserves then, the required preserves for your five-acre tract. So then you're further inconsistent with the CCME because you're required to have those preserves on-site. MS. WILLIAMS: We actually have -- the conservation easement that I showed before is the 80 feet along the east as well as a Page 62 June 18, 2009 tail that comes along the southern property boundary. I can go back to that in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you were to cut the 80 feet to the east off and just utilize the tail, is there enough preserve acreage there to qualify the five-acre site with its preserves on-site? MS. WILLIAMS: We feel that it would be. Because once you hit that five acres your preserve requirement is 10 percent instead of 15 percent. If we are short we do have vegetation area that can be -- the conservation easement can be expanded to meet that requirement. So if you were not including the 1.09 acres, we'd have to provide .5 for preserve. We'd calculate what additional we needed. It's already in place and can be provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but now you've got an SDP that -- why then do you show on the SDP that apparently was approved -- and I'm going to ask staff how that got approved when you didn't have a coinciding CD. But on that SDP you're showing the preserve off-site. It shouldn't be in that SDP, should it? MS. WILLIAMS: When this SDP was approved, I'm not sure the acreage issue was in the forefront. What we have is an SDP for six acres, 6.09 acres. We have .91 acres under conservation easement. I'm not sure staff considered that off-site at that time. Of course they'll have to verify that. But what we have is what we thought was a consistent site development plan approved just for the church and the associated acreage for native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to go to the county assessor's map site and you were to download and look at the three folio numbers that make up this site, it comes up to 6.09 acres. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you submitted on your SDP, three parcels that comprise 6.09 acres. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. Page 63 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's inconsistent with the legal description that was approved in 1994. The legal description that was approved in 1994 was inconsistent with the application that was for even less than the legal description. So now we have three levels of errors that were perpetuated, it sounds like, by a review and approval of an SDP that should have never been accepted in the first place on land that wasn't even part of this conditional use. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, in fairness to staff, I think it's an easy mistake to make. Because if you look at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, if you look at the conceptual plan adopted in '94, it's very difficult to read, it's small, you can't see the details. The legal description provided is -- there is no acreage associated with it. So of course I -- I'm sure they will address this, but I can understand how it happened. We did the same thing. We submitted our conditional use on the six acres that was owned by the church. We didn't go back and look at the conditional use and make sure that the full ownership they had matched what we submitted for. The conceptual plan in '94 does show the acreage to the 80-foot vegetation buffer on the east. It does show that they owned it at that time. And it has just a very tiny dashed line around it that they owned it but it wasn't included. So it was a -- I think an easy oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's owned but not included and it's 80 foot wide by 288 long and it's not an acre and a quarter, that means it's not a legal lot in Golden Gate Estates. What is it; do you know? MS. WILLIAMS: It's still under their ownership. The way I see this is a shopping center could develop and they may have pieces developed by different entities. It could be all under unified control but it would have one site plan. We haven't -- this has not been severed as a separate lot. There's been no lots. But it's still Page 64 June 18, 2009 owned by the church and it now has this conservation easement on top of that ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you couldn't include it in this conditional use because then you would be in violation of the maximum size for a conditional use in Golden Gate Estates. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. We just applied the conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't use it for a house because it was too -- it doesn't meet the minimum criteria for a home-site, which prior to '74 was an acre and a quarter. After '74 it was two and a quarter. So what could that strip of land ever be used for? Anything? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, right now it could only be conservati on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's open space. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The transitional elements for the Golden Gate Master Plan talk about several things. And one of them is not to exceed five acres. And that's certainly -- I can understand a mistake made in '94 that we have to live with, and that's 5.5. You're asking for changes to that 5.5, and asking in a way to exceed that in today's marketplace. And I understand that you're going to take chunks and pieces off, but when staff gets up here, I want to find how consistent that is with the other ways we look at the same kinds of conditional uses. And mostly where my concerns are, and I've told you this on the phone, and I'm sorry that it has to be a concern. We worked hard in Golden Gate to get our master plan in place. I was part of that committee when that was done. It was lengthy, we went into detail, and one of the most concerning issues were the proliferation of conditional uses. And we carefully crafted that conditional use language. And the only concern I have with going beyond that language Page 65 June 18, 2009 right now is that what precedent is set for you, even though you're generally not an offensive use, churches are not bad neighbors for the most part, it could be used for other things that are more problematic, that are more congested, that are more -- not so passive as churches are. And while I'd love to see you happen, it worries me that we're opening a door for some land use attorneys, and there are a few who would come in and say wait a minute, my client deserves the same rights that you gave everybody else and this was the precedent that was set when this church was set. And so that's why I'm going to be so careful going into these transitional uses. The five acres is one problem for a transitional use. It shouldn't exceed that, and this one does. The other one is, site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space or recreational uses. Well, the conservation space that's left on Tract 131 would be forever open space. And then the last -- the other bullet is, the site shall not be adjacent to permitted essential service as identified in Section 269 of the Land Development Code except for libraries and museums. And the essential service that you're adjacent to is a fire station. I'm not sure how that fits with this application, because that's the basis for your transitional use is you're already adjacent to an existing use as a fire station. So I'm -- David Weeks is here, thankfully, so when we get into staff I'm going to ask him to address those. But I wanted you to know up front where my concerns were with your whole application as a conditional use. MS. WILLIAMS: I understand that. And I do note, in the staff report on Page 6 under comprehensive planning's consistency analysis that they conclude the same issue with the acreage that you've come to. But then they've state that they are -- let's see. Complies with all of the other criteria. Page 66 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MS. WILLIAMS: So hopefully that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure David's going to have a way of explaining it. I just want his explanation for the record, but I wanted to ask the question for the record as well. So we'll get there. On the -- on Page 7 of the staff report the statement says, the east 80 feet is offered as a buffer, thus the applicant was offering not to develop off-site property. Staff used this as an incentive, parenthesis, a carrot, offered to the county, presumably to increase or assure compatibility to gain petition approval. Well, like you just said, it can't be used for everything but that. So you're really not providing anything carrot or any incentive, you couldn't do anything else with the property but what you just did with it. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, and this was staffs reading of what happened in the past, and they can explain that. I can understand that conclusion. I think with or without that acreage we can meet the requirements of the Land Development Code. And I just can't -- I can't predict or I can't make assumptions on what that was intended in 1994. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your issues that I perceive that are inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and that's the cap on acreage, and the CCME, and that's requiring that your preserve area's beyond site, can go away by putting all that on-site, why don't we just do that? MS. WILLIAMS: We are happy to do it. We have a legal description that meets the five-acre minimum. It does remove the Autumn Oaks Lane easement and the 80 feet along the eastern edge of their ownership. And according to the surveyor, it comes out to 4.996 acres. We'd be happy to revise all the materials to reflect this legal description, if that's what the Planning Commission prefers. Page 67 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If -- and I'm going to need more input from staff on that. Your removal of the Autumn Oaks right-of-way, I understand why you're doing it. I just want to make sure that that's acceptable and consistent with the way we look at conditional uses in other areas of Golden Gate Estates. So that if that trick works here, then it works equally for everybody, if that's how it is to apply. So I'll get into that with staff when we have staffs turn on here. MS. WILLIAMS: There was one thing that transportation staff -- if I could take this moment. The final recommendation by staff, number seven. Our revision did not reflect the fact that the school will be phased over time, the number of students will be phased over time. And we're happy to revise our requested change to number seven to add the same phasing limitation on the number of students, the number of participants for after school to match the private school phasing. So I did want to mention that before staff spoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just seeing what other questions I have, Heidi, before we get into the staff report. By the way, how is it you're going to get to the five acres if we go that route? You're going to use the 295 times the 745 and you're going to exclude the right-of-way of Autumn Oaks and you're going to exclude the additional turn lane that you're going to be adding that's part of Immokalee Road? And you're going to exclude the 80 feet to the east. Is all that -- MS. WILLIAMS: The 80 feet to the east is excluded. The southern 30 feet, which is the right-of-way easement, is excluded. It is not my understanding that the turn lane is excluded. Roughly 295 by 745. And then it's not exactly square, so it's 288 on the eastern side and I assume something different -- and 745 on the northern side. So it's not a perfect rectangle, essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: But then the original ownership is not either, Page 68 June 18, 2009 is not a perfect rectangle either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all the questions I had, Heidi. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll certainly have the same questions of staff. So thank you. Anybody else have any questions they want to ask of the applicant before we move to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. And I would appreciate the opportunity to respond, if there's any other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, it's all yours. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. If the board would indulge me, I'd like to give a brief history of how staff has reviewed this petition. As we know, St. Monica's Episcopal Church is requesting two new conditional uses pursuant to the Land Development Code, Section 2.03.01, paragraph B, in the Estates Zoning District. The two conditional uses being requested are as follows: Conditional use number three to allow a child care center, and conditional use number four to allow a private school. The subject property is located at 7070 Immokalee Road, which is on the south side of Immokalee Road, west of Logan Boulevard extension. The property is designated on the Future Land Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as Estates mixed use district, residential Estates sub-district. The designation allows certain nonresidential uses, including conditional uses subject to the locational restrictions. And this is Page 69 June 18, 2009 where staff and the applicant have disagreed. The history of the previous approvals -- and I'm putting some maps up that follow how the approvals and what site was being reviewed at the time. On January 8th, 1991 provisional use, which now we know as a conditional use, was approved for a church on this site. And it is described as Tract 130 and the east half of Tract 111. Conditions of approval for that conditional use included a provision of the north 50 feet of the site for right-of-way to accommodate the future widening of Immokalee Road, a retention of a 55-foot wide strip of native vegetation along the southern property line as a buffer, retention of a 40 feet wide strip of native vegetation along the east property line as a buffer, and with that approval they came back in two times for one-year extensions that were granted. On September 27th, ] 994, the applicant came back for an expansion to the church's conditional use. That was approved by Resolution 94-711, which is in your packet. And that was to allow the expansion of the church facilities to increase parking area that would accommodate seating capacity of 50 congregants. At that time the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was in effect. It included locational criteria, as you know, that are similar or are the same as today. The site was described -- and I'm going to -- the site was described as Tract 130, the east half of Tract 111. So you have 130, 111 -- half of 111. Tract 131, less the east 80 feet of Tract 131, and less the north 50 feet of all tracts. Which this line is the center line of Immokalee Road, which the applicant did provide that. In the applicant's application, they explained in the conditional use narrative that the 50 feet of right-of-way for the county to expand Immokalee Road was already deeded over to the county. The 24th A venue northwest right-of-way, which is the southern 30 feet of the site -- and you would see it here, this being the property line, this is the boundary of the property, but in the Estates it goes to Page 70 June 18, 2009 the center of the road. This is where it would be reviewed for all applications, conditional uses, rezoning. So we have provided -- so you could see the two. Okay. And the church also was going to reserve the east 80 feet of Tract 131 as a vegetative landscape buffer -- and that is right here -- which has been reflected since 1994 always on our zoning maps that it was separate from this conditional use. And the reason why they offered this up to the county was to maintain their use on five acres or less because the Golden Gate Area Master Plan limits or has a maximum of five acres for it to be developed. Although the application or the applicant in 1994 explained how the site complied with the five-acre criteria, the petition's legal description failed to exclude the south 30 feet, which is comprised of the right-of-way for 24th Avenue Northwest. Consequently for that, the site acreage now, which did get approved, even though the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission reviewed this application as five acres, really is the 5.5 acres, which Chairman Strain had pointed out. Research that I was able to find revealed that the '94 staff report and executive summary, the minutes to both public hearings, public advertisements, the resolution, application, all indicated that the site size was five acres. And therefore, the board approved the conditional use, believing, with all the documentation, that the site comprised of five acres and was consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 2009 we received an application for a conditional use that is requesting two different conditional uses. As I stated earlier, for a school and for a child daycare center. The applicant originally submitted the petition to include and add the east 80 feet of Tract 131. You see on this, this is what we have here. So it still shows the 30 feet and now it includes that native vegetation. Although our zoning map still recognizes that it should not Page 71 June 18, 2009 be. When we saw this conflict, we spoke with the applicant's agent, they revised their survey. And they complied and they changed the legal description and changed the legal description as well on the survey to be consistent with the 1994 application. Now, for staffs analysis -- well, here -- thank you, Ray. This one kind of shows the three-piece parcels together. And you can see unfortunately the colors kind of overlay. You don't get to see them all. But in 1990 it did not remove the 50 feet. But again always -- this has always been -- the 30 feet has always been part of the conditional use, though it wasn't recognized to be so. So it just kind of gives a comparison as how the site has grown. This is the property appraiser's map, which does show that the 50 feet again, and they cull it out, was removed. This line here, the golden color, is what the Estates boundary is. This was the previous property line. Because of the widening they removed it on all the tracts. And then here, this is the property boundary, but the right-of-way line is the dotted dashed red line. So that's just kind of a visual to see. And we did not put that east 80 feet on here, because property appraisers just show the parcels, they do not show the zoning requirements that we have adopted. In the analysis, the consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, this request is not consistent with the GMP because of the -- and I failed to put it in yours, but it was pointed out that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan does require five acres. It is not consistent with the Conservation Coastal Management Element. And for that reason, because those two are not consistent, it no longer is consistent with the LDC because the site is over the five acres, which is required by the GMP. Furthermore, the conditional use conceptual plan does not depict the minimum required 15 percent native vegetation retention for the project of five acres or more. Which the criteria for the LDC -- for the Page 72 June 18, 2009 CCME is: For five acres or more, it is 15 percent of native vegetation. The agent had said it was 10 percent. But that would be 10 percent if it's below five acres. At five acres or more, we review it for 15 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But she was referring to if they were to use the legal description as an alternative to get down to 4.999 they would use 10 percent. MS. ZONE: Correct, if we were at 4.999. And staff would have to review that. If they do change the legal description, the staff is going to have to see a revised site plan to make sure that the native vegetation is sufficient. Because if not, then it still goes against the LDC and the CCME, which is our Growth Management Plan element. If the applicant complies with staffs recommendations, which Commissioner Strain has pointed out, then this project can be -- would be in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the LDC. The ingress and egress, as you know, from this property is from Immokalee Road. And the site plan that got approved in January, possibly February of this year, did not show -- it was approved just for the expansion of the church. On their application, they did not indicate they were wanting the school or a daycare on this site. So when staff reviewed this site development plan amendment, they were just looking at the expansion of a church. During the site development plan process, if there is a school or child daycare, fire and our engineering department would look to make sure there was safe adequate drop-off and pickup of students. And that is why we were requesting to bring back the site development plan amendment, for two reasons: One, to make sure it's compliant with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, to provide the required native vegetation -- or to show staff that they have provided it. And to make sure that the children's safety adequate provisions are there. Because though the site plan doesn't show it and we do know Page 73 June 18, 2009 the church's intent is not to harm the children, but there is no documentation for that entrance, because as of now it's just for a church expansion. The neighboring properties, the analysis for the effects of the conditional use: The church's size on the current site development plan is 21,189 square feet. Staffwould like them not to maximize anymore or request more. In the application they would like to go to I believe it was 28,000 square feet. But the height, the zoned height and actual height, is consistent for that area. And they -- again, they would have to adhere to all applicable codes, which in the LDC the components of the project development is the structures, the buildings, water management, parking, landscape buffers, required native vegetation, which you have to make sure that the native vegetation and the water management, you have to guarantee that they're not both all in one. You'd have to work and look at the site plan to make sure that the water management and the native vegetation isn't being used together. And the LDC says that, you know, because it has to be on-site, the site plan does not show that. It shows a larger site. And we can continue with this error, which we don't think was done in malicious, it just was not done -- or reviewed properly. The compatibility to the adjacent properties and other property in the district: Again, the site does comply with some of the LDC requirements, except for Subsection 3.05.07, paragraph B, which requires on-site preserves. During the neighborhood information meeting, three residents showed up, and it was explained what they were looking to do. Since then, and you should have received -- it was a supplemental packet, because I received two letters of concern about the project. And I sent a memo to this board showing the concerns. It should be at the back of your -- at the very last pages. That was the memo I provided. The property owners are adjacent to this site. And Page 74 June 18, 2009 both of them could very well have been part of or at least attended many of the meetings, because they're both asking that this church and school be limited to five acres with all requirements on-site. One of the residents were -- the one who is immediately south of the property is concerned about the water and the flooding and how it could possibly harm the neighboring property. They're not really wanting the school or daycare, since there's already one exists at Eagle's Nest Church, which is just north of St. Monica's, between Autumn Oaks Lane and Immokalee Road. One of the concerns for this resident is the drop-off and pickup from this school. Because the children -- as she says, that the parents sit on Autumn Oaks Lane and the traffic is stacked there and they wait to pick up their students -- or children. And because she is adjacent to the property and being directly affected by the property, that she would like some form of a barrier in the way of a solid fence, or at least an eight-foot type of barrier that is not just native vegetation but an actual barrier. Another letter came from the other property owner who was concerned about again having a school on Immokalee Road. And we're not to have any school approved at all. They talked about having a five-acre parcel that had water management, vegetation and everything on that five acres. The resident also talked about drop-off and pickup plans for the students safety, and was very concerned that parents may park on Autumn Oaks Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, we do have those letters. I would suggest that rather than trying to state what the residents had in their minds at the time, we just let the letters represent themselves. MS. ZONE: Correct. Well, I noticed that one of the members had asked if there was any concerns. I thought they might not have seen or receive the -- so I wanted to make sure it was read into the record. Page 75 June 18, 2009 Aside from that and what staffs recommending, if you have any questions, I'd like to be able to answer those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff at this time? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Melissa, I had one. Would you turn to Page 7 of 12 of your report? This is a minor question. MS. ZONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But down there under the -- near the bottom where it says FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are listed below. Each policy followed by staff analysis in bold print. I think the staff analysis is in italicized print, isn't it? MS. ZONE: Right. You're right, and we could switch that. Thank you for pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Anybody? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On that same page, you state that staff has found nothing in the record to indicate this 80- foot wide strip was in lieu of any LDC or GMP requirement. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Did staff find anything in the record that this 80- foot wide strip was not in lieu of any LDC or GMP? MS. ZONE: Yes. And I proceeded that in your packet. The application -- the project narrative said that this was not going to be developed. But also that they -- on their application they gave the description of the site and then they referred to that less 80 feet as adjacent property. And then if you go further down on that page of the application, they said that the applicants or the property owner will comply with Page 76 June 18, 2009 all LDC requirements at the time of development. That statement says that they're complying with the LDC requirements; the native vegetation needs to be on-site. So we didn't see anything that said this was in lieu of. We saw only support that said that they were still going to comply with county regulations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of Melissa? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I think there's -- I know I have questions, but they're more for David Weeks and probably John, and I think I have one or two of Susan. MS. ZONE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, can we have a moment of your time. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we need to start right from the beginning. Is this considered a new or an existing conditional use request? MR. WEEKS: New. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And new because? MR. WEEKS: Because they are in addition to what exists today, they are not accessory or subordinate to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they're requesting -- that means they would fall under the transitional conditional uses of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The five-acre maximum does apply then to this site? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you agree with staff that the Page 77 June 18, 2009 CCME requires it to be within the five-acre site? MR. WEEKS: I'm probably not qualified to answer that. Because it's a CCME requirement, and I'm just -- I don't have expertise there. It's my understanding that that's the case, but I can't factually respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when time comes, Susan Mason would probably be the one to answer that, okay. As far as the transitional elements, because of that strip, that 80- feet wide strip I don't believe can be used for anything else because it doesn't meet the requirements of a minimum lot now or minimum area to build in, would that strip be considered open space? MR. WEEKS: Even if they didn't have it designated as such, by default I would say so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then under the fifth bullet of the transitional conditional use request, site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space or recreational uses. Would that hurt this requirement for a transitional CD? MR. WEEKS: I don't believe so. The context of that amendment -- excuse me, there are two criterion in the Golden Gate Master Plan that did not exist in 1994 that exist today. That's one of them, that the site not be adjacent to parks or open space or recreational uses. And the one right below that, that refers to essential services, both of those were added I believe as part of the EAR-based amendments in 2007. But at any rate, much more recently in time. The genesis for the one you asked about not being adjacent to parks, open space, et cetera, was to make sure that a property would not qualify for transitional conditional use if it were adjacent to a park or some other type of open space, such as a water management area. And the specific genesis was a couple of different circumstances. We do in fact today have one conditional use for a church on Golden Gate Boulevard, approved several years ago, and it's adjacent to the entrance to Max Hasse Park. And from staff perspective, we Page 78 June 18, 2009 don't think that's appropriate. There's nothing about the intensity of the entrance to the park in that particular case that we believe makes the property no longer suitable for residential development. And that's the general premise behind the transitional conditional uses, that because of the type of nonresidential use that the subject site is adjacent to, it's generally not suitable for residential development. Therefore, the subject site would serve as a transition and use intensity from that more intense use to a property on the other side limited to residential. In another circumstance there's a tract of land within the Estates that has a water management feature, just a large pond, that was required for expansion of the adjacent roadway. And we had an inquiry several years ago about whether or not the adjacent property would qualify for a transitional conditional use. And absent this criterion, staff was in a position of saying we don't believe so, but the language would not preclude it. Again, those are a couple of points that were the genesis for adding this criterion, you know, staff proposing it and ultimately it being adopted and now in the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the next bullet, site shall not be adjacent to permitted essential service. Now, I understand that in '94 when this first came through and the fire station may have owned the property next door, I don't believe fire stations may have been an essential service back in '94. Maybe they were. The 269 lane development section has been replaced by a newer section and I hadn't had time to go back and check the old records. But I do know that fire stations are now essential services. So how -- would this new conditional use qualify under that bullet? MR. WEEKS: Okay. First of all, in 1994 a fire station was an essential service and it was required by conditional use, as it is today. The distinction here is that the criterion specifically refers to permitted essential service, which staff has always -- well, since it was Page 79 June 18, 2009 adopted into the plan, has always applied that to mean literally permitted by right, as opposed to permitted in the broad sense as in being allowed. As you I think know, there are two classes of essential services: Those permitted by right and then those that are permitted by conditional use. The genesis in this case that staff proposed and ultimately this was adopted, there's a property on Immokalee Road and it's, I don't know, about the size of my kitchen at home. It's very small. It contains a telephone switching station. And an adjacent property wanted to place a conditional use on the property using this transitional conditional use criteria -- provision. And the staff response again was, well, that wasn't the intent behind this provision, but the language doesn't specifically preclude it. There's no mention of essential services within this criterion. The staff concern then was that this telephone switching station we don't think is appropriate. Again, it's not an obnoxious use, it's not the type of nonresidential use that makes adjacent properties no longer suitable for residential development. And if you look at the permitted by right essential services, they include a lot of things, including a private well and septic tank on an Estates lot. And our concern was that we would have applicants submitting a request for a conditional use under this transitional provisional use provision based on these innocuous permitted by right essential services. And therefore we proposed and again, it's been adopted in effect, this provision that provides that permitted by right essential services would not cause an adjacent property to qualify for conditional use on this provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this case then, the permitted needs to have the words read into it afterwards, by right, versus permitted by conditional use. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's the implication and the Page 80 June 18, 2009 way it's always been applied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last thing I need to understand to how things were always applied is the use of the right-of-way that goes into Autumn Woods (sic). Are you familiar with those applications? MR. WEEKS: Not historically. I have researched the record, as has Melissa, and I'm well aware of that narrative from the 1994 application. And to the applicant's credit, did a very good job of giving explicit and concise detail. As has already been noted in that record, the explanation in that narrative lessed out that 30-foot strip along Autumn Oaks Lane. However, the legal description did not less it out. And that's why we end up with the five-and-a-half acres versus the right at five-acre figure. I can tell you that there's at least two instances of conditional uses in the Estates that have been approved in the past, both developed and, you know, valid and developed properties similar to this one that did not include the entire legal description of the property. That is, the site is this big but the conditional use is for something less than that. One of which specifically cut off a portion of the property similar to the east 80 feet in this case being lessed out, except it was even larger. Another circumstance was lessing out the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so an applicant coming into Golden Gate Estates who owns more than five acres could just CU only up to the five acres to meet the code, and no matter what they cut out it would be acceptable, basically. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. The only concern potentially that I think that the county might have is what is going to happen to the balance of that property. As you've correctly pointed out, that remaining strip, in this case 80 feet, in another example I'm thinking of much larger. If it's still less than the minimum two and a quarter acres required, what can happen to that property. It does not have Page 81 June 18, 2009 standing on its own as a conforming lot to be developed. In this case, as has already been noted, the conservation easement has been recorded on that east 80 feet. In the other circumstance that I'm thinking of in the Estates, the property simply lies there, again by default, no use of that property. It just sits there in its existing native vegetation with no use. The potential concern would be the monitoring of that. In this particular case a church. But pick a hypothetical, I don't want to pick on them. In a hypothetical circumstance, when that conditional use gets developed, how is it that we ensure that lessed out property does not in fact get used in some way. And of course the main way I think is just simply monitoring to make sure that they don't physically develop the site without the necessary site plan approval, building permits. And of course if they were to come in with those, staff should catch that, that the conditional use does not match and include that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Your explanations are greatly helpful. Appreciate it. Anybody else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think Susan Mason would be the next most logical person to talk to. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Susan. The issue of the CCME, what are the provisions required on a five-acre or less site in regards to the percentage of native vegetation that must be retained and should be absolutely retained on-site? MS. MASON: Regarding the percentage required, if it's less than five acres, it's 10 percent. If it's five acres or more, it's 15. So they would need to keep it something less than five acres for it to go down to the 10 percent acreage. Page 82 June 18, 2009 The CCME does at this point, with the last round of amendments, allow for a potential for off-site preservation to be addressed in the LDC. The current LDC does only allow for in rural lands -- areas outside rural land stewardship or rural fringe that the native preservation shall be on-site. It does not allow for any deviations. The only way someone could at this point propose something off-site which would be consistent with the GMP but not the LDC would be through a PUD amendment where they're seeking a deviation from the LDC. So with the conditional use, they don't have that ability at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order to be consistent with the CCME portion, and actually with the Golden Gate Master Plan portion, they would have to amend their application to be a five-acre site with the -- or 4.99, as I think Heidi said, with the 10 percent retention of native vegetation on-site. MS. MASON: Right, that would be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know -- and I imagine you may have reviewed the SDP. But if they were to not include that 80 foot to the east as part of their application but that I think -- it's a 30 or whatever width strip of preservation they have on the south side, if they were to extend that further west, that becomes a whole buffer along the south side to Autumn Woods (sic). Is that about 10 percent of the site, do you know, or did you look at that calculation? MS. MASON: No, I did not look at that. Part of the problem they have is they're using a good portion. And the reason it was excluded from the conservation easement, they're using a good portion for stormwater management as well, and that use wasn't compatible with the vegetation that was there and the maintenance requirements for stormwater management. So they would not necessarily be able to simply extend the conservation easement to include that whole area without having to rework their storm water management system as Page 83 June 18, 2009 well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we'll get them back up here and find out how much more they need than what's already there, and maybe there's another location on-site they could piece it in. But that might be an option to get everything past a negative point into a positive CCME and Golden Gate Master Plan. So thank you. Anybody else have questions of Susan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John Poderonski (sic), John J., John P. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: J.P. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D. and J.P. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The SDP that you reviewed, was it reviewed for the possibility of the school applications that you have in front of you today? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, the SDP? No, . SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The SDP. Okay. Would you have to re-review it before they would be given permits to use the facilities on that property for either a school or a daycare? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I think it would be appropriate, yes, . SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not appropriate, is it required? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Required? I'd have to defer to the planning department. For us, no, it's not required. For transportation, no, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they're changing the uses on the property and they're going to put more intense uses than what you reviewed it for previously, you're not required to review it again? Page 84 June 18, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: On second thought, yes, we would. We would have to double-check to make sure that the operational requirements of the turn lanes are met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Okay. So in any regard, if they're going to use the school, they're going to have to come back in for an SDP amendment. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I had. Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So that's my questions of staff at this time. Does anybody else have any questions of staff before we have the applicant back up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to need -- I have some quick questions of the applicant before we go to -- Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question. On this plan that we've been discussing, where does it show a school? MS. WILLIAMS: The school is contained within existing buildings. There is an existing playground, and the site development plan, although it's not built or -- doesn't require building, there is an activity field. And so there would be no new construction for the school. The new construction for the property is the planned expansion for the church sanctuary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 85 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, one of the neighbors concerns is actually a good one, is that it would be easier for parents to park along Autumn Lane or whatever it is on the south, and then the kids just run through the woods. What would prevent that from happening? MS. WILLIAMS : Well, I did see the letter that was provided, and I did not get to speak to the neighbor, as I mentioned before. However, I did take a look at the Eagle's Nest situation and they have a very different scenario. They have a parking lot that has basically a standard landscape buffer. It looks like from an aerial a single row of trees. So it's very simple for kids to go from a paved parking area right through a normal landscape buffer to cars on Autumn Oaks Lane. This is a significantly different situation, because it's 55 feet wide of vegetation. There are areas that are used for water management. And I don't think that's going to be a situation that parents would encourage their children to run through 55 feet of vegetation to get to Autumn Oaks Lane. I don't think it would be that much more convenient. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, doesn't the staff control the children tight enough that they would be allowing them to do that? It's not like -- MS. WILLIAMS: I would expect that staff would not permit that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Such that ifit becomes a problem, you could -- staff could address it and stop letting kids cut through there. Because I don't think in a daycare or in a preschool or anything like that that the kids just wander off into the woods to get home. MS. WILLIAMS: I would certainly hope not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) Page 86 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a follow-up to Brad's, I understand that staff couldn't tell them, but we find out generally from applicants the only way could become reality is we put a stipulation in that requires them to deal with the issue. So I certainly am leaning towards that in regards to that issue. The attachment E of the conditional use doesn't show -- and this isn't attachment E. And I kind of want to understand, are we using attachment E as the official document that we're attaching, or are we using this plan? The reason that becomes different is attachment E shows and culls everything out in gross square footage, an air conditioning, proposed FFE and all the other stuff. It says overall site plan on it. This is a conceptual site plan. It doesn't give square footage. And that was a notation that staff had made that they're concerned about. So-- MS. WILLIAMS: We should revise overall site plan to say conceptual site plan. I thought that it did have that in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it didn't answer my question, though. Which plan are we using for the official conditional use plan, if there was to be a conditional use? And you can put whatever plan that is up on the screen so everybody knows what we're talking about. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, the attachment E that you have was the one reviewed by staff. Depending on your recommendation today, we may need to revise that to reflect your suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But at least I want to start with one that we're supposed to be using and then revise from there. And that isn't it either. MS. WILLIAMS: This is the one that's attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got Exhibit C. I'm talking about Exhibit E. MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure exactly what attachment E is, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll give it to you, if you'd like. Page 87 June 18, 2009 MS. WILLIAMS: -- Ray -- I mean, I'm looking at it, but I'm not sure where staff got that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that exhibit you're looking at, Heidi. MS. WILLIAMS: The conceptual plan is the one that Ray's put onto the visualizer, and it is marked as Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, the concern I have between the two exhibits, one gives a lot more detail and provides the square footages, which is something we normally look at in conditional uses, and the other one doesn't. So either perspective, I think we're better off looking at Exhibit E than we are Exhibit C. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Delate just informed me, this is actually the approved site development plan, which I don't think would be appropriate for the conditional use. We could take some of the information and put it onto the conceptual plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned -- as staff has expressed, we usually tie size of conditional uses to the conditional use. And this would tie the size of the condition -- the structures in. MR. BELLOWS: I think to clar -- for the record, Ray Bellows with zoning. The clarification is the overall site plan that was shown in the visualizer as attachment E is actually a copy of the site plan that was approved within the last year. That's why there's square footages noted on it. It's not what is being used as part of this conditional use application. I think it was just a clarification of what that site development plan showed. MS. WILLIAMS: And I would expand on that. I think the reason this -- I could be wrong, but I think the reason this is here is because it does have 21,000 and change square feet. The -- we were asked to provide the total anticipated square footage. We provided 28,000. The things that are not shown on the approved SDP today that could be developed under the current approvals are a small chapel and Page 88 June 18, 2009 a caretakers residence. So when we provided the total maximum square footage of 28,000, that included those structures that have not yet been reviewed and approved, but could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the data that I reviewed, and there's probably 600 pages here, did you have in your language to the conditional use specifically stating the maximum amount of square footage you were intending to utilize on the site? MS. WILLIAMS: We did not provide a total until requested. And I believe that was a function of traffic. So we wanted to make sure that the traffic impact statement matched. And it does reflect the 28,000 total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you don't have it in your conditional use as a condition of the conditional use. MS. WILLIAMS: We did not limit the school by square footage. We had used the number of students to generate the traffic calculations. And so that is why the limitations are by student. We also had the phasing in there of the number of students. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember a conditional use coming through where we didn't limit square footage, so I don't see why this should be an exception. MS. WILLIAMS: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be one issue. And also your heights. In the last church or two that came through, we were very, very concerned about heights. I don't see the heights limited in here. So I think that needs to be addressed. Do you have heights that you know you're looking at that you're trying to consider? MS. WILLIAMS: Well, again, the school would be contained in the buildings that are previously approved. Weare consistent with the Land Development Code for the zoned and actual heights. I can defer to Mike Delate again on what those are. I believe they were stated in some of the narrative material. Page 89 June 18, 2009 He doesn't have that memorized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a few minutes to look it up. That's okay, you can look it up while we're continuing. But I would like -- I'm not sure why this would come through without some of these specifics in it. They're ones we normally look at. So I would suggest that we peg a height, both zoned and actual. We just did that for the last church or two that came through, and again, I don't know why this one would be an exception. We need to peg the maximum square footage. And I think that we need to walk back through between you and staff and see where these conditions of approval differ and why they differ and how we can resolve them. And there's seven of them. And it looks like there's going to be more if this proceeds positively. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make a clarification. Some of the churches that you had in the past where height was an issue, they were part of PUD's where we were setting height limits. This is a conditional use of the Estates. The height is limited by the Estates zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well that one down Autumn Oaks that we just -- there's another one right down the road, on Autumn Oaks across from Valewood. There was -- that was -- we specified the height in that. MR. BELLOWS: If you had a concern about towers where the LDC will allow a tower to go higher and you don't want to do that, then you can add a condition in the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay . You know the one further down Immokalee Road, the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one with that steeple that goes up to the top of the world? Well, that's -- we certainly wouldn't want to see another one of those and so that's why I'm asking the questions. Page 90 June 18, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And that's where the code allows for towers and things to go higher than the maximum height. MS. WILLIAMS: Chairman Strain, if you look at the narrative statement provided in the backup material, on the bottom it says, narrative statement revised 4/27/09. This is part of the application. The second page of that document has number 10, maximum building height. And the maximum building height per the Land Development Code is 30 feet in the Estates zoning district. And if you skip a few lines, the actual height will be approximately 44 feet. And those are all regardless of whether this conditional use is approved today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the actual height of 44 feet, you have no problem stipulating that? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think we have a problem with that, because the building permit's been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, then I think the last thing we need to do is walk through your concerns that you don't want to adhere to in regards to the staff recommendations. And I guess it would be Melissa that we need to talk to. Oh, Heidi, before Melissa comes up, if there's a recommendation to go to the 4.999 acres, as suggested -- and I understand now how you're going to get that, and staff has said that that's been done before, so you're not setting a precedent in that regard -- how would you fit the 10 percent preservation on-site? MS. WILLIAMS: We would use the existing conservation easement and then the vegetation along the southern property line. I understand there's a concern about using water management with the vegetation. It's been existing in that condition well for 10, 15 years. So we would work with staff to just expand the conservation easement along the south to get to the required number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the eastern boundary of the Page 91 June 18, 2009 conservation easement you're now talking about for the intent and purpose of keeping it on-site would be in line, excluding the part that's in the 80- foot east -- to the east; is that right. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. I do think that we have the vegetation available to meet the 10 percent requirement without the 80 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we actually can correct a wrong from the past.W e can get an accurate legal description, we can make this conditional use consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by retaining it under five acres, and you can keep the 10 percent required vegetation on-site. And at the same time you've already provided an additional buffer to the east by that 80 foot that is a perpetual conservation easement. MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that sounds like it's close to being a win/win for every body, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick question. And it's really the way this project's described. Are you also -- there's two buildings that are actually being brought onto this site with this application, right, the chapel and the caretakers? Or is that part of the other -- MS. WILLIAMS: Those buildings were actually part of the original 1994 conditional use. If we were not here today, the church could still go in and modify their site development plans to put those In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, I'd like to run through the changes that Heidi was suggesting to the conditions of approval for staff's input. Page 92 June 18, 2009 MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the first one on number one, rightfully so, I believe she suggested that conditional use shall apply only to the portions of the site that excludes the -- and that's .53? MS. ZONE: Correct. So we remove the .91. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way this is heading, that because of their suggestion that they could limit this conditional use to less than five acres, do we even need that conditional use number one if that stipulation's accepted? MS. ZONE: If the applicant is coming back revising their site plan showing staff, then absolutely, we could limit it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we walk through these then on that basis, just let me get a nod from the Planning Commission, does the suggestion by the applicant that they use five acres or less for their application by reducing the size of the application by removing the right-of-way of Autumn Woods (sic) and the 80 feet to the east, does that work for the members of the Planning Commission ? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objections to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then we'll proceed. So that will be a stipulation. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: And on the consent agenda, they would have a revised conceptual site plan showing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I mean, everything would have to be done by the consent agenda. MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So number one would not be needed under that condition. Number two, well, that's exactly what they're going to be doing, Page 93 June 18, 2009 I think. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So number two wouldn't be needed, because they'd actually be doing it -- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they'd be revising the legal to get down below five acres. Number three and four they've accepted. Number five, they want it removed. Well, that one would be removed because they would be consistent because they're putting everything on the site. Is that -- MS. ZONE: Well, this one says to amend the SDP. So it's not just the conceptual site plan with a conditional use, because the SDP was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they have to amend the SDP anyway because they can't get the uses they're asking for today because the SDP didn't have them, so -- MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're going to have to come in and amend that SDP anyway. Is there any way around that? MS. ZONE: I would say there is no way around it. But if the school is wanting to start in August to get an approved SDP amended, I don't know how they're -- that's going to be their logistics to solve, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other -- the problem I see, though, irregardless of the preserve issue, if they want a school on-site in August, they still got to redo their SOP, is that -- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I heard John say? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if staff has got another way that it Page 94 June 18, 2009 can be done, they need to tell us now. But the only way I see it, based on what John was saying, was that they have to resubmit the SOP, it has to be re-reviewed under the uses they're asking for today, if these uses are approved. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, could they start that process concurrently while they're going through the rest of these processes to get a head start on it to help them with their deadline date? MS. ZONE: I can't see why they couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray's nodding yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because then it would be an SOP A -- MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that would go through faster than an SDP, I would assume. MR. BELLOWS: Typically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cautious Ray. Okay. So we wouldn't need number five then, right? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number six, the applicant wants to remove it. Well, that's got to be done anyway. So it can't be removed, you're going to resubmit the SOP; is that correct? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number seven was another issue about the busing of people and transportation. I don't believe we got a resolution to that. They want an after school program, but they don't want to limit it to just the kids that are in the regular school program. How do we control that to traffic then? MS. ZONE: I don't know. And that was part of my concern was that -- and why I wanted it limited to the students on-site was because Page 95 June 18, 2009 they're there. If we open it up to the public, we're bringing in people and students. And Heidi did explain that there could be the buses, if it would be a St. Monica's bus or public bus, but I don't know how the county could monitor that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, Immokalee Road is still in a failed condition, and that is a little concerning, so -- okay, I think -- anybody else have any other discussion on any of these elements? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think staff should be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest, then, out of conditions of approval, if the stipulation is made to produce this plan at less than five acres, as suggested by the applicant, that we would -- the conditions of approval would then end up being numbers three, four and seven. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of them, some of them are even a given, so that's why we're not getting into the SDP, because they have to do it. Then there are other stipulations, but those would be the conditions of approval left out of staff's seven conditions presented here today. MS. ZONE: Correct. And staff agrees with the Planning Commission on which ones to remove, and so I think this -- so far we're heading in the right direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And let me go over the issues then for the rest of the Planning Commission that are left on the table that aren't conditions of approval but could be stipulations. One would be there would be a maximum square footage of 28,700, as was applied in the application. There'd be an actual height of 44 feet. They would not exceed 100 of the pre-K (sic) students or 90 of the daycare. And that -- I wanted to talk to you guys about the stacking issue on Autumn Woods (sic). And as Mr. Schiffer pointed out, there has Page 96 June 18, 2009 been a concern, and I have been told that it actually occurs where they have people lined up on Autumn Woods (sic) to pick kids up who do come through the native vegetation. Kids in Florida are used to native vegetation, it's a fun thing to run through and it's usually nice, who knows what, pine needles. So I'm not surprised that that happens. I don't like leaving it up to an applicant, any applicant, to regulate themselves. It tends not to be as strong as if the stipulation is there. So I guess we need to think of a stipulation that would work. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I have an idea on one, I think. And I don't think landscaping is going to -- I would just say that -- and one thing remember, too, is this can go up to 12th grade. So some of these kids could actually be driving to the school. So I would say no pickup, drop-off or parking shall be allowed on Autumn Oaks Lane. And then that way they're risking losing the conditional use if they're abusing that situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No pickup, dropoff or parking shall be allowed on Autumn Woods (sic) Lane. Does that work for staff? MS. ZONE: No pickup, drop-off or parking on Autumn Oaks Lane. Very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said no. Shouldn't you -- MS. ZONE: That no pickup or drop-off or parking on Autumn Oaks Lane. And then I agreed -- sorry. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How do you police that? MS. ZONE: It is hard. One of the suggestions from the property owner was to have a wall or barrier there, which might help with the crossing. But to police this would have to be a resident complaining with code which would then top off that they're in violation. And that's typically how we do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could put a wall up and Page 97 June 18, 2009 someone could jump over it. And if this wasn't there, we'd have -- they wouldn't have -- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any recourse. At least this way there's resource that jeopardizes the entire conditional use. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's probably as strong, ifnot stronger. Okay. So we've got a -- the staff conditions worked out, we've talked about the stipulations, and there is no public speakers. And the last thing I want to ask Heidi, before we close the public hearing is Heidi, you have told us you can come back with a site plan less than five acres that contains the preserve and that shows the elements we need. And one way to accomplish this square footage and the height is maybe even put it on that plan to save an easy way of doing it. Are you able to be able to do all that? Is that -- are you still agreeing to do all that to present it to us on consent? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. We should be -- we'll be able to meet that deadline, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that I will-- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What is going to be the revised acreage? 4.9 what? MS. WILLIAMS: The legal description that I have is 4.996. COMMISSIONER CARON: 996, thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: More or less. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More or less. As long as it doesn't go back to 609 again. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this is -- we'll close the public Page 98 June 18, 2009 hearing and we'll seek a recommendation, and I'll reiterate everything so we're clear. We're going to have staff stipulations, conditions of approval three, four and seven will stay. The rest will assumedly be dropped because the applicant's going to resubmit a conceptual plan that will be less than five acres. On the conceptual plan will be the preserve areas that they need to have a -- have for that size lot. There are three stipulations. One is that the -- whether it's pre-K (sic), it won't exceed 100 students, and if it's daycare it won't exceed 90. That the maximum square footage will be 28,700. The actual height will not exceed 44 feet. And there will be no pickup, drop-off or parking along the Autumn Woods (sic) Lane road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 00 we care that they've offered phasing? And we haven't mentioned it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, absolutely. You're right, thank you. So the phasing offered by the applicant will also be accepted. MS. ZONE: There's -- on condition three, Chairman Strain, says the applicant has agreed to phase the enrollment of students, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the one we accepted, so-- MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I it is there. MS. ZONE: So I think it does cover it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is covered, okay. Okay, with that, is there a motion? Page 99 June 18, 2009 Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Could I just -- do we have to do anything about the hours of operation? You know, in the past we've put limits on after 9:00 or after 10:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there any hours of operation offered in their application that staff reviewed? MS. ZONE: They didn't offer them, they just explained in their project narrative that they intended to start operations about an hour earlier than what it currently is, at 8:30, so staff assumed that was 7:30. When I'd asked Heidi, it was more vague as to 7 :00, 7:30, it wasn't a definitive time. I'm sure they'll agree to that time. And they mentioned that it should -- they anticipate -- well, anticipate isn't a definite. So [ think if the board and the applicants come to a start and end time, we can make that as a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to consider just there be nothing earlier than or later than -- MS. ZONE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any day of the week, that would cover it. I mean, they're on Immokalee Road, which is six lanes of continuous traffic anyway. But I think for the protection of the people behind, all-night parties would be not welcome. But I can't imagine a church having such a thing. Heidi, do you have any early deadline times? MS. WILLIAMS: No, I don't. But I think we need to just be cautious with these hours of operation, that they aren't broadly applied to the church. Because there are certain holiday services that may be a midnight service or an early Easter service. The school itself would be the five days a week. So it would be early -- you know, an hour early. The current school anticipates Page 100 June 18, 2009 starting at 8:30, so their drop-off time is 8:00 to 8:30. But I think 7:30 would be a safe early time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's the late time? MS. WILLIAMS: I want to make sure that I'm consistent with my narrative, so I'd like to flip to that. MS. ZONE: Excuse me, Commissioners. While Heidi is looking up her information, I just want to point out that the conditional use for the church is a separate resolution, and they have separate conditions. So what we would be applying today on conditions of approval will not be on the church, it would only be for the school and the daycare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ZONE: So if we go to 9:00, then we're allowing the school to be open till 9:00. So we don't want the church to be jeopardized by conditions we're applying today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Heidi made that clear, it's going to be just for the school. Either school system, whether it's daycare or pre-K (sic), that's what we're talking about. MS. WILLIAMS: To be consistent with the narrative, I think that 7:30 as an early time would be acceptable. And then the current ministries end around 9:00. I can see after-school activities, whether it's meetings with parents or I guess there's a school play every now and then, needing to go till 9:00 p.m. Certainly that would not be a regular occurrence. But if we're limiting the hours of operation, I think that would be safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a fourth stipulation would be that the school's facilities would not operate before 7:30 nor after 9:00 p.m. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've had four stipulations, three staff conditions and a change in the size and application of the property down to less than five acres. Page 101 June 18, 2009 Melissa? MS. ZONE: John Podczerwinsky asked me ifit would be possible to also phase the after-school programs as well as how we did for the phasing of the enrollment of the school because of the trips being generated. That would have to be consistent. So we would have to include the phasing for the after-school programs as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, if -- I presume that perhaps that's a good point he's raised. I presume that the after-school program would be for the students who remained at the school. You're suggesting that they're going to bring a number of other children on board? MS. ZONE: Well, I agree with you that if we're leaving it to the registered students only, then it is phased. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are. We didn't change your sti pulati on. MS. ZONE: No, I understand that. I'm just trying to explain what John had requested in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that would change the conditional use in my mind, if we started bringing a whole bunch of other kids in at 3 :30 in the afternoon with the intent of staying there till 7:00. MS. ZONE: Right. No, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We accepted your stipulation seven under that condition. You couldn't have anything different happen in the phasing already there. MS. ZONE: Right. John, you okay with that? He's okay with that, so we're not going to change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are we all satisfied now? And staff especially -- Page 102 June 18, 2009 MS. ZONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you understand the conditions of approval that we've modified for your end? MS. ZONE: Correct, we are only allowing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You understand our four stipulations? MS. ZONE: Correct. We're allowing three, four and seven, and we're leaving them as they are written. And then we are taking the Planning Commission's, which is we're allowing that it cannot exceed the maximum height of 44 -- or actual height of 44 feet, to not exceed the actual height of 44 feet. And the maximum building square footage for 28,700 is the maximum there. The pickup, drop-off -- or no pickup, drop-off or parking on Autumn Oaks Lane. And that the school functions are five days a week, no earlier than 7:30 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then the other one is that K -12 is limited to 100 students based on the phasing, and the day care is 90. MS. ZONE: Right. And that's actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. If that's a redundant statement -- MS. ZONE: It's on four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you're right. It's on number four. Okay. So we can drop that. So we have three stipulations and we have three remaining conditions. If everybody's comfortable with that, we need a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make a motion to approve, based on those stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 103 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIONEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. We'll certainly look forward to the consent agenda. It ought to be interesting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have conditional use slips that have to be filled out and turned in to Mr. Vigliotti. And we have to discuss where we're going for the rest of today. Because we have the sign ordinance to continue with, which will probably take a reasonable amount of time, and we have two more applications that we have to go over. Although they're really one application and two forms. It will take a short period of time. But I've learned in the past that if we don't take lunch, we end up spending two or three hours here without lunch. So I'm assuming we all take lunch? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what I'd like to do, if it's okay with you, we'll take lunch now and come back at 12:45. Ooes that satisfy everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll break for lunch, we'll Page 104 June 18, 2009 come back at 12:45. See you all then. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from our lunch break, for those that made it back. Item #9D PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13967, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS ANO RECREATION DEPARTMENT Item #9E PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13671, COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT We left off on Item 9.B -- or 9.C, and we're going to go ahead and move to 9.D. It's Petition RZ-2008-AR-13967, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department in Goodland in Section 18. That's a companion item to -- well, one is a companion to the other. It's Petition V A-2008-AR-13671, again the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for the Goodland area in Section 18. We will discuss both items simultaneously, but we'll take separate motions when we're all done. And with that in mind, will those wishing to participate, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Heidi's here for a second thrashing -- I mean -- MS. WILLIAMS: Hopefully this one will go a little smoother. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission on either item? (No response.) Page 105 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Heidi, it's all yours. MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good afternoon. Again for the record, my name's Heidi Williams, Certified Planner with Grady Minor, in Bonita Springs. Here today on behalf of the Collier County Parks and Rec Department -- I guess I should say the full thing, Parks and Recreation Department. With us today are Barry Williams. Also on our project team are Murdo Smith, Tony Roberto and Vicky Ahmad with Parks and Recreation. I'm also joined today by Oavid Schmitt, civil engineer, and Sandra Bottcher, with Grady Minor. She's an EI working on this project. We have, as Mr. Strain mentioned, two petitions today, a rezone petition and a variance petition. The site has a unique history, so I'd like to touch on that as well. This is an aerial photograph of the subject property. It is 2.62 acres, located on the island of Goodland. It is a close-knit community, very -- developed with mostly residential uses. The property had been used as a fish camp in the past, mobile homes, R V park, and has some structures remaining. Parks and Recreation acquired this property through cooperation with the State of Florida, Florida Communities Trust grant program. Our request today is to rezone the site from several residential zoning designations, as well as the Goodland zoning overlay to the public zoning designation. The Parks and Recreation Oepartment intends to redevelop the site into an amenity for the community. And they especially want to show the fish camp lifestyle that had been used on this site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was that in the picture? MS. WILLIAMS: That is a picture of the playground that is in place. Page 106 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not the fish camp. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, that's not exactly fish camp lifestyle, but that is also on the property. We do have strong community support for this park. Some of the amenities, and I'll go over this in more detail later in the presentation, intended for this site are walking trails, picnic pavilions, kayak launch, viewing deck, playground and this interpretive center, which I'll go into later. Togo back to the aerial photograph, these are -- there are three things on the site that will -- are intended to remain. First the playground that Mr. Murray mentioned has been installed, is in place and is being used by children in Goodland. The Mar-Good building was one of the original structures on the property. It's been used for many things, community hall, theater, museum, and will be rehabilitated into an interpretive center that will be available for classes, nature classes and some different presentations for Parks and Recreation. The area of the property that is separated by Pettit Orive is located on the east side. Currently houses four small cottages and a couple of accessory structures. It is intended that that area of the site will be redeveloped into a viewing area. People will be able to walk around and look at the different cottages as they were back in the day. In addition to the items that are there today, there are some revisions that will be made to the property. Most notably, there will be an additional parking area so people will be able to pull in, park off the street in a paved lot and then be able to pull back out. The walking trails will be redone so that they are a consistent type of material through the project. The shoreline will be restored with vegetation. The canoe launch will be added, along with a kayak and canoe rack. There will be some viewing decks and a gazebo at the northern end, as well as the picnic areas that I mentioned. Next I'd like to turn to the historic use of this property. There Page 107 June 18, 2009 are two primary times that we are concerned about: The prehistoric Calusa Indian use of the Goodland area, and then the more current era, early Florida tourist impacts. So we have two reports. They were both included in your staff report. But with all the backup material I'd like to just hit the highlights, because I know they were lengthy. First the archeological assessment of the Mar-Good parcel; has this picture on the cover. The purpose of the report was to identify any archeological deposits and -- in order that any development could avoid impacts to any valuable resources. The entire island of Goodland was a -- has been determined to be a Calusa shell mound. And because of that, there is the potential of having artifacts here. So the report was done to make sure that we knew what was on the property. The report basically finds that a large portion of the site is comprised of the clean oyster shell, and it also has a black dirt midden area. It's located on the western portion of the property, and -- because I didn't know what black dirt midden was, I figured I should put that into the report. Basically it indicates an area of human habitation, or human use. And what it is today is very different from what it had been in the past. In fact, people in Goodland, the original settlers in Goodland of our current era found that Goodland was a good area for agriculture. And they had various vegetables and fruits grown in Goodland. So it has been used as a fertile agriculture area. Of course that is not the intention now. Because of these findings, the site plan, conceptual site plan has been designed to avoid any impacts to this earth midden area. The next report was the historic assessment of buildings at Goodland Harbor Park. And I put this picture in here, because the first time I looked at it I thought this was a cartoon drawing, but this is actually a photograph from 1958. And you can see how the site was Page 108 June 18, 2009 used. Many RV's and trailers were here. People, basically like today, seasonally would travel to Florida, and they'd have -- you know, this was prior to Holiday Inn, so they needed a place to stay. This was the kind of place they would stay. Because this is a different angle than we usually look at the site, we usually look from a bird's eye view, this is more of an oblique angle, I went ahead and drew an approximation of the current property lines. You can see the things that -- some things that are still there today and some things that are not. Notably the marina has been cleared out. That impact is gone. The cottages I mentioned before on the east side of Pettit Orive are there and the Mar-Good building is there. One of the things that came out of this report, the historic assessment of buildings, is that the Mar-Good site could qualify for the National Registry of Historic Places program. The program is an optional federal program, and there are several criteria primarily for this site. The age of the structures and the significance to the community would be considered. The report is very complicated. And I'm sorry that this table is a little bit difficult to read. But I wanted to compile -- these first three columns are the building numbers, the resource number and the name that are used in the report to show how these all lined up. These next two columns are a compilation of the different years the structures were built and whether or not they were original to this site. The green box is in reference to the laundry and cistern area. That -- I wanted to call special attention to that because the cistern was original to the early 1950's, but it had an expansion in the Eighties that is not considered a historic structure. The items in yellow are three of the cottages on that parcel east of Pettit Drive. They are not original to the site, although they are from the 1920's. They were constructed in -- for a fish camp in Marco Page 109 June 18, 2009 Island and then relocated to Mar-Good. I'm going to go into additional detail on the eligibility, the status of the -- the historic eligibility. Everything had been considered to be eligible -- not necessarily recommended for the designation but eligible for the designation -- except for that addition to that cistern that I mentioned, which was done in the Eighties. It's just not old enough. The main two criteria used are A and C. These are the four. A has to do with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. That seems like a lot of different things could apply there. And then C is distinctive characteristics of type, period or method of construction. So for the most part the buildings comply with criteria A. The two cisterns on the property, one is next to the Mar-Good building and one is in the area with the four cottages, those two fall under criteria C, as well as A. And then this last column is the intention that Parks and Rec has for each of the buildings that are remaining on the site. The first two here, the Johnson and Combs Theater and Museum is what I refer to as the Mar-Good building, and then the laundry and cistern, which is right next to it. It is the intention to restore it to its original condition. So anything from the 1980's or later editions would not be restored. But anything from the original development of the site, it is their intention to restore and use those buildings. This next group is a series of cottages and duplexes that were on the site for use during the fish camp -- for use of the fish camp. They were built in the early 1950's, but Parks and Rec. would like to relocate these structures. Many of them are not in good shape. They've had a lot of significant deterioration. But if there is a way to relocate them, that is what they would intend to do. And then this final grouping of structures are the four cottages I Page 110 June 18, 2009 mentioned east of Pettit Drive and two accessory structures. One is another cistern and one is a very small building that was used for different things, most notably a shell shop. And these would be restored where feasible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I ask a question, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you go back to that slide? MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe this is not pertinent, per se, but you have something that was original to the site and it was in the 1940's or Fifties. And you said they're not in good shape, but you want to relocate them. Don't you lose your designation then if you relocate it, because it's original to site? And if you're going to relocate it, doesn't that change the -- and I'm not sure what relocation means if they're not in very good shape and you might actually be kindling wood. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we're not sure what the condition is in total. There may be -- there are varying degrees of condition. I'm not as well versed in relocation. I know some programs prefer that buildings not be relocated, but some programs still accept them as historic structures, even if they've been moved. I know that in Bonita Springs, for example, structures have been moved and grouped together and they're still considered significant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: So I'm afraid I'm not an expert in this program, but I do know that Parks and Recreation feels they can make better use of this space than restoring each of those structures. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. My only -- the basis of my question had to do with the potential for seeking grant money. And I wondered if that had an impact on it. If you relocate it, what does that do? And especially if it's in bad shape. Actually, that slide that you showed from the early -- 1958, I Page 111 June 18, 2009 believe it was, looked like the -- you don't have to go back to it, but it looked like it had some -- a lot of boards missing on the roof on that big building, so I don't know. Yeah, that one there. That looks as though there's some things missing. But I don't know how critical it is, and I'm trying to find my way through this, so I'm not -- I don't want to belabor this. But if it was associated with what the Parks and Recreation intends to do seeking grants, then I think it's relevant. But you're not sure what that means, whether that's true. MS. WILLIAMS: Unfortunately I don't know the impact to grants themselves. I know that Parks and Recreation has offered those out for relocation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Because of the nature of the property, we did meet with the Historic Archeological Preservation Board, and on January 21 st, 2009, they did make a recommendation. They made two suggestions -- well, two recommendations. One was to support the rezone to public zoning designation outright. Then they further clarified that they would like the applicant to return to the Historic Archeologic Preservation Board during the site development plan review and approval process that has been occurring. In fact, we had the board come to the site and take a tour of the property and the different buildings, and so that is an ongoing process of coordination with that board. In response to their recommendation, the applicant has committed to avoiding impacts to the midden area on the western portion of the property. They are -- Parks and Recreation will preserve and relocate structures where feasible and will continue their coordination efforts. I'd like to turn to the staff rezone conditions briefly. Items one and two to me seem a little bit redundant. We would propose the language in the slide here: The applicant shall return to the Historic Page 112 June 18, 2009 Archeological Preservation Board during the site development plan review and approval process. The SDP shall take into consideration the restoration of viable structures and preservation of artifacts. And I think that combines the intention of the first two points, and makes it very clear what's expected of the applicant. And then items three through five are acceptable to the applicant. So with that, I'd like to turn to the variance requests. Primarily there are two different types of requests. First there's a request from side yard setbacks. And there are two structures that this applies to. There's a canoe/kayak storage rack that would be, if approved, closer than 15 feet to the waterfront. It still has a IS-foot setback requirement, but it seems to make sense to have the boats right there to take them off the rack and put them in the water. The second request is for the gazebo at what I call the northern point of land. This is a photograph of that area. You can see it's very narrow. It would not be possible to put any structure in this area without some type of variance. So we are asking that the IS-foot side yard setback be allowed to be five feet for both of those structures. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've got a question on this, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are you -- is the park going to be renting canoes and kayaks, or what's the purpose? MS. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams is indicating that yes, they will be rented from that location. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So this will be manned seven days a week, or personed or whatever? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you come -- yeah, for the record, Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Page 113 June 18, 2009 Director. And to answer the question, we are talking about the use at that spot. As far as renting kayaks, we talked about a couple of things. The possibility of renting a kayak is one. The possibility of renting space for kayaks is another. So we really haven't decided on that. A person might be able to leave their kayak at that location, lock it up and pay a monthly rental to access their kayak when they need. We don't intend -- at this point we're not seeing where it's going to be possible to man the site seven days a week. We will have staff there. More than likely it will be for special events. Weare looking at the Mar-Good building, the store, as we use that as an interpretive site. We will establish hours for that site, but it will probably be minimal hours. Just as, you know, Parks and Recs has done the last couple of years in reducing staff, it's just, you know, the nature of the beast. We're not going to have staff there. We'll also look, though, and we've been talking about using volunteers potentially at the site to be there. But hopefully that answered your question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you in any way going to join with the museum people to participate, have them participate in this? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we've talked to Museum Director Ron Jamro about this site and the potential. In terms of the question of relocation, we have looked at possibilities, if there were folks associated with Ron and that would like the buildings that we're looking at that we're seeing that are too costly for us to renovate. We've had those discussions. In terms of the interpretive center, certainly we work in the same division as Mr. Jamro and work very closely with him on a number of projects. So we definitely will work with him in that interpretive spot Page 114 June 18, 2009 with Mar-Good building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the reason I raise that question is because I recognize fully that, you know, you'd want to do this and this is an appropriate thing to do. However, based on economic conditions which hopefully will be cured in the next year or two or three, or four or five, I would be concerned with spending money to do something and then have it unavailable to the public. So I would hope that you would utilize volunteers. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. We have a similar issue with Freedom Park. As you know, Freedom Park is coming on-line, and they do have an interpretive building on-site. And we're thinking that that's, you know, how we'll need to staff it to manage it, either the heavy use of volunteers or limited hours for its availability. But we're working through that. So it will be similar for Goodland that we see. We do have a good relationship with the Goodland community, a lot of people interested in this site. We don't think that getting volunteers in the winter will be a problem. I think that we've had a number of people express interest in working with us, the Combs in particular who owned the site prior to our purchase. So volunteers down there I don't think are problematic in the winter. The summer might be a little bit more interesting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, are you finished? MS. WILLIAMS: No, a little bit more. The second set of variance requests are regarding landscape buffers. In general, as Mr. Williams mentioned, the Goodland community has been very involved in this process and has expressed that they want the Mar-Good site to remain an open amenity to everyone. They want to maintain their water views, they want to be able to see what's happening in the park for safety and security. And Page 115 June 18, 2009 so we've tried to tailor each of the landscape buffers to their wishes. And for that we have decreased widths of buffers and we've clustered planting material, and specifically we've taken out all walls. Anywhere that the -- actually, I should rephrase that. All of the plant material that would be required is provided on the site somewhere. It's just been grouped as we felt is appropriate. The one -- the staff conditions have all been acceptable to us with the exception of one condition and that's number seven in the staff report. And that specifically refers to Section J-J, which is along that northern point again of lands. We have been asked to -- let's turn to that -- provide a double hedge row and planted at a minimum height of 30 inches. And that would be a better scenario than the required buffer. However, we still feel this may not be feasible in this location. This is -- although small, you should have a larger version in your backup material. This is Section J-J, as well as a picture of the existing condition. There is an existing retaining wall, and you can see there's an elevation change between the majority of this site and the neighbors. They are above the property. If we place a double hedge row above this retaining wall, which does vary in height and distance from the property line, it would be difficult to reach and difficult to maintain. I f we place that double hedge row below the wall, it really serves no purpose of preserving -- you know, shielding anyone from the park. Our assessment of this property is that the condition of the site and the way that people in Goodland are used to interacting, the buffer that we're proposing with the trees and the cluster of vegetation in other areas really will serve the purpose. And the feedback we've had from the community is that this is what they are looking for. So to just recap everything, for the rezone we are seeking your support to the public zoning designation with the revision to Page 116 June 18, 2009 conditions one and two that I mentioned. And for the variance request we are asking that you remove condition number seven. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. We do have engineering staff and park staff here to be able to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of the applicant at this time? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask on the whole midden area. Is the entire site part of that ancient midden area? MS. WILLIAMS: No, it is not. What they did was actually excavations in multiple areas of this site -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I saw that in the report. MS. WILLIAMS: -- and they found the midden in the western area and it's approximately 80 feet long. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you show me on the-- MS. WILLIAMS: On the site plan? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MS. WILLIAMS: This is the subject property. And trench I-A is from here to here when they did the excavation on the western side. These gray boxes are all previous mobile homes, trailers that have been removed. But they did the excavation for this distance, and 80 feet -- the western 80 feet is where the earth midden was. So all of the utilities and structures, improvements to the property would avoid that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So there's nothing on this -- this is what I couldn't do, I couldn't really overlay this with the actual site plan here. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. The site plan has been designed to avoid impacts. The midden is not at surface level either. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand. MS. WILLIAMS: So it is several feet below grade. And so all the utilities are routed around the area, not through and to avoid those Page 11 7 June 18, 2009 impacts. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, I've got two questions about your stipulations that you want to modify. Why don't we go to the first one -- or the conditions of staff. You had an example language up there that was a ways back in your presentation. Okay, the difference here is you're going to return to the board during the SOP approval process, then you're going to take into consideration the restoration of viable structures and preservation of artifacts. Well, the one that's supposed to replace says something different. It says, the development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicable LOC requirements and shall incorporate the recommendations of the HAPB with respect to the preservation of existing structures or other artifacts at site at the time of site development plan review and approval. So yours doesn't say that you'll incorporate what that historical board says, you're just going to take it to them and you'll consider it. This one says you'll incorporate their recommendations. There's a big difference in that language. So I wanted to point that out. Did you realize that when you wrote this? MS. WILLIAMS : Well, we talked about that, and we feel like we've been working very well with the historic board. They've been very understanding. But there is a concern that they may recommend something that's not possible for Parks and Rec either for budgetary reasons or for structural reasons. And so it's always hard to give complete control over to another authority. And we did -- we do of course respect their wishes and want to follow them, but in the circum -- should it happen that they would Page 118 June 18, 2009 recommend something that's not possible, Parks and Rec would prefer this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If I were to pick between the approach of either department, I would pick the historical board's approach as much more conservative in nature, compared to what I've seen in our planning of our parks. So I'm not sure we need full destruction of everything to make a park. If we look at the conditions of approval under the variance, number seven, the one in question, the J -J exhibit, when you said the people in Goodland like what this is proposing, did you specifically get comments from the two or three homes that are affected by this hedge, this double row hedge, who would have to see the activities and/ or traffic in that area that this is talking about? Because it looks like you're putting a pier or something there. So there would probably be a greater generation of traffic than anywhere like it is today. Were they specifically at these meetings? MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure who was specifically at every meeting, because there were multiple meetings. We had our required neighborhood meeting, but we also have had interaction with the Goodland Civic Association. And Parks and Recreation has been in this process much longer before the rezoning process and the variance process. So I could again defer to maybe Barry Williams, if you've had those discussions. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Oirector. I can't tell you that people that you are asking about, have they been at the meetings. We could check the records and see and connect. We typically, when we go to a public meeting and present information, we do ask people to sign in and ask for their address. So we could check those records. I can't tell you. And I don't recollect Page 11 9 June 18, 2009 from my conversations with the folks in those meetings of people from those particular sites. I do know and do recall having a lot of intersection with the folks that live in the western part of the park where Heidi just described was a midden area. I do remember that. But I don't remember the others. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you. And the reason, Heidi, I'm asking the emphasis on the question is because you had stated that the people in the area were in support of this. Well, I'm in an area where some people that are not next to commercial areas are supportive of commercial areas, as long as they're not next door to them. And yet the people next door to them are the ones that suffer. And I'm concerned about this application as well. So, I mean, I would suggest that on that particular variance, number seven, that that applies, unless you get letters from each one of those three residences ( sic), indicating they accept your alternative. Because they're the ones affected by it. So -- and you'd have to do that by the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. So that would be a condition I would suggest we would add to number seven on the variance application. MS. WILLIAMS: I definitely understand your concern. And you had mentioned three property owners, and I'd like to go to the aerial photo. This photo, you can see, there's one main structure and then several items stored in this area. I'm not sure there are three homes here, I think it's just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's three properties subdivided on one of the plans you showed here. So I would just suggest that those three property owners, if they're all the same one, that's great, that makes it simpler for you. But I certainly think it warrants their comment, they're the ones that are affected by it, not Page 120 June 18, 2009 somebody canals away. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Could I just asked, what's the width of -- I mean, you're saying it's going to be difficult to plan. What is the width of that area on top of the -- MS. WILLIAMS: The wall should be on the survey that was provided. And I'll try and estimate. I know we talked about it. East of the wall, I'm being told, is at most five feet wide and sometimes less. Because the wall from the edge of the property line . vanes. But it is on your survey here. And you can see that it goes from the shoreline and proceeds east and then turns to the south along the property line. So this is the survey and this is the wall marked on the survey at the north end of the point, and then it proceeds down to the south. And you can see it's very narrow. One of the things that Oavid Schmitt just mentioned to me is not only is -- you know, this is depicted as a line on this drawing, but it's actually got some width in itself. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if I'm reading this, is it telling me that it's varying between five -- over five feet to three? MS. WILLIAMS: I think that that's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that what it's showing? MS. WILLIAMS: I think the numbers you're reading on there are the elevations. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm saying. So I can't tell by looking at this what the width is, and that's what I was asking. MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. We can measure that. But I'm being told that it is five feet at most and then decreases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, just one. Page 121 June 18, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the area there that we're discussing from the water to the wall, is that subject to frequent flooding? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know that I'm qualified to answer that question. But I am being told that there is a possibility during a very high tide, something that maybe during a storm event would occur. During normal conditions -- I mean, it is a grassed area, so I think under normal conditions it's passable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree, I'm familiar with some degree with Goodland and I'm aware that a lot of that area does flood. Certainly I would agree with you, it would serve no purpose to put botanicals down on the land side there where it's subject to flooding. I'm not sure that that is useful at all. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the double hedge row they're talking about would be above the wall, right? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Murray's point was that as an alternative, it wouldn't be good to put it down on the ground. MS. WILLIAMS: Right. Staff has requested it be above the wall at 30 inches in height, and we did think that would be a difficult condition to meet, given the logistics of getting a -- you know, the elevation change and maintaining in that narrow space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's have our staff presentation, thank you. Ray, just -- are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's left. I thought everybody Page 122 June 18, 2009 would hang around for the sign discussion. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, J ohn- Oavid Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As noted in the staff report, staff is supportive of the rezone application. The comprehensive planning department has found the proposed rezone to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And subject to the conditions of approval included by staff, staff also finds the project to be consistent with the LOC. With regard to development condition number seven, which the applicant has taken issue with, the reason it was included was because the LDC does require a double hedge row in that location. And as noted in the staff report, the applicant will also be requesting a waiver of the wall requirement. And so normally a wall would be required there. This is going to be addressed administratively through a separate application process, but that's why staff felt it was important to make sure that this hedge row was included. As you noted, Commissioner Strain, these plants are to be planted above the wall. It was never the intention of staff to have them planted below the wall. Obviously 30-inch high plants are not going to serve any purpose below a wall. And as you noted, Commissioner Murray, they would be flooded out if the bay ever overflowed its bank. With regard to the variance application, staff is also supportive of the variances that were requested, subject to the stipulations that have been incorporated in the development conditions attached to the revolution -- attached to the resolution. One thing I did want to point out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oon't worry, it's on all of our minds. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain did embarrass me yesterday, he noticed that in number four on Page 6 of the staff analysis, I did say that the project did have a logical boundary, and obviously it doesn't. Page 123 June 18, 2009 I think I meant to say illogical there. So hopefully that was clear to the rest of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't gone to go bring that up, by the way. MR. MOSS : Well, no, after I reread the report, I thought it was ridiculous. And I notice that in another portion of the report I did say that it was illogically drawn, so it was just a typo and not a lapse of judgment on my part when I was writing the report. Regarding the development conditions that the applicant has an issue with, number one, the proposed revision doesn't seem to have any teeth to me either. Heidi is correct when she says that they seem a bit redundant. I have to agree that number one and two were not the most artfully drafted conditions of approval. They do seem a bit redundant. But the purpose of number two was that the project would get another chance to be reviewed by the historic and architectural review board. I felt it only fair that they get another chance to see it, because the applicant did put a little bit of pressure on them by saying that they wanted to keep their dates. And the Historic and Archeological Preservation Board was trying to accommodate them and so let them go through to keep this hearing date, provided they come back to them at a later date. And so that's why I just wanted to make sure that they had another chance to look at the proposed SDP and make comments on it, and of course if these comments would be incorporated into the SOP rather than just taken into consideration by the applicant. And one other issue I'd like to draw your attention to was the issue of the midden, as Commissioner Caron pointed out. The archeological consultant did say that trench I-A that was shown on the map that Heidi presented to you did contain some significant artifacts, and they wanted to ensure that if the project did develop over that portion of the site that at least these artifacts that Page 124 June 18, 2009 were recovered were cataloged and their historical significance documented, if nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it your understanding that there will be no structures in that area? MR. MOSS: Well, it looks from the site plan that there will be some development occurring over that portion of the site. And that's why I wanted to make sure that at least if they do dig in that area that the artifacts that they find are preserved and documented. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that was my point, too. And the only commitment I heard from Heidi was that no piping would go into the midden, but not that no structures would be built over that site. And I'm not sure that's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to follow up on that, I think that's more of the reason why we ought to leave one and two -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- both in the first one. Number one refers to the development of the subject property. Number two refers to the site development plan. Those are two different processes and two different steps. Oevelopment of property occurs when a conceptual planning occurs, like as what's happening here today and through the other processes of the county. A site development plan is much more specific and detailed. So I think they ought to have the ability to review both as they come through, and I would rather it stay that way. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not in favor of changing number one at all. Ooes anybody else have any comments or questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, John, on the buffer Page 125 June 18, 2009 system, what do the residents really want there? Because essentially the buffer is to prevent a view onto an adjoining property, yet that's their view to their water. MR. MOSS: Right. And that's where they're proposing all of these variances, for the buffers that aren't installed in the normal linear fashion. All of these buffers will be clustered together so that there will be views between them. And it will be a porous buffer, so that views of the bay will be preserved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the one with the wall, what are we trying to achieve with that? MR. MOSS: Oh, the one with the wall, the LOC does require that there's a double hedge row between a nonresidential and residential use in this buffer. And they just sort of wanted to waive that requirement for the double hedge row, and staff didn't feel comfortable doing that without any sort of compensation. So the compromise we reached was an alternative landscape buffer that is in the LDC which allows you to plant the double hedge row at a shorter size than that which is normally required by the LDC. So that was sort of the compromise that we reached, or what we felt was a reasonable compromise. The residents of the homes would still be able to see over the shrubs, and yet the double hedge row of shrubs would still be installed. So it would meet the intent of the code and meet the objective of the adjacent residents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't think the code, the buffers -- under the situation there would be a slight sliver of land and then a beautiful view on the other side of it. I mean, these are the same buffers that would look into the back of a commercial property. MR. MOSS: I'm afraid I don't understand your question or your comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when we came up with the buffer requirements, I'm sure the intent wasn't that it was a small Page 126 June 18, 2009 sliver of land and then water on the other side of that, a beautiful view MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it would be the back of a shopping center or something. MR. MOSS: Right, it was to shield the impact of the development going in from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. However, because this development actually has gorgeous views of the bay, we wanted to make sure that those views could still be preserved, which is what the neighbors wanted, but yet the intent of the code to hide the -- maybe some of the negative aspects of the development from the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did the neighbors ever want nothing? MR. MOSS: In terms of vegetative screening, no, it's not my understanding. What I heard at the NIM was that they were in favor of waiving the wall requirement, that they didn't want the playground to be walled in. But they seemed keen on having landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Low hedge so that they wouldn't see people walking, maybe. Who's going to maintain the 30 inches? Whose job is that? MR. MOSS: That would be the property owners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The hedges are on your property, though. So it's their job to come over onto your property and trim the hedge? MR. MOSS: Oh, the hedges would be on the property of the park. The park's property. It does go beyond that wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. When you said the property owner, you meant the parks. MR. MOSS: I do mean the Parks Department, right, the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Page 127 June 18, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, the suggestion on that one, Brad, was that they seek to -- they go to the property owners that this is involving, Section J -J. If the property owner says we don't care to have that hedge there, then we would take seven out. So it doesn't necessarily be there (sic). But I know if I didn't owned that and I wanted to see over it but I didn't want to see all the -- anybody milling around down below and people walking around that dock, I may want to think a hedge is a good thing. So let them have the option at least. So that's kind of where it was going. J.D., I have one other question, and that is involving something Heidi said in the beginning. She said they were seeking a rezone in regards to the LDC and the overlay applications in this area. I guess that's where my question lies. If we approve the rezone here and there's some area of the rezone that's silent, does it fall back on the overlay standards or on the LDC standards? MR. MOSS: Well, if this property is rezoned to the P district, it would just remove the underlying zoning, which is RSF -4 and village residential. It would not get rid of the Goodland zoning overlay. That doesn't go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the overlay would stay intact? MR. MOSS: The overlay would stay in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where silent. Okay, good. Okay, if there's no other questions of staff, any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no public speakers. Did you have any protest or comment you want to make before we close? MS. WILLIAMS: If I could clarify just a couple of things. Page 128 June 18, 2009 The question about the midden area and the impacts to that area, there will be sidewalks in that area. And I've just been told that those are about a four to six-inch impact to the area. So if a sidewalk does come through there, it should not disturb any artifacts. But obviously if anything is found, it would be dealt with as required. Going back to the double hedge row, it is our intention to put every plant that would be required by the Land Oevelopment Code buffer standards on the property. And I think that may have been not clear with what John-David was saying, that we're not asking for a waiver from the plant requirement, the plants will go somewhere. But we don't feel that that is a location on the property that can be maintained easily, and necessarily those plants wouldn't survive. It has been stressed repeatedly that the Goodland residents, and maybe not this particular resident, but we have heard over and over again that they want to be able to see the water and see into the park. And we don't want to compromise that. We've heard that this area is not like the rest of the county. A linear buffer that has the hedge row in a straight line is not necessarily appropriate. And that's why we've tried to tailor everything to what they've requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right, it should be real easy. Then they get an acknowledgment from the property owner they don't have an objections in removal of that hedge. MS. WILLIAMS: We'll certainly pursue that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. The first one will be on the rezone petition -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then the variance. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. The Page 129 June 18, 2009 subject is RZ-2008-AR-13967, Mar-Good Arbor Park, and its companion, V A-2008-AR-13671. And I would recommend approval subject to the stipulations and the information that has been introduced today in testimony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go further, Mr. Klatzkow, do we have to make motions separately on each one of these? This is -- he made a combined motion. I want to make sure that that's okay. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the better practice is a separate motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Treat it as separate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And he read them both. So let's rephrase that for just Item D, and then we'll come back, Mr. Murray, and do Item E. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine, I could just simply delete the companion to the statement I just made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's fine. Okay, so the motion -- is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion's been made for that petition, Item 9.0, for approval with staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's what I was just going to say, with staff's recommendations, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that your understanding, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I made that comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 130 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Murray, do you want to make the next one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would do that. And this is a recommendation of approval for V A-2008-AR-13671 to the Board of County Commissioners, recommendation of approval subject to whatever stipulations and/or staff recommendations that have been made and testimony herewith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For discussion, is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mrs. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would just add that we've given the petitioner the petitioner the option to go back and get a signed letter from the property owner to effect number seven in the staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If the petitioner comes back with the property owner's acknowledgment's that they prefer not to have the double hedge row planted there, then number seven goes away. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman, is there a deadline on getting that letter in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before they would have to -- I imagine before the BCC meeting. Otherwise they couldn't get a stipulation -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about before consent? MR. KLATZKOW: Or before consent would even be better. Page 131 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine, if they can do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be able to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's just say by consent then. That's fine. Does that work for the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a comment on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number seven is, at least to my understanding, not the one I was referring to. It's actually Section J-J is the one that goes through the high wall. Seven is G-G, which is some buffers that are between single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the concern I had was that area that looked over the bay over that raised wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get on the same page first, though. Number seven of the conditions of approval says -- revolves (sic) item Exhibit J-J. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine says -- maybe I have -- mine says G-G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what-- COMMISSIONER CARON: G-G is number three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not on mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You turn to the very last page of the variance, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm looking at the original. Maybe it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn to the back page, it should be on the back page, the very last page of the variance application. Not the -- the back of the last page. Page 132 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right after the resolution, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, keep going. Keep going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, as long as it's J-J, that's all it has to be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Keep going. MS. WILLIAMS: I think I could clear up the confusion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep going. MS. WILLIAMS: I think you're looking at, Mr. Schiffer, Page 7 of 11 that have each of the buffers like this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. WILLIAMS: And when I said number seven, I meant staff condition seven, which refers to J-J. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. Go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Any 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 MIONEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Page 133 June 18, 2009 And we will see you all on consent. Thank you. Item #9 A (Continued from earlier in the meeting) COLLIER COUNTY SIGN CODE REVISIONS Okay, with that ending of our regular public hearings, we're going to be moving into what we continued from earlier, and that's Item 9.A, the Collier County Sign Code revisions. So we need to switch books. In that particular document we were working from a -- the actual text language that had been presented for review and corrections. They were Pages 1 through 34. And we left off on Section 12 through 16. I think Mr. Schiffer had some questions on Page 13 or something like that, and so why don't we just pick up where we left off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we were on Page 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it was 12 to 16 that we -- that grouping of pages. So let's just double-check on those. Does anybody have any further questions on Pages 12 through 16? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One thing I'd like to call to their attention, what I perceive is a boo-boo. On FII, if you'll look at the sentence structure, I think you'll realize that you have to modify it slightly. I'm not talking about the content that we've already established, context, but just the sentence structure. MS. ISTENES: I understand, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a very minor item. And that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else-- Page 134 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, it's on E, which is signs located in windows. Is there a distance back a sign has to be? In other jurisdictions they do establish a district (sic). And here's the reason why, is that if you could look through a store and see essentially the wall on the other side of the room, you might start considering that's a sign in the window. So is there a distance that a sign would have to be, or you think it's only if it's actually on the back side of the window? MS. ISTENES: There's no distance. And if it's visible from the window, whether it's attached or not, in my opinion it's a window sign. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So when I walk by a Nike store and I see the big posters on the back wall of the store, those are considered signs? MS. ISTENES: Is it projecting out of the window? I mean, the intent is to look at it through the window versus in the store. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then maybe the definition is that between that sign and the window there's nothing? Or something -- in other words, there are communities that have three feet. So anything within three feet of the window, if it's a sign is a sign. If it's four feet it's not a sign in the window. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, our code doesn't address that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So what does that mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that means that this review is for freedom of speech issues only. And if we want to substantially change the code or substantive issues like that that are not part of freedom of speech changes that were already incorporated, it's something we have to look at it when we come back with a sign code revision later on. Page 135 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I mean, I'm just trying to clarify what you -- so if it's on a wall 20 feet behind, that is good or bad? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what she's saying, the code doesn't currently address that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Does not address it. Thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe that is something that ought to be addressed. Because if we walk by a store and see a light in the back of the store that shines on the sign, that isn't what we might think as a window sign so we wouldn't want it to be classified as that. So that's a good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing, Mark, is, I mean, the format of this isn't in legislative form. So essentially this whole code is up for review right now. I mean, I know the reason we're thrown it every here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can ask the county attorney how far we can go then. I'm -- whatever he says is the way we're going to go. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think we're -- primary purpose here is to get the code compliant, legally compliant. The issues that have always been in the code that are non-constitutional will remain in the code, and I think that they should be addressed but not in this forum. I mean, I agree with a lot of things that Brad's been saying, but it's really not pertinent to the primary issue at hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think relative to that, too, the vetting of these changes was done under the constitutional format. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what we look-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Equally so with the sign companies. And, you know, if we were to come back in and want to rewrite the code in a more thorough manner, it would be good to have a -- what do they call those -- a stakeholder's board, including architects Page 136 June 18, 2009 and sign people involved in it, so when it got to us, it would be more refined. MR. KLATZKOW: And quite frankly, when you send this to the Board of County Commissioners with your recommendation, you conclude in your recommendation, if you so wish, that they have a global review of the entire sign code, for issues such as Mr. Schiffer's been raising. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I know it's for the rights of people, but it's also the rights of the store owner to know where he can put a sign and where he can't. But if that's not a constitutional issue, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Pages 17 through 20. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have issues, but you can just abort them if you don't think they're appropriate. In commercial buildings, I thought there was federal laws that always allowed you to have three flag poles, essentially one -- the highest one -- MS. ISTENES: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 17, eight, flags and flag poles. We're going to limit -- no, wait a minute, hold on. It does say down below the three -- okay, B covers my question, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else through Page 20? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on through Pages 20 through 24. Page 137 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Susan, on Page 21, item five where we talk about description or representation, sometimes the federal government or other governments might want to put out a public service announcement that deals with particular subjects. Could this have a chilling effect on doing that, or would that create a problem for us? MS. ISTENES: You're talking about number five? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. MS. ISTENES: Jeff? Where's Jeff Wright? Would you-- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if the U.S. Government's putting out a poster of some nature, it would be hard to argue that is patently offensive to contemporary standards. I think that's what you're getting at? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, what I was getting at was the first statement, any description or representation in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement -- MR. KLATZKOW: When it is patently-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not if concerned with -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- patently offensive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- nudity, I'm not concerned sexual excitement. I was concerned with sexual conduct. MR. KLA TZKOW: But it has to be patently offensive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's the subcategory -- or that's the sub -- the context. Let me just read that again, because I did note that. Because my next question there was who judges that? And that's -- of course I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but I did make a comment to myself here, because there's statements like taken as a whole. Who makes the judgment on these things? And I'm not-- make it clear to everybody, I'm not looking for sexually exciting signs Page 138 June 18, 2009 to be allowed, but I am trying to understand so that we don't have to come back with this or somebody else take a swipe at it. Who all judges? Is it you that -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, I'm authorized. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I trust you. You're okay. I'm good then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Susan, it's you that judges it until someone disagrees with you. Then it goes through various levels of appeal. So ultimately the local people will judge it through the juries add court. MR. KLA TZKOW: At the end of the day, a jury will determine -- a local will determine whether they believe it is patently offensive. But if it's the U.S. Government putting out a poster, you're going to be hard pressed to get to a jury . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but most of what they put out is patently offensive, regardless of whether this is the nature of it or not. But anyway -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just -- without going any further, I just wanted you to realize that I thought it was important to qualify it, even though I knew it was going to get a lot of laughs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need the lightening up for the day, so that works. We're still up to Page 24. Does anybody have any other questions up through Page 24? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is Pages 25 through 28. There were no changes on those pages, so I'm not sure we have much on those. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 29 through 32. All red ink. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. Page 139 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under 0, which is at the top of the page, Susan. Just out of curiosity more than anything else, we ascribe six months from the issuance of the temporary permit. And I wondered, was there -- I mean, I suppose it's a reasonable period. It seems a rather long period. I guess you're erring on the side of not getting into an argument on the issue? MS. ISTENES: Let me make sure I understand. So we're talking about a temporary -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Coming soon. MS. ISTENES: -- use permit for coming soon signs located within nonresidential districts. And then we have a list of four requirements here. And that is current code language. And right now it is currently for six months. And your concern is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not necessarily a concern, more out of curiosity. It seemed -- I guess maybe it's a concern. It seemed like a rather lengthy period of time, six months, for a coming soon. Now, it may not be in real terms, and I'm not the best judge of that, but I was curious. I know that we talk about -- and I'll try to parallel it for you where my mind was on it. We talk about those who are going out of business. And we now say, you know, because these are sometimes manipulative we put a limitation on them. And in my thinking process it was the pro and the con on that. Six months for coming soon may be appropriate here, but I was just curious what basis that was. MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure I can answer that at this point. I can research it a little bit and talk with you off-line, because it's not necessarily a constitutional issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a big deal. It's really not a big deal to me because it's only going to affect those who are trying to have a business to come soon. I appreciate that. That was all. Page 140 June 18, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on Pages -- through 32? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- Susan, is there anything in here on the temporary signs that they have to be taken down during a hurricane watch? MS. ISTENES: No, not currently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we? MS. ISTENES: We could add it to the list for the next round, if you want. Whenever that may be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would violate my constitutional rights if one went through my window in a hurricane, so -- but that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it your freedom of speech rights or your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't want to read that guy's sign in my living room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions then through Page 32? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll finish up through Page 34. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 14.D, all barber poles that are illuminated, whether or not they rotate, shall -- I thought require as opposed to obtain a building permit. I'm not sure I understood with clarity shall obtain a building permit relative to when you look at the upper -- the section where it describes it. May be permitted. Now, if we're using the word permitted there, that -- I assumed it was in the context of requiring a permit, not as the word allowed. MS. ISTENES: I would read that in the context of allowed. Page 141 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's the opposite of the way we thought about something else this morning. Okay . Well then it's moot for me, I don't really care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll try. Susan, what would keep somebody -- well, let me put it this way: In our code if one area of the code is silent on something but one area of the code is specific, in this case, the barber pole. So nobody would be able to misinterpret that to be an animated activated sign? Because it definitely meets the definition of sign in terms of what it is that's happening to draw attention to a logo. So -- but it's not specific as a prohibitive sign, so therefore since it is allowed in the architectural standards there'd be no question that it's an allowable sign. MS. ISTENES: Well, remember our discussion last time we us talked about -- and I think we all agreed, that was my perception, that we were basically -- didn't believe that a barber pole was considered a sign. And that's why we agreed we were going to just go ahead and take it out of the sign code altogether, but that we -- and our consultant of course had issues with it because of free speech and other, you know, similar issues we were dealing with. And he also didn't have concern over us relocating it to architectural and us basically absolving it of any relationship to the sign code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And nobody in the future could make a mistake and call it an activated sign? MS. ISTENES: Not as long as I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Job security. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like that. Okay, we're through the revisions through Page 34. Are there Page 142 June 18, 2009 any other questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I would imagine you're going to be looking for a motion to send this to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval, subject to the changes and corrections that we made. MS. ISTENES: That would be wonderful. We're planning on taking it in front of the board in their July meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that -- MS. ISTENES: So we're moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray just made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MS. ISTENES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. Been enlightening and Page 143 June 18, 2009 fun. The next time you come back, when you have to come back for a sign revision, maybe it would be one of those meetings where just Brad's here. Because he'll have better detail than anybody on it, so -- Old business. There's none listed. New business. There's none listed. Public comment? I guess I can step down for being a public. I just want to think the staff and especially Cherie' and Kady for all your time today, and minutes and records. So with that, we will look for adjournment. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's the Board's Minutes and Records is the correct name, not the board of, but the Board's Minutes and Records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm talking about the girls that work up there, though. Or the guys, girls, whoever works up there. I've got to be careful. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're discussing the exact name of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, you're right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's the Board's Minutes and Records Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? So moved. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 144 June 18, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're out of here. Thank you all very much. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :52 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 Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 145