Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/02/2009 R July 2, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 2, 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 (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDA Y, JULY 2, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MA TERIALS 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 APPROPRlA 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 PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 2, 2009, SIGN CODE ORDINANCE AND JUNE 4, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JUNE 23, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: Petition: CU-2009-AR-14137. St. 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 2.03.01.B.l.C., in the Estates Zoning District. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: LDC 2.03.01.B.l.C.3, to allow a child care center; and 2.03.01.B.l.C.4, 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) 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 10-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) 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 7/2/09 cepe AgendaIRay Bellows/cr 2 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the July 2nd meeting the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 July 2, 2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any addenda to the agenda? We have one consent and one regular hearing today. Anybody have anything? (No response.) Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I'd like to remind -- oh, the next one is Planning Commission absences, so I'll remind everybody, we have -- our next meeting is a regular meeting on July 16th. And then we have a meeting scheduled on July 27th. And Ray, I'm assuming it's still on? And that one is at 5:05 in this room on the 27th, which is a Monday. And it's for the flood ordinance. I still have it on my calendar. Is that still correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is. I was thinking we were going to make a change, as I discussed earlier with Mr. Murray, but that is not the fact -- the case. The meeting still will be on the 27th at 5:05 for the flood water issue. And we still have one petition on the 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on the 27th, that particular meeting, is that -- there are two issues in the flood ordinance: There's FEMA regulations that we were talking about which involves the heights and stem walls and things like that. And there was another one that involved the HOA's maintaining systems. I understand that we've separated those two. And the one coming up on the 27th is not the one involving the HOA's; is that correct? Page 3 July 2, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and on the 16th, that one item that we have, is it something that cannot be put off until the first meeting in August? MR. BELLOWS: It's a boat dock, and I'd have to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, to have all of us come in, especially some of us from distances for one hearing, if it's not that pertinent, we might combine them up and save the room time and everybody's time for setting up and doing things. Has it been advertised? MS. CASERTA: I'm pretty sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to be on the record just so -- okay, if it's been advertised, then I guess we've got to leave it. In the future, though, if we get down to one, it might be more efficient if we tried to schedule them and collect them all together. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And that was the direction of the Planning Commission I believe a year ago, and we've been trying to. And unfortunately when there are more items on an agenda and then all of a sudden three of them get continued and we get one left, I think that's what happened on one of these. We'll do better when we do get a lot of continuances to see what's left and try to reschedule the last remaInIng one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the time you do your advertising, that's usually when you'll know, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So maybe at that point if you've only got one to advertise, we could not advertise and just hold off until the -- at the time when everything is costing everybody so much, the -- MR. BELLOWS: There are instances -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --less activity we have here, the better. Page 4 July 2, 2009 MR. BELLOWS: -- where there are continuances after the advertising and they have five weeks to hold that meeting without re- advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, question. Do you usually advertise more than two weeks out? MR. BELLOWS: It has to be at least 15 days. And sometimes we try to -- you don't want to cut it to the last second, so we try to get it done a little bit earlier than the 15-day limit. MR. SCHMITT: We also have a lead time. We provide the ad and the backup material to the Clerk's Office so they can get it to the Naples Daily News. So there -- sometimes it's almost 20 days in advance by the time everything is packaged and sent. COMMISSIONER CARON: Usually they've been running pretty -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- close to that 15-day period, that's why I was asking. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we try to-- MR. SCHMITT: Is this a 10-day ad or-- MR. BELLOWS: I believe these are all 15 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, just something we can try to do better in the future. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 2, 2009 SPECIAL MEETING; JUNE 4,2009 CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT OF RECORD With that, we'll move to approval of minutes. And we have two sections. One is for minutes of June 2nd, 2009. Is there a motion to Page 5 July 2, 2009 approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, thank you. Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The next one is the minutes for the sign code ordinance on June 4th -- or actually, the sign code ordinance and June 4th is the way it's read. Anybody -- motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're the only one who can do that, because you were the only one here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the day? Oh, well, I make a motion and I second it and I approve my minutes. If that's the day, that takes care of that. Are we sure that is the day? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, it is. I'm looking at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the sign code ordinance and June 4th. Let's just do them separately then. Page 6 July 2, 2009 The sign code ordinance, the minutes for those, is there a motion to approve those? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what you just approved, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's two of them. There's June 4th, which is the one that you're referring to, and I lumped them together. I should separate them out. So there's a motion to approve by Mr. Vigliotti for the sign code ordinance minutes. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. As far as the June 4th minutes go, nobody else was here but me. And I like the way they're written. They're fine. You did a great job, Cherie'. That was a difficult day, wasn't it? Item #6 Page 7 July 2, 2009 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JUNE 23, 2009, REGULAR MEETING Okay, BCC report. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners heard the variance for the Red Roof Inn. That was heard on the regular agenda. And the board approved it 5-1, subject to staff stipulations, which included the two wall variances on the building, but denial of the pole sign variance. And the two other items, the Avow Hospice PUD rezone and the variance for the boat dock was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Chairman's Report. We don't really have any today. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2009-AR-14137, ST. MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC. So we'll go right into consent agenda item. And it's Petition CU-2009-AR-14137, St. Monica's Episcopal Church. That was the item we heard last time. We gave instructions to the applicant, they submitted new paperwork. Does anybody have any comments on the paperwork that was submitted? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I remember we talked about this, and it was about item number one of the seven items, that no parking would be allowed along Autumn Oaks Lane for pickup and drop-off. And I remember we talked about monitoring that, and that I believe it said we were just going to rely on people calling in, if there was a problem with that. I just don't know if it's going to get into a swale monitor or if anybody on the road's even going to know any difference, since that's Page 8 July 2, 2009 the way it's being done now. That was my concern when I went through that, and I don't remember what we came up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember any more than us bringing up as an issue and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acknowledging that it would have to be self-monitored. And I don't know of anything -- we can't go back and change what we already did. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, I just was trying for my own clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to reflect all I remember of it. Heidi, I notice you're here, so do you have any -- MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. For the record, Heidi Williams, Senior Planner with Grady Minor. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you like me to swear her in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. You'll have to swear in, since you are speaking. Thank you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WILLIAMS: We actually held our pre-application meeting yesterday for the site development plan. And Mr. Strain, I believe you're correct that we -- we were -- you know, your motion does speak about no parking being permitted on Autumn Oaks Lane. What staff has suggested is that our site plan provide for signs that say no parking on that location, so that it's very clearly noticed to everyone in the neighborhood. And we are considering that with our client. And we don't have a firm response on that, but that is the staffs suggestion, that we actually place signs in that location. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Who's going to pay for those signs? MS. WILLIAMS: I assume that would be the applicant. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You assume it's the applicant. Page 9 July 2, 2009 What happens when normal bus pickup for children that live on that road that get bussed to other schools, are they not going to be allowed to park there and wait for their children? MS. WILLIAMS: I haven't looked into the location of the actual school bus pickup and drop-off. And I don't think that when they stop to pick up kids that's considered parking. They don't turn the car off. It's not being -- kids get on, they leave. I think if you're not at that bus stop, they leave without you. So I don't see them sitting there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I just looked at it as the same thing. One's a -- it's just two different schools. Not that it's a big deal, it's just that I'm wondering if we're not being right to the people who live on the street. So that was my issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any concerns with the St. Monica's consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray, motion made by Ms. Caron. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 10 July 2, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14192, MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. The next petition is our regular hearing petition, PD-2009-AR-14892. It's the Monte Carlo Club Condominium Association, Inc. Lots one and two, Block B, Baker-Carroll Point. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? And before we do that, I'd just like to get advice from the County Attorney. Are the disclosures needed for the rehearing of this now and that occurred since the last time it was heard, or do we have to go all the way back from prior to the last time it was heard? MR. KLATZKOW: You already disclosed the prior one, so it's just between then and now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, disclosures? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I've spoken to the petitioner's agent, Mr. Y ovanovich, and I've spoken to Mr. Burkhard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding his petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I had a brief conversation Page 11 July 2, 2009 with Mr. Yovanovichjust this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And mine was quite brief with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did too. And whatever we brought up will be brought up again for discussion today. So with that in mind, we'll move into the hearing then -- or the presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, my name is Rich Y ovanovich, and I'm representing the applicant in this matter. I have Rocky Scofield and Quin Kurth, both of Turrell, Hall and Associates, here to answer any questions you may have regarding this petition. Most of you -- I think all of you except for Ms. Homiak have heard this petition in the past. The original request was for a boat dock extension for a total extension in the waterway of 35 feet. That request was basically for an extension of 15 feet over the 20 feet that's allowed under the code. We have submitted a new request, and that request is for a total extension of30 feet into the waterway, which is a 10-foot boat dock extension request. That is consistent with the 14 existing boat slips at the property. They extend a total of 30 feet out into the waterway from the seawall. When those docks were permitted, the code measured the extension from the property line. Those were permitted in 1988. The code was changed I believe in 1991 to require that you use the more restrictive of the property line, or the seawall in this particular case. Thus these new docks would require an extension because the 20 feet would be measured from the seawall, versus the property line. So that is what our request is. It's a 54-unit condominium. We're Page 12 July 2, 2009 asking for a total of 34 boat docks, 20 of which are new, 14 of which are existing. That is consistent with your criteria that there be one dock per multi-family slip -- multi-family unit. We have, since submitting the petition, met with representatives of the Vanderbilt Association up in that area. Mr. Burkhard is here. I believe that the association is not in opposition to the current request of the total extension of 30 feet. I could go into a much more detailed presentation, if you need me to, but your staff report in the backup information is all before you and you've heard most of this before. Rocky can answer any questions you have regarding specifics of the petition, if you need to. But with that, we're requesting that the Planning Commission approve the boat dock extension. Your staff is again recommending approval. And again, we believe that the documentation submitted supports that the criteria required to be evaluated for a boat dock extension have been satisfied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of the applicant? Anybody? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to go to the secondary criteria. And if you look at the very first one, it says whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subj ect property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facilities. So you need to -- in order to request an extension, you need to have some sort of special condition. And it suggests that you might have a particular shoreline configuration. And I would relate that to the boat dock extension we did for the Wafapoor (phonetic) dock. That was a very specific shoreline issue. Or if there are mangroves or sea grass beds that you must avoid. The criterion answer here says that because there's a seawall and you've designed something to be perpendicular, you're using that as a Page 13 July 2, 2009 special condition. And I don't understand. There's nothing special -- there's nothing requiring a boat dock extension based on that criteria. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's also the fact that in this particular case the seawall is 10 feet into the property versus onto the property line itself. And also the change in the code that occurred since the project was originally started with the 14 original docks and now the subsequent docks. So those are also, I would consider, special conditions applicable to this particular project that are not related to water depth. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that that's what it should say. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because right now this is not -- I could say to you it doesn't really matter, because A, you've got a dredge permit, so the seawall is not affecting you. B, you could put the docks parallel. You wouldn't be able to get as many, but you certainly could do that and then you wouldn't need extensions either. So I just want -- if everybody's going to make a big issue on the criteria and how the criteria gets used, then we need to start being specific about really what the special condition is. And this is just -- this isn't that. At any rate, beyond that, I would just like to say that I thank Mr. Burkhard and Mr. Y ovanovich for getting together on this situation. I appreciate the fact they managed to come to an agreement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do we -- I looked at some stuff regarding the criterion. Do we know the linear property length along the waterway there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 712 feet. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 712. And how much will the -- and how much will the -- once the Page 14 July 2, 2009 boat docks are in, how many lineal feet will that take up of that property line, of the 712 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing Monte Carlo. If you look at the aerial there, there's a 25-foot setback on the south end. And on the north end we have 32 minus the eight. It's more than the 15 feet there on the north end. So the setbacks, if you take off the 25 feet and you have another 15, it's 40 feet off of the 712. You're around 370 -- excuse me, 670 feet -- or less than -- it's probably less than that, because there's more on the north end also. Is there a reason for that, I mean, your question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, there is. And I'm questioning criterion number three of the second criteria where it discusses single-family. MR. SCOFIELD: It's not applicable. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand that. And this is a multi-family. And why we are judging a multi-family with a single- family criterion is to me not applicable. And it should be multi - family. I mean, all of a sudden it takes up the entire -- except for the setbacks, it takes up the entire length of the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, we really need to stick to what the laws in the code say are -- this isn't applicable. I mean I know you may want to think -- you may wish it wasn't, but the point is, it is. We've got to read it as it applies. It doesn't apply so, I mean, I guess we could philosophize about how we'd like to change the code, but I don't think that's a problem for the applicants at this meeting. Is that where you're trying to go? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was reading over the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can recommend a code change if they want to. But we can't impose that on this applicant. Page 15 July 2, 2009 This isn't the forum for it either, really. Ifwe have a condition in the code that we don't like, then the Board of County Commissioners, upon a recommendation, can ask staff to change it. So that's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And what I was next going to say is I just wanted for the record that I think that that ought to be changed in the future and that ought to be looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: You can make a motion. MR. SCHMITT: And the Planning Commission has the authority to make recommendations for changes if there's a consensus. MR. KLATZKOW: You can make a motion, sir. And if you get this board -- enough commissioners to hear it, the recommendation will go forward. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, then I recommend that if we're speaking of multi-unit -- multi-family dwelling units that we ought to have a law that -- or ought to have a ruling here on the criterion that addresses that, and not discussing single-family criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under the new subjects or old subject, if you want to add a discussion of this to today's meeting, you're more than welcome to. I think we ought to separate it out from this particular discussion though, and finish up with this hearing first before we get into a new subj ect. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Al-righty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we come up for new or old business, David, if you want to add it, feel free and we can discuss it. Is there anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I have one concept I want to understand. The docks that already exist go out 30 or 32 feet from the seawall. The seawall in that location is set 10 feet back in from the property line, as is the seawall on this entire project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Page 16 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know at the time this project was designed if it was intended to be set back 10 feet to -- because at that time the distance of a dock was measured from the property line. So that would have given them 30-foot docks by design and still not exceeded or needed more or less an exception to the boat dock length because at the time they would have been consistent out to 20 feet. Even out 20 feet to the property line, even though they would have had a 30- foot dock. I'm just curious, did someone think that far ahead and then the rules changed afterwards? MR. SCOFIELD: I don't believe so. I go through a lot of these things. And when communities were platted, platted -- you know, when they started dredging these communities all over Naples, and I see this all the time, the shorelines don't necessarily follow the plats. Because once they get in there, they dredge it, they put a seawall in, and it may be within 10 feet of that property line. Could be out further, could be in further. I see it all the time. And I think that's just a result of the contractor's dredging and putting in a wall that's not actually surveyed and connected to the actual plat. And that's how that happens. It goes both ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this property seemed to be unique in the way it was laid out. I didn't know if that was a forth -- understood planning concept they did at the time based on the law at the time and the law changed and now that concept doesn't apply as equally as it did in the past. I was just curious. Okay, that's the only question I had. Anybody else have any others? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just based on a comment you made. It is my understanding that the existing docks are just 30 feet, not 32 feet -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, they're out -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is that correct? Page 1 7 July 2, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: The dock is out 30 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: From the seawall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: From the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, we'll hear from the staff at this point. MS. CASERTA: Good morning, Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As you're aware, we've seen this request before as AR -9061. And today we are here with a similar request that is five feet less of an extension, so a protrusion of 30 feet into the water. I've received three letters and I e-mailed them and I brought a couple copies, if anybody needs one. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I only recall receiving one of those letters. There were three? MS. CASERTA: There's three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, when you talk, you've got to be on the record, so -- MS. CASERTA: Yes, three letters. I sent them out as one attachment earlier this week, I believe. Staff review indicates that the request meets all of the applicable criteria, both primary and secondary, and a recommendation to approve is included in the staff report. And that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ashley, is this site within the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay? MS. CASERTA: Yes, I believe it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this facility a marina? MS. CASERTA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would this facility be Page 18 July 2, 2009 considered a marina? And the reason I'm asking is, in the overlay marinas are conditional uses. In the overlay it refers you to 505.2 which states that anything over 10 slips is a marina. MS. CASERTA: Is that per the Manatee Protection Code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it will get into there, but MS. CASERTA: This is a residential zoning end use. Now, as far as the Manatee Protection Plan, it might be, but I'm not familiar with that. But as for the code, it is multi-family residential. There's no commercial use at all on the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the definition of marina in our code doesn't require it to be commercial. And the section on marinas just states it's applicable to all -- MS. CASERTA: I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm having a hard time hearing you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The definition of marina doesn't state that it has to be commercial. In the marina section of the code that's referenced by the overlay, it states that it's applicable to any multi-slip docking facility with 10 slips or more and all marina facilities, under the title of marina. So just -- Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. The Land Development Code specifically says under the commercial zoning districts, commercial marinas. Residential-- multi-family residential zoning districts are allowed boat docks as accessory uses, and that's how this petition is being applied as, not as a commercial marina. Their definition may not clearly define that difference, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the overlay, it states as a conditional use marinas as per 505.02. And 505.02 does bring in multi-slip facilities -- MR. SCHMITT: No. Page 19 July 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then commercial. MR. SCHMITT: Not applicable. It's not a marina. Marina clearly states there has to be a ship store, another activity associated with commercial operation. This is a multi-dock facility but it is not a marina, as per the definition of the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The definition of marina in the LDC says it can have one or combinations of the above, one of which is just, you know, dock slips. So there's nothing in the definition of marina that states it has to be a commercial. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we differ on application of the code and I guess if that's your opinion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. Obviously you're saying no, it does not have to meet the conditional use. Actually, running down some of the criteria, in the application they really don't state the length, type and draft. They state the length as 30 feet, but the type and draft of the boat. So when you gave them that approval, how did you know that the boats wouldn't fit after they dredge it? In other words, they're intending to go in, dredge out the area. So essentially they would be able to I assume moor the boat that they're defining, other than the length, correct? MS. CASERTA: Is there a specific criteria you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two of the primary. MS. CASERTA: Again, on this one, that is described in the petitioner's application, so really we rely on the professionals, the petitioners, to provide that information to us and describe it in their application. I'm not a biologist or someone that is going to understand these depths and drafts. That's not my training. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the intent of two is that if the water area is so shallow, then they obviously need to extend the dock to get to deeper water. MS. CASERTA: Sure. Page 20 July 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, in this case, since all they're describing is a length that they want, they're not discussing the draft or anything, they are discussing the fact that they're going to dredge out, which essentially would give them the depth they need. So should we not -- you know, I mean, I'm not sure the criteria is met here, because they're going to achieve the water depth by dredging. I mean, I think-- MR. KURTH: Good morning. For the record, Quin Kurth of Turrell, Hall and Associates. To answer your question, we're requesting a total protrusion of 30 feet, meaning we can keep a boat 27,28 feet long overall. With that, a maximum draft of two, two and a half feet would be attained. In addition to that, our state permit requires a one-foot clearance between the bottom of the vessel and total depth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will after you do the dredging is the water too narrow to put a boat of -- MR. KURTH: We're dredging to minus four mean-low water. Minus four feet mean-low water. Meaning that mean-average low tide you have four feet of water with a 28- foot boat drafting two feet, you still have plenty of clearance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The criteria states that all you have to do is be able to moor the boat. I mean, I know you want to get underneath it. But -- what is the dimension you need to moor the boat? MR. KURTH: The dimension? The draft? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At that low tide. MR. KURTH: At that low tide? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. KURTH: I mean, I can't specially give you a depth. Because, you know, whether it's a 16-foot boat or a 28-foot boat, they have a draft I would say between say 10 inches and -- 30 inches? MR. SCOFIELD: Excuse me, Rocky Scofield for the record. Also, Mr. Schiffer, they -- you know, we're also putting in Page 21 July 2, 2009 boatlifts. Boatlifts require about 18 inches. There may be some tides that they can't get it on, but a lot of times the dredging -- you know, that's why we also dredge, so we can get these lifts down and try to get the boats on at any tide. And we need 18 inches beneath the boat to lower that lift and the cradle beams so it doesn't lay on the bottom. So that's another reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, my problem is that we're forced to stay on the black ink of the criteria. And it doesn't state that we have to give you the room to put it on a boatlift. It says you have to be able to moor it. We could stretch -- it does say you have to be able to launch it, so I could see you may hang on the argument that if you have it on a boatlift and the water's too shallow you can't launch it, so MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me move on with Ashley then. I also had that question Donna has on number one. What is the special condition here other than the depth of water that exists? The seawall can't be it. Everybody in that neighborhood has seawalls. MS. CASERTA: True. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Going perpendicular can't be it, because you can go 20 feet perpendicular. MS. CASERTA: Right. In my opinion it was because of the existing docks and they were just staying in consistency with the existing docks, doing the same things that the docks that were already there, and just extending them along their seawall. And I think that is a special condition, since they are existing there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the other docks are lonely. Number three, it's not a criteria that's applicable, so I guess we assume we're met. If it's not applicable, does that mean we meet the criteria or ignore the criteria? Remember, we're counting criteria here. Page 22 '--"',..,..--.,.. -.-."_.~.~-.-,...,..~,..",,._..,~,,__.. 1."1' r____~._....,",w.,.....,.~,,..,.......""..,' ',"~.,. 'C.<''''..''__" July 2, 2009 MS. CASERTA: Yes. In my opinion, since there are six secondary criteria, we would just eliminate that one altogether and not count it as not counting or counting. It would just be a moot point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And in number six, the manatee protection, there's no real backup showing that this went through. In the manatee protection, there's different status of boat dock locations, preferred, moderate and everything. Do you recall how this thing came about, where this came out? It isn't a manatee zone that requires idle speed throughout that whole area. MS. CASERTA: I have had correspondence with Susan Mason from the environmental department, and I think she may be prepared to speak. And I've brought a copy of the site development plan insubstantial change that has that information on it. You want me to get that? MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. The Manatee Protection Plan review was actually performed substantially under the SDPI that Ashley just referred to. And their site, I know it's a moderate site and that they are requesting less docks than they would be allowed to have. I don't know the exact numbers, I don't have that information with me. But I imagine that Mr. Kurth would probably be able to supply more details for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- but the question really is, it came out to be a moderate dock. I guess since it's in a low speed zone, even a preferred -- or the lowest rating, a protective, would move up to moderate because they're going slow, so -- MS. MASON: I'm sorry, I don't know the details. But I do know COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the density -- MS. MASON: -- with the amount of shoreline they have and the density they requested, it was less than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you, I'm done. Page 23 July 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Susan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in the Manatee Protection Plan is there not a recommendation in this area for drafts of three foot or less? MS. MASON: I do believe in this area that there is for three feet and less. And the length -- the depth they were referring to is less than that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, exactly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for either Susan or for Ashley, whoever's appropriate here. But under your recommendation -- so I assume it's you, Ashley -- number four, once before we had this conversation about all prohibited exotic species, and we directed that that be removed. And it's in there again. And I'd like to understand why. We're trying to figure out what exotic species we're going to find at the bottom of the water. MS. MASON: For the record again, Susan Mason. It's not exotics that are in the water, it's in the development area, which would be that site. And it does require that the -- the Land Development Code in a couple different sections refer to the requirement for removal of exotics in each phase of construction. It's in 4.06.05.F.3. And also in 3.05.08.A.3.B, that in each phase of an SDP they need to remove exotics prior to C.O. So it's really kind of a standard thing. Certainly removing that condition would not affect whether or not the exotic removal was to be performed. It's required. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we had this conversation previously, and I think that was the same conclusion that was reached. So it was a recommendation, I think it was stronger than that that, that Page 24 July 2, 2009 we remove that. But if you're citing the LDC, would not the original buildings, the actual club and all the structures, would they not have been required to conform to those? MS. MASON: Perhaps not. It depends on when they're built. And from looking at this area of the county, it may be old enough that that wasn't an original requirement. But when people come in for improvements, in certain cases they have to come up to more contemporary -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then I ask this question: If these are for boat docks and they're strictly wood and so forth going into the water and you're employing that, does that now mean it's retroactive to the building and to the rest of the facility and they're now required to go into a program? MS. MASON: It would be because of the SDP. Since they have to amend their SDP, that's where the consideration -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kind of a back door type of thing. I don't know. Well, I certainly don't think it belongs there for boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, to follow up with Bob's comment, though, if that wasn't there and they weren't asking for the boat docks, could they grow exotic species on that property? So, I mean, they can't do it regardless, so why -- and again, I think Bob's right on the target that we previously commented, this is one of those paragraphs that's redundant. It's already stated clearly in the LDC and you don't really need it. MS. MASON: Right, I understand that. A lot of times, you know, we do still have some of these lingering comments and we do our best to try to get rid of them. With exotic vegetation, there is a lot of surprise for people when that becomes a requirement of some improvement. And I think there is a little -- since it can be expensive, depending on the site -- I don't Page 25 -,- -"" ^.,.._'"-;'-;.''''---,__''''...,."-.......~''''__,...:t!"''' rT I. W ---",,,,,,,..,,,, <--. July 2, 2009 anticipate this one would be, because it's largely manicured -- but some locations are unpleasantly surprised at how expensive it can be. And bringing it to their attention is more for the applicant's benefit. But I'll try to make sure that we get rid of those and any of the future ones that you see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MASON: If it's on the one in two weeks, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, except that it would require a Land Development Code amendment, not just removing it from criteria. Because these criteria are in the Land Development Code. MS. MASON: Right. But it's like since this is a condition of approval, we don't have to reference everything that's required by Land Development Code in our conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, Ashley. I think I heard earlier that the Manatee Protection Plan limits the draft depth to less than three feet. Is there any reason why that couldn't be in the staff recommendations, that we stipulate that there be no drafts in excess of three feet on this property? And the reason I'm suggesting that is, it's not in our Land Development Code, it is in the Manatee Protection Plan. That plan could be amended, and it's an old plan to begin with, and it wouldn't surprise me if down the road better science required the plan to be amended. It would be nice to know this one's locked into its depth by an ordinance as well. MS. CASERTA: Sure, there's no reason why that couldn't be in the staff report or the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that any problem for the applicant? I heard them earlier state they're only looking at two and a half to begin ePage 26 July 2, 2009 with. But if it's three feet maximum, I don't know where the problem would be with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll give the short answer as no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then we don't have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll accept your short answer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to give a longer one, but I'll take that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, you wouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff or applicant before we go into public speakers, if there are any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one public speaker, and that is Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bruce, you know the routine, so-- MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Burkhard, and I'm a representative of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. We did indeed meet with Mr. Yovanovich and discussed the configuration of the docks. As you probably know, our association primarily is concerned with protecting our neighborhood environment and trying to keep it essentially attractive and keep it from being overdeveloped. And one of the things that we're always concerned with is setting precedence. And the original application called for a 35-foot dock extension, which we felt was excessive for the area. The 30- foot configuration, as shown, is a unique situation I think as Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Scofield have pointed out in that the docks, although they're 30 feet, were originally 20 feet measured from the property line, which was the criteria at the time. Now we're dealing with most restrictive. We felt it would be excessive and really unnecessary and maybe Page 27 July 2, 2009 even unsightly to require that they shorten the docks to meet the new criteria, the 20 feet from the seawall. You'd have sort of saw tooth uneven appearance. So for appearances sake for the neighborhood and also for precedent, we feel that in this case 30 feet is acceptable. However, we want to make sure that 30 feet is not going to be a new standard for the county, that we would like to make sure that most restrictive is measured now from the seawall. And the criteria calls for 20 feet as a standard, and we think it should stay as that. However, in this unique situation, we're willing to -- we felt that going along with the applicant's request was a reasonable situation or reasonable compromise. And that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, we appreciate your time you took for your organization to work with the applicant, too. That does help these public meetings. Appreciate it Bruce. Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any rebuttal on the part of the applicant? He's not moving, so we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Before we do, I'd just like to mention there were two things that we discussed that the motion maker mayor may not want to include, depending on the motion. One was that we eliminate staff recommendation number four, due to its redundancy. And the second one was that we consider adding a statement that there would be no boat drafts in -- boat drafts would be limited to three feet or less. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. Page 28 ,- - '_-r',.,"~_'"_'.M~'~..=~_~.__~__.,.. ,,--..__."-'.,"''',......._ ll_ ~''''~",....".....,...... July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray made a motion with those two stipulations. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mrs. Caron made a second. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one thing I'd like to say for the record, that I wish that this county would do a loading study on its estuaries. They have been done in other parts of the United States. I have several of them in my possession. A loading study would tell us what the waterways in impacts they can take, just like a concurrency study does on our road system. We haven't done that. And that criteria then cannot I don't think reasonably be held against these applicants. But it sure would be handy to know that there is a possibility of overloading an estuary inlet by either depth or size or quantity of boats. That involves a whole pile of things. But until that's done, the issue I have with this I can't impose on the applicant and I don't intend to, so I'll be going along with the motion. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 29 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. Okay, we have old business and new business. Mix them up together. Mr. Wolfley, did you want to bring up a discussion under old or new business? Item #10 OLD BUSINESS COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, yes. In reading over the BCC's review of this petition, it became apparent that everything seemed to be based on the criteria, the primary and secondary criteria. And I believe it was also intimated that why do we even go over this if the staff, you know, shows that there is a meeting of the criteria, four out of the five and four out of the six. And I think that the criteria may be flawed, especially when it comes to multi-units. And maybe even in the -- what I thought was that if we were doing a commercial variance using single-family variances as the criteria. And I just -- I feel that when we're talking about multi-family units the criteria should not be the same as for single- family units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think then what you're suggesting is that staff go back and look at the primary and secondary criteria to see if they could be better worded relevant to a wider range of slip applications and come back to us with suggestions or recommendations. Is that what -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're suggesting? Page 30 July 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It has very much to do with what you just mentioned about overloading of the estuaries, and that's where I was going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not sure how staff could apply the overloading application to that without doing the study that I referenced. And that's unfortunately a costly thing. And right now with staffs limited time to do anything, it's a matter of when this could be looked at. But I think the criteria -- the soundings I heard from the Board of County Commissioners led to the same issue, that these need to be looked at and possibly tweaked for future applications, and maybe an application where some of them are done by staff or -- depending on how the criteria come down. I don't see it as a bad idea and I think it would follow the direction of the BCC. And it would take this board's recommendation to get that moving. Does anybody on this panel see a reason why we shouldn't be moving in that direction? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you want to make a motion that we request staff -- oh, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just wanted to say-- and I really think we should revisit the boating. I mean, this is a boating community. And the 20- foot and the way we've argued it in the past, it would be good to totally come up with a different way to approach what boating's allowed, other than a number like 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why the criteria was established at 20 feet and then the primary and secondary criteria in their methodology for application. MR. SCHMITT: I'm somewhat confused. Because I thought we addressed that when we last came to you to talk about the boat dock and boat dock criteria. Now we're opening that whole discussion again. I thought we settled that when we basically discussed the Page 31 July 2, 2009 history of the boat dock extension. Are you asking to bring that entire CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think-- MR. SCHMITT: -- discussion back again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we had this discussion last time, it was really on how to apply the existing criteria to this particular case, based on comments made during the first discussion of this case. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only limitation I saw on that. What we're asking now is I guess in somewhat alignment with the Board of County Commissioners. Some of the criteria doesn't seem to apply in all cases, or there may be more definition needed in how to apply the criteria. There was a question why 20 feet is the magical number. Maybe it should be a different number based on the way boating is being done. MR. SCHMITT: I believe that Jeff, your staff had done a pretty thorough research on that. I think Heidi did a pretty thorough analysis. Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll say what I've been saying all along, okay, nobody knows why we have 20 feet. And since nobody really knows why we have 20 feet, nobody really knows why we have these criteria for what in essence is a variance of 20 feet. Now, Mr. Strain, your remarks as to loading capacity are dead on, because you really can't get into should it be 20 feet, should it be 30 feet, how many docks should we have per linear feet, unless you really talk about -- you know, I'll talk about a level of service with the various waterways. That's a very expensive process to try to figure out something along those (sic) nature. But I think I sort of agree with you, until you figure out what level of service you want on these boating areas, then the discussion as it should be 20 feet, 25 feet, 30 feet, how many docks should people get, it's secondary to that one issue. Page 32 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now I don't believe this county's in the position to fund any kind of level of service study on our waterways if -- I mean, and I think something needs to be done, I just don't know how to move it forward at this point. Does anybody have any suggestions? MR. SCHMITT: Understand, if this panel directs it, it will be well over a year before we even look at this. The budgets are to the board. In order to fund for something like that, I'd have to identify -- well, it would have to be a general fund study, funded by the general fund, and I -- that money is not available, at least to my staff. MR. KLATZKOW: And quite frankly, we're not -- at least from my perspective, we're not getting a lot of complaints on this issue. I mean, we're getting the occasional boat dock extension, which I think at this point should be an administrative process to meet all the criteria. And then we even avoid that. But until we get an outcry by the public as to these issues, I'm not sure what the point would be. MR. SCHMITT: Is that more important? And I bring up the subject, watershed management plans, which we're still trying to bring to the board to, finish that, which is almost since the late Nineties. And the board was asking to delay that again, and we're bringing that back to the board. The board had already budgeted money. So if that's something that you feel is more important, I'm going to have to take money from -- recommend to the board that maybe they ought to look at spending the money elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Mr. Murray's going to speak, but the whole crux -- maybe the best thing, just to table to idea and keep track of where we're going and bring it back up at a more appropriate time. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's possible, certainly. But when reviewing the secondary criteria, if something is Page 33 July 2, 2009 applicable to multiple docks and then it is excluded because it's applicable to multiple docks, you now have less criteria to work with. And it stipulates it has to be four of the six, or whatever the number is. So you've reduced by one criterion. Now that potentially puts you into a question. So while it's not a big deal, quite frankly, and I agree with Jeff, we don't have a lot of hue and cry, I'm not sure it's necessary to go too nuts on it. But I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to try to work, even if it's a year from now, on the idea of at least considering if it's a single dock you've already had a criterion, if it's a multiple dock what the other criterion would be in its place. Just an alternative for us to work with, rather than reduce the number of criteria for which we have to use as a judgment base. That's my contribution. MR. SCHMITT: Understand also, normally, normally, in a multi-family type development it comes in as a PUD that those docks are normally identified as an accessory use in the PUD. So it's already being discussed as part of the zoning. And then it also is part of the review process, if it's integrated in an SDP review. The only thing you're looking at here is the extension of the boat dock. So there are times when it's -- that debate has already been aired as far as how many docks and what's applicable. Now, the Monte Carlo, I don't know, I can't remember, is it straight zoning or was it a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1984. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, '84. But normally the multi-family type developments, it's already a debate. I mean, you know, ones we've had in the past Cocohatchee, The Dunes. Shall I bring them all up? They're normally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm very much in agreement with Mr. Strain, that a loading study needs to be conducted. However, I am equally if not more strongly agreeing with Mr. Schmitt that we Page 34 July 2, 2009 do not have the money to do that now. When we are putting on hold stormwater management plans and other flooding issue plans, I think this is not the time. It may be something that the overlay can address when they go back to redo some of their issues. So I think at this point it should just be tabled. We're working through the criteria and I think we can, you know -- we can make a distinction between whether or not it's a single-family or a multi-family here and use the criteria to the best of our ability in that way until such time as it could -- we could get a loading study done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, are you able to send a link to one of those studies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have them in hard copy. I could get them PDF'd and sent to staff, staff could distribute them to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, because I'd be curious. And we could just add it to the list of things we may buy when we can afford them again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's probably the most cautious approach, and I would agree. And my statement about the loading study was just getting it on record. I just -- it's needed. And I'm probably going to do that as often as multi-family issues come up, because it's a -- it's something that we need to look at as we move forward. I know we can't do it now, money is just a problem right now. And I don't think anything we don't need to spend we shouldn't be spending. Anybody else have any comments before we close this issue? (No response.) Item #11 NEW BUSINESS Page 35 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Can we address the issue again about the next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have a note here from Heather Ramirez that the ad went out two weeks ago for the meeting on the 16th. But we still will work with the applicant to see if they will consider going to the August 6th Planning Commission. And just like last time, we'd have to formally continue that item to the 16th. But you don't need everyone to show up, you can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can just show up and have -- the minutes are really easy to approve in those kind of meetings. Okay, that's fine, because it's on my calendar, and I was planning to be here anyway, so that would work. MR. BELLOWS: But we still have to work that out with the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that happens, just e-mail us all and I'll follow up accordingly. MR. KLATZKOW: No offense, but you don't have to work that out with the applicant. I mean, we control the docket here. You can put it over, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is when we make commitments and time frames, we always should stick to them. And we're -- it's a convenience issue, it's not a necessity for us at this point. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But it's also -- you know, this isn't cheap to put this on. I've got Joe's staff here, I'm here, I've got a court reporter, I've got all you guys. If it's one boat dock extension for two jet skis, and I think that's all we're talking about here, I mean, I'm okay telling the applicant you have to come back in another two weeks. Page 36 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I might take that advice, Ray, and see how strong you can be with it. And I thought you were pro bono when you were here. But anyway, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Like us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, can we do any kind of a vote to continue it now? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I'm okay with that. And I'll stick somebody at the front door in case anybody comes down here, to direct them that it's been continued. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's do that. Save Mark a trip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can we continue something that isn't even on our agenda to continue? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm okay if you continue this right now so you folks don't have to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll give the applicant notice. And I'll post somebody at the front door, in case the public shows up, to let them know that this thing's been continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the guy. So is there a motion to -- well, wait a minute, we don't even know what we're continuing. You know the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How about just no meeting on the 27th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I've got an idea. Why don't four of us say we can't make it next meeting and -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I won't be able to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the petition number, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Petition number is BD-09-AR-14226, the Cowden (phonetic) boat dock extension. Page 37 July 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we're looking for, is there a motion to continue -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that petition? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Caron. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor to continue that, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and we're going to continue it to the first meeting in August with the discussion. MR. SCHMITT: And understand, August, you've got a lot on your calendar for the August meeting. There's two meetings in August. At least six petitions on the 6th and looks like several, at least six or more on the 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, we might have a full day then. Give Cherie' something to do. Okay, is there any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, there is -- well, there's no public. Anybody from the public wishing -- Bruce, you're the only one, you're shaking your head no. Page 38 July 2, 2009 Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're all out of here. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:45 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 39