Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/15/2009 R October 15, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 15, 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 Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Wfi.,L MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO l-IA VE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A 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. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2009, AUGUST 25, 2009 FLOOD ORDINANCE, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 FLOODPLAIN, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 REGULAR, AND SEPTEMBER 17,2009 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 29. 2009 and OCTOBER 13, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2008-AR-13786, Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., represented by Gina R. Green, P.E., of Gina R. Green, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Estates (E) zoning district pursuant to Collier County and Development Code Subsection 2.03.01.B.1.c.1. The proposed Conditional Use will supplement the existing Resolution Numbers 91-135 and 92-49 by adding a 13,100- square foot multi-purpose building to be used for a gymnasium, classrooms, youth fellowship and a kitchen. The subject 5.23 acre property is located at 1620 39th Street S.W., in Section 14 and 23, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 1 B. Collier County Planning Commission review of Annual Inventory Report and Update (AUIR) recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners - A Review of the specific recommendations provided by the CCPC to the BCC at the Planning Commission/Productivity Committee AUIR special meeting held September 21st and 23rd. (Coordinator: Michael Bosi, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: FLDV-PL2009-443, Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Chris Hagan, P.E. of Johnson Engineering, is requesting a 10-foot elevation variance as well as a flood zone type designation variance from the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map which has identified the area as flood zone VE with a base flood elevation of 14' based upon the North American Vertical Datum (NA VD). The variance would allow construction of a public restroom facility on compacted fill with the lowest floor elevation 8 feet six inches below the base flood elevation using AE flood zone construction techniques that also vary from minimum requirements by only providing dry flood-proofing to elevation 13' NA VD instead of the required 15 feet NA VD. The variance is proposed pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 9.04.05 and Section 62-48 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances for a project to be known as the Bluebill Beach Access and Facilities which is a property in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) and the Residential Multi-family (RMF-16) zoning district. The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085 (JDM) FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for communications towers and the installation of a related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida (Companion item to 9-C) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 17,2009) C. Petition: V A-PL2009-37 (JDM) FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30-foot eastern and western side yard setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7A-foot setbacks, respectively, for the guy lines and anchors of communications towers in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to 9-B) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 17, 2009) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 10/5/09 CCPC AgendaIRay Bellows/ld 2 October 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 15th meeting of 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 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 Page 2 October 15, 2009 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next is addenda to the agenda. And I have been told that we're possibly going to be requested to continue the Vanderbilt Beach restroom variance request. If that's so, if anybody would wish that continuance, it would be a good time to ask for it now. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Gary McAlpin, Collier County. Weare in fact requesting a continuance for the Bluebill bathroom variance until the first of the year, based on recent information received on the draft FEMA maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will be an indefinite continuance then? Because we wouldn't -- I imagine you don't have a date at this point. MR. McALPIN: Well, we believe that the -- if we can in fact work the details out, we will not request a variance. But if we -- we believe we'll have better information by the first of the year. So we would like to continue this until the first of the year; the first meeting after the first of the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we set it up as an indefinite continuance then whenever the maps come out. Because I believe they're actually supposed to come out in February and then they have a review process. So either way, we'll cover it by an indefinite continuance, if the board so pleases. Ray, did you have something you wanted to add to that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I just wanted to put it on record, it'd have to be readvertised anyway. So it'd be best to continue indefinitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by the way, if there are any public speakers here for this issue, we still can entertain the public Page 3 October 15,2009 comments. So if you still want to get on record for what you've got to say, although this may not even happen now, you're more than welcome to stay until we can call that item up for public comment. So with that in mind, is there a -- does the Planning Commission wish to accept the recommendation for continuance? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. (At which time, Mr. Eastman enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And for the record, Mr. Eastman has arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so everyone knows, that was advertised as number 9.A on our public hearings. Petition FLDV-PL-2009-443, Collier County Coastal Zone Management. That item has been indefinitely continued, expecting to come back, if at all, at the first part of the year. The other item that I want to mention we need to add to the agenda under new business would be -- well, the first meeting of every Page 4 October 15,2009 October we have an election of officers. And we didn't have a meeting the first of October, so we'll do that under new business at II.A today. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. We have a very busy schedule next week. On the 19th and the 20th we have our GMP days. I can assure you that we will be using both those days in full. We have a carryover day to the 29th. And since we have no meeting on November 5th, by the way, because we have no scheduled cases, I had asked staff to leave that day open for us, in case we can't finish the GMPs on the three days we currently have scheduled. But as far as the 19th and 20th, is everybody here intending to make those meetings? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll miss the 20th, but I expect to be able for all the rest. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2009, AUGUST 25, 2009 FLOOD ORDINANCE, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 FLOODPLAIN, SEPTEMBER 3~ 2009~ REGULAR AND SEPTEMBER 17~ 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. As I said earlier, too, so everybody's aware of it, the November 5th regular meeting is canceled. So if we don't have any carryover from the GMP, we won't be meeting that day. Page 5 October 15, 2009 The approval of minutes from August 20th, 2009. Anybody want to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minutes of August 25th, 2009 for the flood ordinance. Is there -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a motion to approve? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 6 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The minutes from September 3rd, 2009 floodplain. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And the regular meeting of September 3rd, 2009, is there a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak again. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 7 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. And the last regular meeting, September 17th, 2009. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Might as well make it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Looks like all the minutes got issued kind of one time there. And by the way, we have a unique situation today. It was determined that Cherie' needed competition to see how she could keep up versus someone else, so we have Cherie' and Jackie in dueling Page 8 October 15,2009 clerk reporting positions today. Now, what will be nice is afterwards we ought to compare them side by side and see if they got everything the same. So we need to use acronyms that Jackie wouldn't be used to but Cherie' would excel at, and Tor would love. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 AND OCTOBER 13.2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The BCC report, Ray, for September 29th and October 13th? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the recap for October 13th as that hasn't been published yet. And you said September? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, someone put on my agenda September 29th and October 13th. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that one either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just reading the agenda. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, chairman's report. There are a couple of issues to go over on chairman's report. And I'm going to start off and then Mike Bosi has some information for us. Next week the GMP meetings I expect will be very well attended by members of the public. And there are clusters of groupings in the way these GMP amendments have been submitted. We have five of them in the east side of 951 in the eastern part of Golden Gate Estates. Page 9 October 15,2009 We have one in Golden Gate Estates, but it's over by Santa Barbara. But all the rest are either county-wide or west of 951. The staff reports, and I have read all 10 applications and all the backup to all 10 applications; that's what I did on vacation. In the staff report, you'll see many references to how staff looked at all these as a package in regards to the quantity of square footages and things being asked. And they evaluated it as all of them, which is a good thing to do, because if all were approved the evaluation then becomes more relevant. But I thought that it would be very good for us if we were to consider the five items that are east of 951 in a holistic package first. And what I mean by that is that this board would ask the applicants for a presentation -- for each one of their presentations we would entertain the public comments, we would hear the staff reports and go through all five so that we could evaluate the five of them, and out of the five of them see how many of them are really the ones that should be approved, if all of them maybe. And I think we can better do that in a holistic pattern than trying to take them piecemeal and believing that maybe the first one up is the right one but then because the first was approved the second one might not be or the third or the fourth. So I went and met with comprehensive planning on this. They had actually thought of that idea as well but hadn't yet suggested it. So it was something they thought would be more -- a better way to handle this kind of a GMP amendment cycle with so many of them in one area, as they all are in Golden Gate Estates. So with that in mind, I want to ask the Planning Commission if you all had any objection to the following procedure -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No objection whatsoever. I think that's actually excellent planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.e Page 10 October 15,2009 Well, the five that we would be talking about would be 2007, number one, two and three, and 2008, number one and two. They are not exactly the first five up. The third one up happens to be 2008-3, and it's the one over on Santa Barbara. So that one would have to be put off until we finished discussing those first five. But at this point in time that shouldn't be a problem at all. And I think it would be -- if we can accept that idea now, staff could be better prepared in their presentation on Monday to look at it in that context. And I don't necessarily -- well, to Mr. Klatzkow, do we need a motion since this is an agenda item for Monday? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From a consensus viewpoint, is that comfortable for everybody on the board? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objection to it? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, could you give me those numbers again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 2007-1, 2007-2, 2007-3, 2008-1, and 2008-2. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, and another item. That's half of our GMP amendments. A couple of them aren't going to take a lot of discussion in the end, the remaining five. One of them's an ERP amendment that really isn't much more than a text correction. I'd like to ask this panel, for the benefit of the public who wants to attend, either the remaining five or the five we're going to be talking about, if you all would agree that on Monday the 19th we are not going to go beyond those five, even if we get through them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that way you all can bring just the Page 11 October 15, 2009 books and the data and read pertaining to those five. And we have three other days to finish up the other five, which I can assure you won't take nearly that amount of time, if we get through five on the 19th. But I think if we limit the 19th to those five, we're doing a good service to the public for those that want to attend. They know that if you live in Golden Gate Estates, that's the day you attend, and keep those people not having to wait that day. So is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then on the 19th, Monday the 19th, our GMP amendments, we will be hearing five amendments, 2007-1, 2 and 3, 2008-1 and 2. And those are the only items that will be heard on that day for those GMP amendments. And there is one public speaker because I had asked one of the members of the civic associations in Golden Gate what they thought about this. Mr. Tim Nance, he liked the idea, because it also brings everything together. I just wanted to make sure, Tim, did you want to comment on it? You're more than welcome to. MR. NANCE: I'd just like to make one brief statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Tim Nance. I'm representing the board of directors of Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I really appreciate the consideration of the Planning Commission in approaching this what I consider to be a very special circumstance in a comprehensive way. I can't emphasize, the members of the civic association and citizens out in Golden Gate Estates have fairly widely attended the neighborhood information meetings on these proposed growth management plan amendments. Page 12 October 15, 2009 Because they're all commercial and they're all affecting Golden Gate Estates east of 951, they are going to have a very profound effect on Golden Gate Estates when taken as a whole. And I think it's -- I will say, I will thank the commission in advance, because I think you've done historically an extraordinarily good job in advancing good guidance to the BCC. And I just wanted to let you know that the civic association is most anxious that you give careful consideration to these plan amendments as a whole so that we can get the best results for the community of Golden Gate Estates and its residents. So I thank you in advance and I'm very appreciative that you're going to handle it in a comprehensive way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Okay, Mr. Bosi, did you have something that you wanted to add today? MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Nothing adding to the specific process within the GMP amendments on Monday. I was in attendance today for the consent agenda item, reviewing the AUIR recommendations that were proffered by the CCPC at their special workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We so rarely see you, so I always like to hear you speak. Mike, one thing, though. Did your department bring any handouts for us? We were supposed to have -- I had e-mailed back and forth with David Weeks about some additional material. And I said it would be better if he just brought it here and handed it out than try to send it e-mail. MR. BOSI: And Ekna Guevara, our Administrative Assistant from Comprehensive Planning, will pass out the additional information related to one of the GMP amendments. I'm not sure if that is related to one of the ones you'll be hearing on Monday or not, Page 13 October 15,2009 based upon the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you please also make sure David is aware of the decision we made here today regarding the operation on how we're going to handle things on Monday? MR. BOSI: Well, the secondary intent of my purpose of attending, not only for the consent agenda item, was also to take notes and convey the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding the process of how the GMP amendments were going to be heard, so I most certainly will take the message back and convey it to David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had met with David, either yesterday or the day before. I went over some other -- in reading the 10 packages, there are some issues that I think we're experiencing for the first time. And I asked David to provide us with more detailed explanation on how they affect the GMP amendment cycle. One of them is House Bill 697. I'd like to see an explanation of that, because it's more or less a green house bill, and it factors into every one of the comments you guys made. And then the CIGM. I know you're involved with that, Mike, but the basis under which the Board of County Commissioners accepted that as a tool and the strength and weight that that tool ought to be put on the various amendments that we're reviewing, these are two first-time things for us to see from your department. So I think it would be helpful to explain those to us on Monday. MR. BOSI: And I've had that discussion with David. And the intention is whenever that (sic) the pleasure of the Planning Commission on Monday morning, I will be prepared to give just a real short brief history of how the CIGM became adopted as an additional planning tool before the Planning Commission and ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners. Just to give you a little bit more context of the utilization of that tool within the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think from our perspective, it's weight on your criteria. Because you use that as a reference in almost Page 14 October 15,2009 every single amendment. And it's the first time that's happened, because we didn't have it last time. So I think the weight that that carries and the accuracy of it ought to be discussed. And I would suggest that you get all these done in your introduction on Monday so that we have them as a basis of understanding throughout the discussion for the day. Okay? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the meeting minutes, I've been informed that Norm Feder would like to make a comment on that, if you would allow it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Now you can't tell me Norm spent all this time reading five packages of minutes for our meeting. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator, for the record. I know that you've gone through your minute meetings. I know that we presented to you the AUIR for fiscal year 2009. We started developing that as you know in March and April, a little bit earlier on the AUIR this year. What I'm showing you up here is what's happening to our funding sources. The one in particular is the one that you see on the top of that graph. It used to be on the top, it's now working its way to the bottom. It's called impact fee collections. So what I want to tell you is while I know that you've taken action to endorse or at least recommend the transportation's AUIR, the road and bridge to the board, I need to make you aware that what we're looking at is probably a reduction of about five million a year in impact fee collections in our projections out. Page 15 October 15, 2009 Our AUIR that we presented to you showed 17 and a half million for' 1 0 and' 11, and then showed 20 million for the subsequent three years of the five-year of the AUIR. We're proposing now that we should be at 12 and a half, 12 and a half and then 15 for those balance of the last three years. Obviously that will require us to make some adjustments accordingly, and we'll do that before we bring it to the board. But I didn't want to leave it not on your record, and I apologize that it wasn't at the meeting when you reviewed it. But basically we looked at this year end. How did we get surprised a little bit on this? We had changed the COA provisions. As you remember, it was 50 percent at final plat or plan, 50 percent within three years or sooner, as development occurred. That 50 percent the following three-year 50 percents weren't coming in. Obviously the economy is very tight for the development community that worked with us on that proposition in the first place. And so we had worked with the board on a provision that for the second 50 percent it could come in over five years, 10 percent a year, or even someone starting up, rather than having to pay 50 percent at final plat or plan, that they could pay 20 percent a year for each of five years. We thought that that would bring in further collections. It has not. So I want wanted to just make you aware of that. I didn't want to surprise this board. You've worked very well with us so I wanted to make sure you're aware that we're going to make those adjustments before we bring the AUIR to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you providing this information to the Productivity Committee as well? MR. FEDER: We will be on the 21st as well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as how these numbers impact the -- what I would consider your cover sheet which talks about your revenues and expenditures, that sheet then is now Page 16 October 15,2009 changing; is that correct? MR. FEDER: Yes, the whole AUIR sheet will change. It will change obviously by $25 million, from what I've just related to you, other than any other changes that might occur. The result of that, just very quickly, and we're trying to work through that, obviously we're trying to not have that as the AUIR provides for concurrency not make major impacts to our construction that we rely upon for concurrency items. Realistically it will probably impact the Valewood project which had construction in year' 11, and probably the Santa Barbara extension to the north, which was slated for the fifth year of the program. Now, that is in a TCMA, even though it is a deficiency area, but it's in the TCMA, so it won't have has as significant an impact on our concurrency issues right away. The balance of that funding will come out of our other program areas, bridge, intersection, bikes and paths, as we're anticipating right now. Just to give you a feel. And I apologize, it hasn't been reworked yet. I could show you specifically. But that gives you a good feel for where it would end up. It will not necessarily change that deficiency map where we do have some deficiencies, even at our level of service D and E as we presented to you, but plans to try and respond to them as best we can under the revenue situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The problem I want to bring up is that we voted in full public meeting on your proposal, on your AUIR package. We vetted it in the public, we had all members there asking questions. The public could ask questions. Your staff was interacting. And now between the time we've done that and the time you're presenting this to the BCC -- and I understand your reasoning, you're telling us that this has all got to change. MR. FEDER: I want it to be as realistic as it can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I appreciate that, Norman. I'm Page 17 October 15,2009 trying to make sure, though, that whatever we pass on is consistent with the process it was supposed to follow. MR. FEDER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the part of it that is open to the public and benefits the public, honestly, in knowing what to expect down the road. And for Mr. -- I hate to dump this on you, Jeff, but I would like to understand from your perspective, this is the planning agency for the state of Florida -- for Collier County as represented by the State of Florida as well. So I want to make sure that whenever this happens, it's done correctly. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, unfortunately these are the times we live in. And this is a rapidly sinking target we have here as far as funding goes. It's like dropping a stone in a well. All I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, is that, you know, if you think that these changes are going to materially affect what your recommendation was and your review was, that you hear it again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. MR. KLA TZKOW: I mean, just this one element. I'm not saying you open the whole thing, but just this one element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work into our time frame in regards to when this goes before the BCC? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning, AUIR Project Coordinator. The AUIR is to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on November 3rd, so the -- and that is the only time. I would introduce the understanding that the AUIR only sets the blueprint for the CIE amendments, which will be before the Planning Commission. And I understand that the recommendations were based upon a different revenue structure than what Norm is going to be presenting to the BCC. Page 18 October 15,2009 But that presentation that Norm will be providing to the BCC will be echoed within the CIE review that the Planning Commission has afforded for the annual update, which Corby Schmidt will be the coordinator. I understand that that does leave somewhat of a gap within the process, but because of time constraints between now and November 3rd and meeting room and availability for the Planning Commission, I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I might have a solution then. On the 29th of October is a carryover day for our GMP amendments. Now, we're not going to need -- I don't hopefully expect to need that whole day. Even if we do, we could squeeze this in as a separate meeting during that day. And then you would have at least a verbal from us to report to the BCC. Because I really don't want to let the Board of County Commissioners down in regards to our review. I think that they enjoy our reviews and they somewhat may rely upon the fact we do look at everything. MR. FEDER: I think both of those are true. And I assure you that we do as well. We get good input from this body. And so we weren't wanting to surprise you. We could have addressed this issue, brought it to the board and then hit it in our CIE. That happened to us last year and it happened to others as well. You can see by the graph, you see why it happened last year as well. So you'll see it again, as was pointed out, in the CIE and it will be fully vetted as well there. But we'd be more than happy to come on the 29th, show you what we think the impacts will be at what we're going to present to the board for the AUIR. And again, the AUIR is an opportunity to look at anticipated revenues and level of service at what deficiencies might result to either decide whether or not you're going to modify your level of service, whether you're going to modify your revenue stream or Page 19 October 15,2009 potentially try to, or to accept that you're going to have some deficiencies in what you're doing in an interim basis to move towards it. We're there already. But again, as you point out, we value your input, so we'd be happy to be here on the 29th and show you those impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, we did not continue the last AUIR meeting. We ended it. So that means -- do we have an advertising issue that has to be dealt with on the 29th to rehear this? MR. KLATZKOW: Look, we'll advertise it as best we can. There's a timing issue here. But I do think that it will be good for the Board of County Commissioners for your review and your recommendation. Because quite frankly I think if they hear what Norm has to say they're going to send it back to you anyway. So I think this just prevents the trip. The public's had the input. We'll advertise it as best we can, Ray, and, you know, move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and then could you -- someone extend the invitation to the Productivity Committee members who attended to -- that we would meet in this room, we would have this first up on the 29th at 8:30 in the morning, and ask that they attend, if they could as well, and then we can get everything done at one step. MR. KLATZKOW: And what I would ask, that all public speakers that you had on this issue before, make an effort to contact them directly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: And we'll go back to the record and try and do just that. We appreciate your indulgence on this. We just wanted to make sure that it wasn't -- since we know it now, that it wasn't something that got addressed at CIE rather than A UIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Norm, I think it's very good of Page 20 October 15, 2009 your department to come forward first instead of us having found this out after the fact. We sure appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. FEDER: We'll never try to surprise you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13786, UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH~ INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we have two consent agenda items to discuss. And one is the -- and we'll go right into those right now. The first one is Petition CU-2008-AR-13786, and it's the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. And that's the church in Golden Gate Estates. Having received the consent agenda item, is there any comment from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation for -- or a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 21 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #8B REVIEW OF ANNUAL INVENTORY REPORT AND UPDATE The second one is actually the AUIR report, and I believe basically we're looking at the whole report, with the exception now of the transportation element, until we rehear that one. Does anybody have any comments on the way the report has been drafted? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will not be voting on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, you weren't here. Okay, so Mr. Wolfley will be abstaining. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, you did a good job. I appreciate the way -- I know you had one member of the -- during that day, who was a little difficult to deal with in regards to his vote, so I appreciate the way you handled that. So all those in favor of the -- with the exception of the transportation element, all those in favor of the AUIR report, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 22 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0, Mr. Wolfley abstaining. Thank you, Mike, appreciate that. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Planning Commission. I will see you on the 29th and also see you on Monday morning as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look forward to it, thank you. Item #9 A PETITION: FLDV-PL2009-443, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT - CONTINUED CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have two advertised public petitions left. And we do have -- the first one up was the variance for Coastal Zone Management; that has been continued. But if there are public speakers for this one and they would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up and talk at the podium at this time. Anybody wishing to speak? Mr. Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: For the record, Bruce Burkhard, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, I'm sorry, I forgot two things, because this was continued. I guess since you're speaking we still need to swear you in. Page 23 October 15, 2009 MR. BURKHARD: Okay, sure. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: I'm not sure how all of this is going to bear, since this is continued and I guess we don't really know where it's going. But I'll put my two cents in anyways, and you guys can listen. This bathroom is a result of negotiations leading to a settlement by a threatened Burt Harris lawsuit. The settlement agreement states that in number five that within 30 days of the execution of the settlement agreement by all parties the property owner shall contribute to the county $500,000 towards improvement of beach access amenities related to this easement. It was understood that the bulk of these funds were to be used to construct a public bathroom facility along a granted easement for a public beach access along the property's northern boundary. Subsequent to the agreement a good deal of wrangling took place between the property owners and our association regarding siting and designs. It was an arduous process. However, the conforming design was finally arrived at that satisfied both parties. At this point our neighborhood felt that a relatively satisfactory deal had been reached. In July we were advised that the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department had made a formal application for variance from the LDC flood hazard protection requirements, and also the flood damage prevention ordinance. No prior consultation with our organization took place. This notice came completely out of the blue. Needless to say, we were stunned. It seemed that essentially the county was breaking a deal that we had spent countless hours arriving at. I don't know about you, but where I grew up we have a saying that a deal's a deal, and we feel like the deal may potentially be broken. Page 24 October 15,2009 It's been explained to me that the idea behind these variance requests is purportedly to save the county money by constructing a non-conforming single-story building as opposed to the conforming two-story building with an elevator provided for handicapped access. Once again, I refer you back to the $500,000 that's already been set aside to construct the facility. The county already has the money and it has been dedicated to this purpose. To say that we're saving money appears to me to be voodoo economics. Beyond what I've already said, I think we all should have a problem with the government at any level, but especially here at the grass roots level, granting itself waivers for existing codes and ordinances. If they expect us, the citizenry, to explicitly follow all their rules, then common decency says that they need to set the example and follow the rules, too. I guess you'd say it's a fairness issue and a leadership issue; i.e., one leads by example. Further complicating this whole issue is what can happen if the waivers are granted and FEMA height rules are ignored. I think others can probably do a better job of explaining the consequences of such an action as it relates to our flood insurance premiums. Even assuming that some money could be saved in the construction of a single-story building, the entire population of the county that pays flood insurance could potentially be socked with higher premiums which will continue as long as they live in their houses. Where are the savings for them? I imagine that this idea was certainly a well-intentioned idea, but upon closer scrutiny appears to me that the negatives of granting the waivers and constructing a lower building far and away outweigh what were thought to be the benefits. On behalf of the VBRA and all of the potentially affected citizens of the county living in designated flood zones, I ask you to deny this proposal and that you recommend the same to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, thank you. And I wish to Page 25 October 15,2009 express my appreciation to the County Parks and Rec Department, or Coastal Zone Management for realizing that they have had probably a difficult time here today, and to continue this was a very wise recommendation. So I think it works better for everybody. And hopefully when it doesn't come back and it adheres to the floodplain codes that are adopted soon, then maybe that will all solve itself and go away. But we respect your wishes and thank you for your comments today, Bruce. Okay, the next item. We have two items. We will -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's an administrative question, probably to Ray. Ray, in the FEMA ordinance they note that there's a variance required to wet floodproof a proj ect. What is the administrative trail of that? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't catch the last part. Could you speak up a little bit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, how do you -- in the FEMA regulations there's a requirement to get a variance if you want to wet floodproof a building. What is the procedure for that? MR. BELLOWS: You mean for applying for a flood variance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Right. I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's an application, a pre-application meeting, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wonder where it goes, where it doesn't go. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development, Environmental Services Division Administrator. Brad, the only time you need a variance, if they're going to build the -- any of the structures below the floodplain. The issue here will Page 26 October 15,2009 be if this goes from a VE to an AE zone, which we expect, and it appears that this will now be an AE zone, they can design to the AE standards rather than the high velocity or VE standards. It depends then on where the, as you well know, the electrical panels or any other type of those type of facilities, if they're built below the base flood elevation. In essence what you're asking is the design should comply with the AE standards, which means it's got to be floodproofed to allow either for a wet or dry floodproofing. It depends on how they design it. But my recollection, there's no variance necessary; they just meet the requirements for an AE zone. And it has to be designed to comply with the requirements. But it's not a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, my understanding of it, you can only get a variance for wet floodproofing in an AE zone, but -- so I think they'll -- MR. SCHMITT: If you build below the BFE. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: Base flood elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, the question was what's the procedure, because that's probably what they're going to take. It would be an administrative procedure; it would not come back MR. SCHMITT: We review design. If it requires a variance, it will have to come back to the proper board for a variance, which is the Board of County Commissioners. But I believe in this case there will be no variance required. I think the design will -- they'll be able to design to meet the requirements for an AE zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: At least that's our expectation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? Page 27 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Schmitt, I think it would be a good idea if you just kept the people at Vanderbilt Beach informed as to what's going on with this. MR. SCHMITT: We certainly will. I mean, the standpoint here is we're waiting to see what the maps will show. And then basically -- well, I'll pass it on to Marla. I mean, it's their project. I will make sure Gary and Marla keep the folks informed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question, though, that is puzzling. When Bruce got up here he said that this started occurring I guess a few months ago. But their homeowners association, who's been so actively involved in especially you know Moraya Bay and how this whole thing came down, why weren't they even given the courtesy of knowing this was in the works? I just was -- not necessarily by your department, but do you know, is there some reason that the department that's in charge of this can't keep the homeowners association up there in the loop as they modify and change their plans? MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, Gary's gone. I can't answer the specifics. But I know this thing went to the Board of County Commissioners at least eight, nine months ago when we were directed by the board to pursue the flood variance. And this was at the board's direction. When the staff came in to present the design to the board, the board objected to the requirement to raise it on piles, and the height of the building they said to seek a variance. The variance procedures were followed. To the best of my knowledge, notices -- all of it was properly noticed and advertised. And specifically noticing the Vanderbilt Beach Association, I can't answer. I don't know if they were specifically notified. The agent isn't here, which was Johnson Engineering, but they were hired as the agent to move this petition forward. Page 28 October 15,2009 But best of my knowledge, and I'm looking at my staff, J.D. didn't do it, but Kay did. But Ray, this was properly advertised and noticed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I'm not saying it wasn't, Joe. I'm just suggesting that however this got to move forward, the Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners Association is a very active organization, as you well know. You probably know their phone number, Bruce's, by heart. It would be nice, though, if when these issues come up and items that are so sensitive to them, if we know they're coming up, just give them a heads up on it is all I'm suggesting. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean, I know and Bruce can attest, I e-mailed Bruce on this probably four or five months ago, explained to him -- when this first came up, it was -- Bruce had the -- at least the impression or at least assessed that this was a Signature initiative and Signature applying for the variance. I e-mailed Bruce with all the details probably back in June or July, note advising him on -- that it was the Parks and Rec's department moving the variance, it was at the board's direction, and advised him that this would be proceeding directly to the Board of County Commissioners. What happened here -- again, I'm trying to do this by recollection, probably in September when Commissioner Halas then brought it up with his peers on the board, or his colleagues on the board, and asked that the board approve that this be remanded to the Planning Commission for review. And that's how we were here today. It was at again at the board direction. There's no requirement for a flood variance to go to the Planning Commission. This was at the board's direction that we remand this to the Planning Commission for your review and analysis. And so that's how it ended up on your plate. But I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. SCHMITT: --like I said, I mean, I thought Bruce was well Page 29 October 15,2009 aware of it. I have the e-mails that basically explained to Bruce what was going on and I believe that was as early as Mayor June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, that's -- I just wanted to get an explanation, Joe. Thank you. And I also appreciate the Board of County Commissioners sending it to us, because now we've fixed it for them. It's gone. MR. SCHMITT: At least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't ask for a better outcome than that. MR. SCHMITT: Best results right now. Item #9B and #9C PETITIONS: CU-2008-AR-14085 AND V A-PL2009-37, (JDM) FLO TV~ INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to the next two petitions. One is a conditional use and one is a variance. They're both for the same piece of property, so we will entertain the discussion for both all at one time but vote on them separately. The first one is Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc. on 5860 Crews Road. The second is Petition V A-PL-2009-37, it is also for FLO TV, Inc. on 5860 Crews 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? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I've had discussions with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I'm sure most of us had. I have too. But that -- anybody else? Page 30 October 15,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then young lady, it's all yours. MS. MADISON: Thank you. Good morning, Planning Commission. My name is Kimberly Madison, Attorney with Ruden-McCloskey, 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa, Florida. I have with me today Mr. Rob Thompson, Site Manager for FLO TV, as well as Keith Grant of Overland Construction. And we are here on behalf of the petitioner, FLO TV. We're before you today, as was stated, for two separate yet interrelated petitions pertaining to a site at 5860 Crews Road. At the outset I just want to note a couple -- or dispel a couple myths that may have been had, primarily that this pertains to an existing tower. The applicant does not seek to build or construct a new tower at this site. Rather, if both petitions are approved, it will allow the -- it will legitimize an already existing structure and subsequently allow the applicant to use that tower in its capacity as a tenant to install an antenna and related shelter equipment. That being said, the first request, agenda Item 9.B is for a conditional use to permit the installation of the shelter and related equipment for FLO TV. The second request is a companion item to that petition, and it is for a variance to accommodate the existing locations of guyline anchors which currently fall outside of the front and side yard setback requirements. The applicant seeks to have a conditional use to install an antenna on a tower that was originally constructed prior to the second tower. It is what has been coined an after-the-fact conditional use petition. It is to legitimize the older tower that was supposed to be removed some time ago. I would like to show some pictures now, just to acclimate everyone with the site. Page 31 October 15, 2009 Those are the two towers facing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, you'll have to use a portable mic, because everything you say only gets picked up on recording when you use the mic. Thank you. MS. MADISON: Thank you very much. We have a photo here of both towers. The older towers, this one right here, is the one to which the applicant seeks to install its antenna and equipment. A few unique features of the property is that it is surrounded literally by very dense natural vegetation. It is somewhat isolated. And here we have a picture of -- looking from the property towards the east. Here's another picture. You can see the guy line anchors here. But again, those are located in very densely vegetated areas. This is a picture depicting just south of the site where there is currently construction being undergone for the -- a new highway on 864. And here is another picture facing north, and you can see the towers to the right, right there. And I have a couple other pictures. This really depicts how isolated the site really is and how it is in fact surrounded by natural vegetation on all sides of the property. And here's a picture depicting the enclosure and one of the shelters that currently exists on the site. So what the applicant simply seeks to do here is to install an antenna on the site as it already exists. Given that the site has been in existence for nearly decades, what the applicant proposes will in fact provide little to no minor alterations to the site, as it presently exists and has existed for nearly 20 years. There will be no additional employees at the site. As a result, there will be no need for increased parking or spaces to accommodate the installation of this equipment. There is no additional building Page 32 October 15,2009 square footage that will be associated with the installation. Conditional use approval is governed by Section 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code. And it does state in subsection D of that provision that before any conditional use shall be recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest, that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the following areas: One, consistency with the Code and Growth Management Plan; two, ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon; three, the effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects; four, compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. The applicant stipulates that because this is an already existing site, what the applicant proposes by way of installing equipment on this tower will have at best only minor alterations to any of the four provisions that are addressed in the code. Further, the proposal is consistent with Section 5.05.09, sub A of the Land Development Code, which expresses the county's desire to maximize the shared use of specified tower sites and to minimize the need for additional tower sites. The project is consistent with design and buffering standards. It is also already an FAA approved site. The means of egress and ingress onto the site have been satisfied. There will be no public access to this site. It is a virtually unmanned facility. And the ingress and egress is satisfied to the extent that maintenance is required and maintenance workers are required to have access to the site. And that is granted by a private dirt road that extends off of Crews Road. Again, because this is an already existing site, applicant's proposed installation will have virtually no affect on any noise, odor Page 33 October 15, 2009 or economic impacts. Nor will it disturb the existing compatibility it shares with surrounding properties. In accordance with the code requirements, the applicant did host a neighborhood informational meeting at the Fairfield Inn Marriott in Naples. No one from the public attended. During the time that this application has been under review we have entertained approximately a handful of public inquiries; one which was a direct call to myself from a surrounding property owner stating that she had no objection to either request and that she was very familiar with the site. Two others were based upon the misbelief that a new tower was being constructed. To that end, I worked jointly with staff to dispel those myths to the extent that we were able to contact the people who made those inquiries. Weare in agreement with the terms and conditions that have been provided in the staff report regarding the conditional use -- the conditional use petition, and note that staff had no objection to that particular request. I don't know if we want to discuss the conditional use, or should I just go on to the variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to hear them both at the same time, but we may have, yeah, questions specifically on conditional use first, and that's fine. So are there any questions specific to the conditional use from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, the conditional use is to legitimize that first tower that according to your current conditional use was supposed to have come down. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why did your clients believe that they didn't have to follow the original conditional use and take the first Page 34 October 15, 2009 tower down? MS. MADISON: To that end, I just want to note for the record that the client that I represent is FLO TV. They are seeking to become a tenant on Renda Broadcasting's tower. I cannot truly speak as to why that occurred on behalf of Renda. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute. FLO TV and Renda are exactly the same. They are corporate entities. They're the same. If you call-- if you look at, their e-mail addresses are the same. It's a subsidiary of Renda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have another problem based on what -- MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: You're the applicant, correct? MS. MADISON: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: And you represent who? MS. MADISON: I represent FLO TV. MR. KLATZKOW: Who owns the site? MS. MADISON: Renda Broadcasting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They have to be here. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, are you authorized to act on their behalf? MS. MADISON: I am not authorized to act on behalf of -- MR. KLATZKOW: Then you can't be here. COMMISSIONER CARON : You can't be here. MS. MADISON: I'm authorized to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let everybody speak one at a time. So it's just between the two attorneys right now. Go ahead. Go ahead, ma'am, you're fine. MS. MADISON: I'm sorry, I'm authorized to be here on behalf of FLO TV, the people who have submitted the application. MR. KLATZKOW: And they're asking for-- Page 35 October 15,2009 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I just talked to John-David, who's the assigned planner to this petition, and he indicated that there is an agreement from the property owner for FLO TV to act on their behalf for this conditional use. MS. MADISON: We've been authorized to proceed with this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 10 of 10 in the report there's an affidavit from Bill Mueller on behalf of Renda Broadcasting, allowing Kimberly Madison of Ruden-McCloskey to represent them. I just happened to notice it in the packet. Then on -- there's a following affidavit from Deborah Barrett of Media FLO USA, an applicant for a wireless installation on that property, allowing the same. I guess the question comes up then -- MS. MADISON: I can certainly have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go on, let me ask you a question. I mean, it's more of you and the County Attorney both. The applicant in this case is FLO TV. They are not the owners of the property. The owners of the property have provided affidavits allowing Ruden-McCloskey to represent them. MS. MADISON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do we need anything to allow Ruden-McCloskey -- that'd allow FLO TV to apply for changes to the property owned by the other company? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm okay if the property owner has authorized this. But I'm hearing from the attorney she's not authorized to speak for the property owner, so there's a disconnect. MS. MADISON: May I clarify the record? I am not authorized to testify as an attorney on behalf of the property owner, I do believe that much is accurate. However, I do have a representative here. I'm sorry, we kind of got sidetracked, but I do have someone who is able to testify. Page 36 October 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your name again? MS. MADISON: My name is Kimberly Madison. I'm an attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Madison, I've got an affidavit that's from Renda Broadcasting authorizing you of Ruden-McCloskey to represent them. MS. MADISON: And I do represent them. We may be getting caught up in a bit of legalese. But as an attorney I am not testifying, I am representing. I can provide someone who is able to testify. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you have an outstanding question from a Planning Commissioner. If you have a client here who can answer it, that's fine. You don't have to answer it. MS. MADISON: Absolutely. It would not be my client, but it would be a representative of Renda Broadcasting. If Mr. Tony Renda CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way you originally answered your first question from Ms. Caron got the County Attorney and I both oh, my goodness, what are we dealing with. MS. MADISON: No, I apologize. I just totally got sidetracked. I'm sorry. MR. RENDA: Do you want me here, or over there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one, sir, would be fine. And you need to identify yourself for the record. MR. RENDA: For the record, my name is Tony Renda. I'm president of Renda Broadcasting. And-- THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he was sworn in. MR. RENDA: I was sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Is that R-E-N-D-A? MR. RENDA: R-E-N-D-A. Let me try to answer your question as best I can regarding the Page 37 October 15,2009 tearing down of the first antenna. I might tell you, I have no excuse in that regard, I have some explanations. Processes like this are generally a long, long term. This application was actually -- let's just deal with the construction of the new tower. This actual new tower was granted back in 1993. The process that took place after that, but was not granted to us, I believe the name of the company was Sterling Broadcasting. In 1999, Renda Broadcasting purchased the radio station in Naples, as well as the tower and the right to construct a new tower. We then proceeded to ask for a modification, once we took ownership, to lower the tower, actually. And we did. It was granted, and in '99 and probably as a completion sometime in early part of 2000 the new tower was finished. And at that part we began the move of the radio station's antennas and other people who were on that tower. Through the years the people who were on the old tower, some moved, some did not move. And we as Renda Broadcasting never put anybody new on that tower. One of the clients on that tower has remained to be the FBI. They have a lease that grants them I believe the right to cancel after a year. Moving from the old tower to the new tower will incur some costs for any tenant. We are not on the old tower. There are only three people who are on the old tower. We have not called the FBI and said move off that tower. We have not done that. But we have made them aware that there is another tower. I think we find ourselves in this position right now. Tower space is of a premium, as you well know . We know that if this tower is allowed to remain that it's in an area where for the entire property I think the tower and its guywires and the building occupies about 20 percent of the total property. Page 38 October 15,2009 We would like quite frankly to have the tower remain. We think it's a -- it is a revenue producer, it's a tax producer. It has been approved for the FAA -- by the FAA. And it's nonintrusive. And the tearing down of that tower, I might say that we -- we probably kicked the can down. I personally cannot attest to that, but I don't think that we were trying to kick people off, but allowing their leases to expire. And as I said, there are only three attendants on that tower. I believe -- I think two are paging systems and one is the FBI. So I hope that answers your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it does not, Mr. Renda. The question was, according to the conditional use that you were supposed to be living under today, the original tower that now has a couple of tenants on it, including one being the FBI, was as a condition of that conditional use supposed to come down. MR. RENDA: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question to you was why you didn't follow your -- the conditional use. MR. RENDA: I have no excuse in that. I don't know that -- I'm a little weak here. I don't know if there was a time table on that original issued 1993 to the previous owner or not. But I can only explain the circumstances that dragged on probably for too long. COMMISSIONER CARON: The reason for my question is because you are now requesting another conditional use. And how do we know that you will live up to this conditional use? MR. RENDA: I think that's a fair question. I think one of the things that we have demonstrated is not adding to that tower, not taking any tenants on that tower and strongly recommending that the tenants who are on that tower either move or leave. I can tell you that I probably will be much more personally involved, if this is granted, in making sure that any condition that is set forth will be followed by Renda Broadcasting. Page 39 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition to that, when the current conditional use was granted, the height of that tower was supposed to have been reduced to 394 feet. That tower -- MR. RENDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is 450 feet -- or 452 feet, according to what you told the FCC. MR. RENDA: Ma'am, the overall-- there are two separate items in a tower. There is the tower structure itself. In addition to the tower there are antennas. The tower by itself does nothing. It is what is put on the tower. The original tower was requested to be as high as the old tower. And the idea or the intent of the previous owner was to hang an antenna on the side of the original tower. We requested from the FCC, and if I'm not mistaken from Collier County, to reduce the tower, but the same height would be made up from the antenna put on the top of the tower. So the -- if one were to say the tower height with the antenna pole, which to some degree almost represents a tower, but it is of the same exact height. It is not one inch higher than what was granted. MS. MADISON: May I interject on that? Because we did address that very specific issue during the review process. And it may in all fairness be more of an engineering question. I have an engineer here available, if need be. But yes, the 450-foot measurement does include the tower and the pole-mounted antenna. That is in compliance with the terms of the existing conditional use which regulate the height of the tower. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, then that will be a question then for staff. Because according to the staff report, that's not the case. And if that needs to be corrected, that's fine. MS. MADISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I very well, Mr. Renda, understand the difference between the antenna base and the antennas that go on Page 40 October 15,2009 top of it. I too was in your business for many years. MR. RENDA: Good, good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we'll need to get that clarification, because right now according to what I'm reading, that tower, your new tower, with everything should be 394 feet tall and it's not, as we all know. The issue for the county only has to do with the very top of the tower. Because the county's issue and interest in this is safety. Should your tower fall -- MR. RENDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we don't care about the 394 that's down here, we care about the very top of that tower, because that's what could impact other people. So any height that is ever mentioned here should be to the top of the tower. It should be to the red light on the top of the tower. Because should anything happen to that tower and it falls over, the interest to the county is in where it might land, not where half of it might land. MS. MADISON: And also to address that issue, I do believe one of the conditions to which we have no objection to in the staff report does limit the height, put a place limit of approval of spanning no additional height. COMMISSIONER CARON: To what it is today. MS. MADISON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually at 455. MR. RENDA: Right. The tower -- I think we're saying the same thing. The tower is not any taller, including the antenna, than what was granted. COMMISSIONER CARON: According to what you say, not according to the information that was given to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when staff report comes up, that Page 41 October 15,2009 will certainly -- we need to get that clarified. So we'll do that, make sure we get that clarified then. Are there any other questions of the applicant, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now you can go ahead, other people can ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my concern is what are the requirements for the collapsed zone around the tower? Does it have to fully collapse within the site? MS. MADISON: Okay, I'm going to bring an engineer up to testify regarding that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually we have that -- that's an issue to deal with Collier County, so J.D. could probably respond to that. MR. MOSS: Yes, Commissioner Schiffer. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The requirement in the LDC for most towers is two and a half times the height. However, for essential services, which staff has deemed that this site would be considered, there is no height restriction, and there is no collapse zone restriction. MR. KLATZKOW: Can I hear the engineer, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, because I'm going to have a problem with it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's interesting. So if a private sector puts up a tower and it falls and crushes a house, that's got to stop. But if a government puts up a tower and it falls and crushes a house, it's okay. Interesting. Go ahead, sir. MR. GRANT: Keith Grant, from Overland Contractors. Page 42 October 15,2009 Towers generally don't fall over. They Z down. They're made so that the bolts will actually snap that hold the towers together. So your fall radius is not truly the height of the tower, it falls within a smaller pattern of it. On this tower you would expect it to fall actually no more than one-half the distance of the height of the tower. So this should fall within 200 feet, which would put you well within the range of the property that it's on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so, because the width of this property isn't that. So it's -- MS. MADISON: It's 4.77 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the dimensions you have of the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 33. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're testifying is that this whole thing as designed and collapsed would totally maintain itself within the property. MR. GRANT: I believe so, sir. Without having the paperwork in front of me. MS. MADISON: I can -- do you need a map? MR. GRANT: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the width of the side, this thing's sitting about 150 feet from property lines, maybe less than. MS. MADISON: I just want to state again, before you testify, just because you may not have instant knowledge, the site area is 4.77 acres. The nearest residential I believe is over 300 feet away. And it is, as mentioned before, surrounded by natural vegetation. With that being said, if you could elaborate on the collapse zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me add to that, though, that it is private property around your site. And there would -- Page 43 October 15,2009 MS. MADISON: There is private-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's the potential for people to develop that, so -- I mean, you're saying that the thing's 455, so 225 feet is half of that. The width of the property is 333, it's sitting in the middle, so it sounds like you could go over the neighbor to me. MR. GRANT: It possibly could, sir. I would have to sit down and review and actually put this for our engineering staff to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in the design of the tower, which I don't know if you designed this or not. MR. GRANT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the collapse zone something that is engineered, or is that something that Mother Nature gives us in the event -- MR. GRANT: Actually, it's engineered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so somewhere we should have data as to what that is? MR. GRANT: Yes, sir, that can be calculated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't have it. MS. MADISON: Yes. And here again, I would just like to reiterate the fact that FLO TV is simply coming in seeking to be a tenant on this tower. So to the extent that this tower has existed prior to 1993, we don't have the benefit of the actual engineers who constructed the tower. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me ask a quick question. Could you get us that information between now and like two weeks from now? MR. GRANT: I can certainly try to. MR. KLATZKOW: So when this comes back to you on consent you can have that information, if you so wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we get into statements and-- there's more missing than just that. So we may find that you have to bring back a lot of data. But let's just -- I certainly agree with the way you're moving, Mr. Klatzkow. Page 44 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me continue on, too. Here's the concern, is that you have a new tower and an old tower. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both of them are kind of old. And in the collapse of those, I mean, one is going to affect the other. So somehow -- and the dimensions of this property is not that great that these things can't go over on the other people's property, so -- even by your testimony. So I think that's a major concern as to-- now, I don't care if you're just a tenant. The issue here is the old tower is still up, the old tower could collapse and take down the new tower. So I think we really should know what the collapse zone, especially if two towers together, would look like. MS. MADISON: I'm sorry, just to clarify for the record, I thought the collapse zone was already established as could not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it may have been established with the expectation of the old tower being removed. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's one thing I think we should see too. MS. MADISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there is controversy as to the height. If you're saying, you know, it will approximately collapse within half its height, you know, adding more height to it does add more collapse zone. But I'm through, Mr. Chair, thank you. MR. GRANT: We're not looking to add more height to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a followup, are you engineered-- certified in the State of Florida? MR. GRANT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you can't call yourself an Page 45 October 15,2009 engIneer. MR. GRANT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. MR. GRANT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Madison -- Ms. Madison. MS. MADISON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You showed us a bunch of pictures and you said very quickly there's a development to the south. How far away is that development from the end of the property? MS. MADISON: Let's see if I can pull out this map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or is it directly adjacent? MS. MADISON: It's not directly adjacent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a road. MS. MADISON: There is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess you should answer the first question that I posed to you instead of my comment. MR. MOSS: If I may, Commissioner Murray, there is an aerial photograph on Page 2 of the staff report that might help you to see what the surrounding area looks like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could take a scale and I still won't get it. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm asking for information, how far away. We're talking about something very important that I'm very distressed to hear, that an attorney representing in one instance and then not representing in another instance. I recognize your perception of charge, but in my mind I will tell you right now, this is a failed petition. The people who should be petitioning us are the ones who can answer the questions without question. So I'm very turned off by this, unfortunately. And I rarely react this way. Page 46 October 15, 2009 MS. MADISON: And I apologize for the reaction. But I suppose what we're saying for the record is that you feel that Renda should be the applicant. Because I am simply representing the applicant who seeks to use the tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It reminds me of an ice cream truck and the person's got the freezer and he's in control of the freezer and the ice cream goes bad. Who's at fault? MS. MADISON: I understand your point, but I will tell you in an attempt to explain, as an attorney it's quite common if you represent someone who's a lessor who seeks to lease something on a property. That is a very common situation, as is the county requirement that you get permission from the landowner to seek whatever zoning approvals that you need for the particular piece of property that you seek to lease. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, ma'am, I understand. But it was already a deficient conditional use. And the parties who are responsible for ultimately making good for any destruction that occurs, would that be FLO TV? Should there be a collapse, would it be FLO TV that would be responsible to make a payment in claims for destruction of property? I don't think so. It would be the owner of it. And maybe you have an agreement that makes you liable, for all I know, but I don't care. The first party is the one who has ownership of the unit. If you wish to just simply be on that unit, that's a matter between you and they. They should be the petitioner, in my mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, Mr. Klatzkow, but that's what I think. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't disagree with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, we've -- this item has come before us and been continued before. And I think that when you get done hearing the discussion today, before we vote on it you ought to continue it and come back with a list of items that I'm writing down Page 47 October 15,2009 that you may want to bring back to buffet your case and to clarify the responsibility. Assist us in the collapsed zone and the certifications of the existing towers. Even though they're old, they still need -- we still need to know that those towers will collapse in the manner in which your engIneer says. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we can salvage what you're trying to do, especially since the towers have existed for 10 years or more. But I think we need better data. And it's not -- and I implore you, you very carefully articulated our conditional use -- MS. MADISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- element of our Land Development Code. MS. MADISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you may have gotten it off of municode or wherever. But you need to go and pull up Section 5.05.09. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is a special section attributed to just communication towers. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if -- your conditional use, you have to still abide by that section as well. MS. MADISON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some elements in that section that I will be questioning. And one of those is, for example, you're supposed to have an inspection report filed with the county manager not later than December 1st of each inspection year. I asked county staff and no one has seen any inspection reports on these towers. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The county's big and something could have got lost somewhere in a drawer. I don't Page 48 October 15,2009 care about the old ones as much as I care about the one today. MS. MADISON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you reschedule and come back, I think you ought to come back with an inspection report on those two towers, showing that the towers are certified to whatever condition they're supposed to be certified to in order to take the loads and impacts that they're supposed to have. I also think you need to have the engineering acknowledged that we have a collapse zone designated for this and how that's done and where it's limited to. And that will take away the concern, hopefully, of going beyond the property lines, if that's in fact where the collapse zone limits itself to. The distances from the property lines, they're not really shown clearly on this plan. I think you need to show those. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to show the distances in a larger format to the nearest structures. All these things will help give us a level of comfort as we move forward. And I think that you ought to come back and clean up your representation. Because if you're here talking to (sic) FLO TV -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we need to answer some Rena (sic) too. And if you could -- if Rena would just engage you and we can get all the answers from you, that makes life real simple. MS. MADISON: And that's -- and here again, I guess appearing before zoning boards in different counties, again, that is typical that we do have -- I mean, obviously you have to get authorization from the landowners to seek an approval on their land, so we did get their consent. I guess from the legal perspective I certainly don't construe that as representative. But it's just -- it's really just a play on words. I mean, and so that really is a non issue. I can work to get Renda Page 49 October 15,2009 representation here in their capacity as the owner and those who have the most intimate knowledge of the history of this particular site. I also did want to just address a couple of things on the record. We have by no means been trying to hide the ball or anything of that nature. We sat down with staff it would have to be like six, seven months ago for our pre-application meeting at this point, and was told, we were informed, that this would have to be an after-the-fact conditional use because of the fact that the existing conditional use does require the replacement of the existing tower. That was never done. As a result, there are two towers that sit there. In order to correct that, we were told to seek an after-the-fact variance -- I'm sorry, conditional use. To the extent that that is provided for under the code, we have come forth fully acknowledging of the deficiency that currently exists on this site. Because of that, we have also been working very diligently with staff to respond to every concern. Weare more than happy to do so again today. As you all are aware, this very hearing has been continued on several occasions because we wanted to make sure to address every single concern as it arose. So I just want to clear the record to say that that is absolutely not a problem, and we are more than happy to address these concerns as they come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a liability issue for your client -- MS. MADISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think that at the time he probably purchased the property I would have imagined good due diligence would have had him inspecting those towers very thoroughly. So that inspection and those towers' conditions should be known to you guys; you should want to know that now. And this collapse zone is a critical issue for the zoning aspects of this board. MS. MADISON: And Mr. Grant is here in the primary Page 50 October 15, 2009 engineer's substitution. He had a -- understand, he was able to attend the first meeting as it was originally scheduled. He did have a conflict for this one so he was unable to attend. But Dave Kuhn does have intimate knowledge of the structural analysis. Again, we did not purchase the property, but yes, certainly to the extent that they were seeking to be a tenant on that property, they have performed structural analysis, and I believe will easily be able to provide you concrete information concerning the collapse zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The site plan that you provided shows a fence around the accessory structure and the tower itself. The code section I referred you to requires a fence around all outdoor equipment, accessory buildings and accessory structures, guy anchors and tower bases. So you'll need to show us a site plan where the fencing is that protects the guywires that you're asking for from a variance viewpoint as well. MS. MADISON: And that site plan was drafted with the conditional use. It's since been brought to our attention that requirement, and it is one of the stipulations in approval of the variance request in the staff report, that all areas be fenced in and enclosed, and we are more than willing to see that that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you also were supposed to have notified Collier County Mosquito Control District of the tower's height and its location. We would need confirmation that you've done that. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd suggest you send something to them by some method or means and get an acknowledgment they received it, and bring that back to us as well. So I think with those five or six items, you've got some work cut out for you and that you may want to consider. If there's no more Page 51 October 15,2009 questions from this board, that is. You may want to consider requesting a continuance for a future date. But let me see if we have any -- are there any questions from any of the members of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the applicant. We're going to ask for staff comment and then we'll come back to the applicant. J.D. ? MR. MOSS: Thank you, Chairman. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I don't know if you need a presentation from me. I just want to state on the record that with the conditions of approval included in the attached resolutions that staff finds this application to be consistent with the LDC and with the provisions of the Growth Management Plan. I'd just also like to say for the record that we often receive requests like this where an applicant acts on behalf of a property owner and they have authorization to do it. And so I apologize for the confusion this has caused, but we didn't think it was anything irregular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the confusion was the young lady can't speak for both parties, unfortunately. And I think that needs to get cleaned up so when she's here answering questions that are really the responsibility of the property owner, she's doing so with authority and it sticks. By saying she doesn't represent the owner, we're getting questions that don't mean anything. And especially about the collapse zone, about the tower inspections, about paperwork, like that, she can't commit for this owner to get that to us. So I think the direction is loud and clear, we need that information. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: J.D., where do you sit on the Page 52 October 15,2009 Emergency Services part of this? MR. MOSS: Staff is satisfied that this has been -- this requirement has been fulfilled by the placement of the FBI tower on the site. Staff is considering the site as a whole to be an essential service facility rather than each individual tower. So one of the conditions in the attached resolution is that there will at all times be an essential service provider's antenna. Doesn't necessarily have to be the FBI but it will have to be some government approved essential service operating at all times on the site. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Will the county seek space on these towers? MR. MOSS: Not that I know of. And that's probably a question that's better addressed to the agent. But as far as I know, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: J.D., you have a tower that shouldn't have been there and you have a new tower. How did you come to the conclusion that a lessee should be the petitioner for an event to change for conditional use? They're leasing it. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That may represent an activity that if they are responsible -- are you then suggesting by intimation or directly that every tenant on there is part of the conditional use? MR. MOSS: The conditional use runs with the land, so it's not attached to the applicant. But the applicant, by requesting the conditional use, they have received authorization from the property owner to act on their behalf. And the site would be required to come into full compliance with the provisions of the conditional use in order for them to get C.O.'d in order to construct the new facility and direct any new antennas thereafter. I mean, that's how this whole thing became discovered is when they came in to apply to attach a new antenna on the tower and the county realized hey, this tower was supposed to have come down, Page 53 October 15, 2009 what's it still doing up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. So you're telling me it was luck of the draw. Had it been FLO TV, MO TV or JOE TV, they would have been carrying the ball for the conditional use? MR. MOSS: They don't necessarily have to. The applicant -- FLO TV didn't have to be the one that applied for the conditional use. It could have been Renda Broadcasting. But it just so happened that it was FLO TV because they were motivated to get their antennas -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that -- MR. MOSS: -- on the tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if it runs -- if the conditional use runs with the land, doesn't that then derive to the land's owner? MR. MOSS: Yeah, ultimately the landowner is responsible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm really miffed. I'm completely confused why we would be -- I understand the thesis about why somebody is doing something. Believe me, I assure you of that. But I just don't know that it seems to be the appropriate thing. Because it suggests, as I've just indicated -- MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to you that if they have a liability issue then, then every one of those tenants have equal liability Issues. MR. MOSS: Right. I mean, it would come down to the property owner who's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you saying right -- MR. MOSS: -- going to be liable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you're testifying now. You're saying right. MR. MOSS: It's my understanding, and Ray, you might want to interject here. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Page 54 October 15,2009 Manager. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So every party on that antenna, on that structure, has as equal a liability should that structure fall and cause damage or injuries? MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the conditional use, I'm not speaking about liability about a collapse, but in regards to use of the land it's no different than a contract purchaser on a rezoning property for a property owner that once the rezoning goes through they can close on the purchase. The property owner has given that agent or that contract purchaser the right to act on their behalf on rezoning property . This is a similar situation. Renda has given permission for FLO TV to act on their behalf to get a conditional use that will run with the land. So in that regard staff is fine with the process of contract purchaser or a future tenant on this tower to act on behalf of the property owner to get a conditional use that applies overall to all the users on that site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you. I hear what you're saying, but I heard what Ms. Madison said. And our Chairman has indicated that that has to be qualified, and I agree completely. MR. BELLOWS: And I don't necessarily disagree. I heard what our County Attorney said, and it probably is a good idea for the property opener to get more involved. MS. MADISON: And may I for the record say that nor do I disagree. I just -- as an attorney, when -- the word representation and engaged, no I have not been formally engaged by Renda Broadcasting. So in that sense, you know, in one court here, you know, that is an inaccurate statement. But I assure you like before the Florida Bar that would not be accurate to say I represent them and they are my client. They are not my client. Page 55 October 15, 2009 But to the extent that we have sought to use this property, the applicant, as a lease, we did seek their authorization as a property owner to do that. And just to piggyback on the examples that I've been given, it would be no different if we were seeking a commercial space in a shopping center and we wanted to get a particular parcel zoned for beer and wine packaged sales. The property owner really has no individual interest in what each individual unit has within that shopping center. However, they will authorize us as their tenant to seek whatever zoning approvals that we need to make the maximum use of that space. And that was simply what we were trying to do here. I really hate that you have been personally offended by it, how I presented that, and I apologize for the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not -- don't take any offense to you personally, Counselor. I think the converse is true, though, that you as a person coming here with them saying here, here's my property, you can put your device on it. You need to know -- if you're going to represent in some fashion, you need to know every detail about what we're going to ask about collapse and the rest of it and be able to have somebody testify to the facts. That's all I'm saying. MS. MADISON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please don't take -- MS. MADISON: No, no, I just wanted to make sure I clarified the record in terms of that. No, I don't disagree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney has a comment to make. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity. Next time this comes back __ and this is not just you, this is everybody -- I want the person who's the applicant here, which is really the owner, okay. I want the owner's Page 56 October 15,2009 representative here, somebody authorized to speak for the owner, period. MS. MADISON: Okay. And I would say just-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. MS. MADISON: -- to clarify that, the applicant is not the owner. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no. I-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, it is. MR. KLATZKOW: The owner -- no, no, no, I've got an affidavit in the material here that you are -- that this applicant was authorized to speak on behalf of the owner. MS. MADISON: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: You're telling me you're not. I understand that, okay. What I'm telling you is next time you're here or somebody else is here, you're going to be authorized to speak on behalf of the owner or we're not hearing this. MS. MADISON: Okay. And just to clarify the record, I am authorized to the extent that I have -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, not to any extent. MS. MADISON: May I -- MR. KLATZKOW: Whatever question's asked of you, you know, we're going to get an answer and not a qualified answer. MS. MADISON: May I speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. MADISON: I just want to say that I am -- again, to the extent I'm not making this clear, to the extent I misspoke, yes, we do have signed authorizations for me on behalf of Ruden-McClosky on behalf of the petitioner, the applicant, FLO TV, as well as the owner, Renda Broadcasting. Point one. Point two, I do have a representative of Renda here, he is the president, Mr. Tony Renda. And that would be to address the second point. And I will bring Mr. Renda and any other authorized Page 57 October 15, 2009 representation that we seek from Renda as we see fit to any continued hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, these meetings are of course public record, and we go back to these meetings at times in the future if we have questions about what happened. Your statements have to be able to be committed to a point where the owner has to abide by them. And that's why we're so careful. Because whatever you say -- MS. MADISON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to stipulate. And if it gets stipulated, the owner's going to have to live with it. So we don't want anybody up there answering questions that don't stick. And that's I guess the short of it, so -- MS. MADISON: And I just -- and to the extent I might be getting confused, I just want to say for the record that a representative of the owner is present. And I don't know if Mr. Renda has approached the stand again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, go ahead. We're in the -- a lot of people are talking right now so you might as well join in. Go ahead. MR. RENDA: I just want to assure counselor that indeed Renda will be represented and we will be here. I hear you. I hear you loud and clear. I hear the board. And we will be here answering your questions. And I apologize for the use of your time today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's being very constructive use. You've got a facility that's been there a long time. MR. RENDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the emphasis needs to find a way to make it compliant so it can stay there. And I think if you can listen to what we say today, come back with the right documentation, it will go a long way to get us there. And with that I still have three speakers lined up that want to Page 58 October 15, 2009 comment. I'll go to Mr. Wolfley next, then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Eastman. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: John-David, are you in possession of the inspection reports? MR. MOSS: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And as our Chair, that would be a good thing. Are the beacon lights on both towers operational right now? MR. MOSS: I don't know, because I don't have the inspection reports. But I do have a report from the Mosquito Control that Mark Strain asked for. And it was approved, reviewed and approved by Mosquito Control, so they wouldn't have done that if the lights were not on the tower and operational, I assume -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On both. MR. MOSS: -- but I don't know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On both. MR. MOSS: On both, right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. The -- I mean, whether it's the FBI, I mean, I really -- you know, I'm a little bit upset about this above-the-Iaw routine but -- where the government can do what they choose but, you know, the public can't. Is it the intent that the old tower is going to stay? MR. MOSS: Yes. And the code actually encourages the collocation of antennas on a site, rather than having multiple antennas scattered throughout the county to meet the needs. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I got that. Okay, I was just wondering if it was because it was the FBI. MR. MOSS: Oh, no, no, no. That's just what the code says. Any essential service, which is any governmental entity, such as the FBI. It could be anyone. It could be EMS it could be fire, the sheriff. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, all right. Page 59 October 15,2009 MR. MOSS: This just happens to be the tenant they have. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had some other things, but I think I'm going to wait for the next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Eastman, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: To answer Mr. Wolfley, there is only one light and that's on the new tower. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Renda, could you come back up again? I just want to ask you one question. What is the relationship between FLO TV and Renda? MR. RENDA: FLO TV would be a tenant on the tower. There is no ownership, comanagement; there is no relationship whatsoever. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you have no interest at all in FLO TV? MR. RENDA: None. None whatever. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't own any of those -- MR. RENDA: Not-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- TV stations, nothing. Okay. MR. RENDA: I don't believe they're a TV station ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Broadcasting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but-- MR. RENDA: But I have no ownership. None whatsoever. And they have no ownership in my company. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: J.D., my question relates to the essential service classification of the site. And that's due solely because of the FBI's leasing on the tower? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: And in the event that the FBI were to cancel their lease, is it no longer -- Page 60 October 15, 2009 MR. MOSS: That's right. And that's why there's a condition of approval in the attached resolution stating that there has to be some sort of essential service operating on the site at all times. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get there. I think I know where you're going, so that's a good question, but we'll get there. MR. EASTMAN: I just found it interesting. The owner Renda had said that the FBI could cancel the lease within one year, so it seems like we may be treating something as essential service that doesn't have that permanent staying power of -- MR. MOSS: Right. MR. EASTMAN: -- essential service. And that was the only point I really wanted to make. MR. MOSS: Well, I think if the applicant were actually having the site reviewed annually and submitting documentation to the County Manager's Office or his designee, that could be something that staff checks for in order to track it to make sure that there is always an essential service in operation on the site. MR. EASTMAN: Thanks, J.D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney, Ms. Caron and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And J.D., this is for you again. I'm kind of piling it on, so walk me down the same trial. This is a privately owned properly (sic) antenna. Everything on it is privately owned. Then comes along something that would be an essential service on its own. It attaches itself to the site. Now the whole site is a part of the essential service. If the FBI rents an office in the space the whole building becomes part of essential services. MR. MOSS: No, it has to have an antenna in order for it to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point of the matter is-- MR. MOSS: -- considered essential services. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- who made the determination Page 61 October 15,2009 that -- what the code meant by essential services? It could have meant antennas that are owned by essential services in the county. So where was that determine (sic) made that once something that is rightly considered an essential services placed on the tower the whole thing, the whole site, the whole project becomes an essential service? MR. MOSS: Oh, that was a determination that was made by the director. That's not a conclusion that I drew on my own. Because there were two towers already on the site and one of them was going to be an essential service, the director determined that it wasn't necessary that the other one also had an essential service user. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the determination that an antenna described as an essential service antenna means any antenna, privately or publicly owned, that has an essential service on it. MR. MOSS: No, I don't think it's -- the antenna cannot be privately owned, it has to be a governmental entity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he owns the antenna. MR. MOSS: He owns the tower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He owns the tower, okay. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, it's the tower-- MR. MOSS: It's the antenna that has to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'm worried about falling. MR. MOSS: -- governed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the antenna could fall off the tower, I'm not worried about that. So the way the code's written is that an essentially serviced tower means could be a privately owned tower with an essential service antenna or -- MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- use on it. MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Send me a copy of that. Page 62 October 15, 2009 I'd like to see that. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm through, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: J.D., at any point did anyone think of asking for some sort of a sanction for this violation? MR. MOSS: Well, they are penalized by the code whenever they apply for an after-the-fact conditional use and an after-the-fact variance. The fees that we normally charge for these applications are doubled. And that's the penalty for requesting it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the fee? MR. MOSS: We double it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is it? MR. MOSS: Normally the fee is $4,000 for a conditional use. Is that right, Ray, 4,000 for a conditional use? MR. BELLOWS: 3,000. MR. MOSS: 3,000. And then it's doubled. And for the variance it's 2,000 and that's doubled to 4,000. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I mean the amount of money that they can get by leasing these things over many, many years is probably going to outweigh that. MR. MOSS: No, you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So my question is, what's to prevent another applicant from a tower from just deciding well, let me just take two towers, because these people did it, I can get away with it too, no one's going to do anything. MR. MOSS: That's a good point. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to answer that question too. There's another component to a situation where a nonconformity may occur. If say the FBI use or some other essential service use would leave, it Page 63 October 15, 2009 becomes a code enforcement action. And code enforcement can bring them to the code enforcement board where they could be fined until either the tower comes down or they find another essential service user. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Another question is that when you were considering this, and looking at the two towers, I would have thought to say or ask the owner why he didn't ask the FBI, look, I want to put up another tower, but in order to put up the second tower I have to get rid of this one, would you please, you know, move your tower somewhere else so that I can do the second one, instead of just putting it up, you know, and assuming well, since the FBI's on the first tower, that one is safe. You never thought of asking that question? MR. MOSS: No, I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the owner should have said, I want to build a second tower. In order to do that I have to get rid of the first tower. Let me ask the FBI to simply put their tower either on the one that I'm going to build now or somewhere else. And you never thought of asking why the owner never did that? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petition, when it came to us, was that they want to keep two. So it doesn't matter really what happened before, why they didn't tear it down. I think the owner of the tower gave a fairly good explanation why, that they were waiting for leases to go or whatever reason. But when somebody applies to the county for a conditional use for an essential service communication tower and they say they want two towers, you know, they're allowed to ask for two. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That doesn't seem to me like a good explanation. Page 64 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but with that thought in mind, let's take a 15-minute break for the court reporters. I want to compare their notes and make sure they're both keeping up with one another. So we'll come back at 10:25. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we're back from break. When we left we were going through more discussion from the Planning Commission, and we certainly have a few more comments we want to make before we run this out. Next speaker -- oh, Mr. Midney, did you finish? Okay, sir, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my question is other than the sanction of a higher application fee, is there any other sanctions available for when people cheat in this way? MR. KLATZKOW: I can answer that. At the end of the day, if it was the county's desire to do this, and apparently it wasn't, we could have that tower taken down. So anywhere between fines and we're taking the tower down, we've got that authority. We didn't do that, but we have that authority. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there anything in between? Because that's, you know, like a drastic thing that would probably not be done. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we can require them to come back in and amend their conditional use and put whatever requirements we would want after that. But, you know, if it's not supposed to be there, it's not supposed to be there. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, that's what we're doing here is getting a new conditional use to allow new conditions of approval to help ensure safety of this site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I guess my concern is also safety. But just from a profit and loss looking at it, you could gain -- Page 65 October 15, 2009 you know, with what these things are worth, it would be profitable, you know, just to sort of ignore the -- you know, what you agreed to do, the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, and this is for John-David. LDC Section 5.05.09.G.3 allows standalone communication towers with a conditional use approval, provided that the tower is owned or leased to an essential service that is the primary user. So my contention is that by our very code the first tower -- that's why the conditional use was approved with the first tower coming down before the second tower was put up. MR. MOSS: I don't know, Commissioner, that that's what that means. Standalone, I think it means a tower that's just a tower on the site without a principal use with it. I think that's what it means is more the tower itself acting is a principal use. I just would like to say the director is the one that made this determination. I mean, this has been thoroughly scrutinized by Susan Istenes, and she has determined that the two towers on the site would be acceptable. And she is the interpreter of the LDC. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, I'm going to hope that Susan Istenes will be here when this meeting comes back. MR. MOSS: I can ask her to be, certainly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Now, I have another question. In terms of monitoring, if this somehow gets approved, how is it -- since we've never monitored these people before, how are you going to monitor what happens on this site? MR. MOSS: I'm not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I think we need a management plan. MR. MOSS: Yes, there needs to be some sort of monitoring program, definitely. And maybe there is. I mean, I just don't -- I Page 66 October 15,2009 wasn't able to find the information that was submitted. And we did ask Renda Broadcasting with too short notice to provide that information. So hopefully they have monitoring reports on file that they've submitted. Maybe they know or maybe they can provide them to us, I don't know. But it would definitely be something that we would have to establish in order to track these monopoles. It's in the LDC that these reports be submitted to the county manager or his designee annually. And so it's something that definitely needs to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Renda, if you would be so kind as to come to the podium again. Thank you, sir. I'm not intending to embarrass you in any way, but I want to ask a question that might be perceived as that. You're a private corporation. Are you in a position in any way to compel any government entity whatsoever to be a lessee on your tower? MR. RENDA: No. You know the answer to that question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. MR. RENDA: -- no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So my question then becomes in the event that you should -- that this were to go forward and in the event that the current or any entity that was the sole entity left on a tower, government entity left on a tower, were to choose to leave, what would Renda Broadcasting do to alert the county or begin a process? Has that been thought out, or is the assumption only that it will always be the case? MR. RENDA: What do you mean the assumption? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm trying to couch it in a way that doesn't suggest any nefarious thoughts on anybody's part. Simple fact. If FBI, the remaining entity, government entity, chooses to leave, Page 67 October 15, 2009 leaving the structure and any remaining antennas only to be private, and the requirement of the conditional use is that there mus~ be a government entity, what action plan does Renda Broadcasting, you certainly necessarily not, but your corporation, what plan would you have? Or is it going to be that we are going to have to initiate a search type of thing? MR. RENDA: Mr. Murray, there would be no plan on our part. I think someone suggested up here that we said to the FBI, oh, just stay on that tower and everything will be all right. I can tell you, I can assure you that nobody from my office, my corporate office and even locally even suggested that that would happen. Secondly, and I'll try to get to your answer, I don't have a plan, well, if the FBI -- maybe I go get the local city dog catcher to be on there. We don't have any such plan. We're in the radio station business. That's what we do. Ms. Caron, to answer your question about tearing down one tower before you put it up, that cannot happen. It cannot happen with a radio station, it cannot happen with a television station. What you must do is have a tower go up so you can move the antenna to continued broadcasting. We provide what we think is a pretty good service to the community with our two radio stations licensed to Collier County. Weare very, very active in all the hurricanes alerts and all of that. Our business is the radio business. The tower business is a secondary business. We enjoy a very nice record with the FCC and with all legal entities. We're not sitting, planning on how we're going to pick up $1,000 or $1,500 in tower rent. That's not our business. Our business is the radio business. That's what we do. I don't know where this is going. I will tell you this: Counselor had very good advice. We will come in here much more prepared to answer your questions, number one. Page 68 October 15,2009 But number two, when we get up every single day and what we do is we try to serve the people of Collier County. If we do that properly, the listeners, we make money. We -- that's what we do and we do it well. We don't get up thinking who can we rent our tower space to. That is -- that's not our intent. We have taken on responsibilities of generator service, not only to keep our radio stations on the air, but also during threatening times to make sure that those radio stations remain on the air. Because if we're serving people and we're doing it well, we'll make money. But it's the listener. That's our primary reason and that's our only reason. Everything else is a secondary reason. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Renda, I'm certain that everybody in this room and who's watching on TV thanks you for the public service that you perform. And I don't say that in any way sarcastically. I'm quite sincere when I say that. This board also provides a public service in that we're trying to protect the public in one form or another. And I wasn't attempting to embarrass you or entrap you in any way. But here's the point, and I hope you go away with this understanding: Renda Broadcasting, whether it's your primary business or not, it is ancillary to your business. And you should, in my opinion, certainly, and apparently from others, you should be the party seeking the conditional use. MR. RENDA: I agree, by the way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, okay. In that context then it is important. Because the county representatives have said that there's a predicate. You can have this as long as you do that. So when you come before us the next time, there has to be some means, and not solely on an enforcement basis by the county, but a reciprocal, if you will, or at the minimum your own small plan as to what you would do if. That's what I was attempting to bring out for you, in no way embarrass you. Thank you, sir. Page 69 October 15,2009 MR. RENDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other planning commission -- yeah, go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain, excuse me, I just wanted to add that for Commissioner Murray, there is a stipulation of approval in the attached resolution that states that there must be an essential service provider operating at all times. What we could do is elaborate on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He can't compel it. MR. MOSS: Well, what we can do is elaborate that they provide us an affidavit each time that they submit to the county their annual inspection report, stating that we are still -- they're still operating on the side or that someone is, if it's not the FBI. And that is something that we could actually track. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just from a business point of view, they would want to know that themselves, from that -- MR. MOSS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You've charged them with that, if that stipulation goes forward. That's a biggy. MR. MOSS: We can do that, if you would like to direct staff to do so. So just let us know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And John-David, since I'm now understanding the difference between towers and antenna -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since I'm now understanding the difference between towers and antenna -- MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- when you get that report from the -- from Susan, would you make sure that -- because there's a lot of discussion about essential service towers don't have to have collapse zones, but in this case we have an essential service antenna. So see if Page 70 October 15,2009 you can clear up that. Because here's what doesn't make sense to me, is that if you have a tower that's privately owned and put an essential service antenna, and you've designed it so that it can -- will collapse on neighbors property, ifthat essential service leaves, what do you do to the tower? You'd have to essentially tear it down -- MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because it's no longer -- MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, the collapse zone question doesn't make sense to me. I think essential service towers means that the essential service can own the tower for its use. I think privately owned towers with essential service antennas on them is a different creature. But thank you. MR. MOSS: I'll ask Susan to address that when she comes to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The statement, it was stated that the FBI was never notified to relocate their antenna on the new one. And it just almost seems like to me that that was by definite purpose, to keep that tower up. And that's -- that just didn't bode when I was reading through this. And then the statements that they were never contacted to move the antenna. Well, I would think by building the new one that all three entities on the old one should have said you're moving. Simple as that. Whether you're an essential service or not, we have a new antenna, it's bigger, better, even has a light on it. And -- you know, I mean, please discuss that. I mean later, the next time you come back. I mean, it just seemed planned to me and Page 71 October 15,2009 that just stinks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? David -- yes, go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify one issue that came up with Commissioner Caron very early in the hearing as to where staff got the information that was reported it the staff report about the towers being 450 feet in height. That does include the antennas that are attached to the towers. But I have a copy of an elevation that was submitted as part of the application I'd like to put on the visualizer, if I might. And I'm not sure if you can read that very clearly, but there are different heights listed on the elevation. But the ultimate height shown for both of the towers is 450 feet. There are lower heights listed. For instance, this one here shows 420 feet. And I'm assuming that's -- well, I don't want to assume anything. It looks like that may be an antenna attached to the side of the tower. But anyway, both towers are depicted to be 450 feet, and that's where staff got that information. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And that 450 feet, actually once they added the lights you wanted to make it 455 feet. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: That is the height that the county should be concerned about, the top of it, not whether the base of the tower is 20 feet and they stick an antenna on top of it that's 100 feet. You need to know that -- the 120 feet. That's the important -- that's where the vested interest of the county lies. Because should the tower ever go over, it's not just going to go over at the base so you're protected because it's only the 20 feet we're talking about, it will be whatever comes down -- MR. MOSS: Well, for the record--s Page 72 October 15, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that would be to the top. MR. MOSS: -- with the lightning rod that's attached to it, it would be 455 feet in total. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And that is the vested county interest, in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., if you could come back up for just a minute. Based on a-- MS. MADISON: May I make a few comments before we close? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not closing. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm giving direction. But you can go ahead. Go ahead. MS. MADISON: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd rather -- ma'am, go ahead. Because it might affect the direction I'm going to give. Go ahead. MS. MADISON: Okay. I just wanted to close with my final comments, if all of the questions have been addressed. That's -- I wasn't sure if that had already occurred or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we've asked all the questions we're going to ask. I was going -- I had made notes of the concerns that we had and I was going to give direction to both staff on what to come back with and then I was going to ask you, give you direction if you so choose -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to come back with certain things. And in that process I'm looking at this as an attitude of can do, how do we make it work. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we need your help to make it Page 73 October 15, 2009 work and we need staffs help to make it work and then we have to hear it this time with everything and all the pieces in place to hopefully grant you what you're asking -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for something that's already been there for 10 years. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm trying real hard to make this work. So that's where it's coming from. MS. MADISON: Okay. And I guess I just wanted to elaborate on exactly what you said. FLO TV, formerly known as Media FLO, received a zoning determination from the county in response to its request as to whether or not it would be able to install an antenna on the older tower. And it was in that letter which was dated I believe in '08, I believe, but it was in that letter that we were advised that that tower was in violation, it should have been replaced and removed as a result of the 1993 conditional use. Later we subsequently sat down with staff in June, 2008 to see what if anything could be done to correct the situation to allow usage of that site. And we were told that as a penalty we can do this after-the- fact conditional use. So I say all that to say that we acknowledge the penalty, we acknowledge the fact that there's a violation. The sole goal here has been to attempt to correct that, and we want to correct that in any way possible. So that has definitely been our goal. It's not been to intentionally __ particularly to the extent I do represent the applicant, FLO TV, who I think hopefully we've established for the record has no correlation with Renda. So FLO TV simply seeks to correct what is an obvious violation with the two towers as they exist. So I just wanted to note that for the record. Because we have Page 74 October 15, 2009 discussed a lot of well, why wasn't this done and why did that not happen, And, you know, many things I know for a,fact FLO TV cannot intelligently respond to because we weren't involved. But to the extent that we do acknowledge the deficiency, we do want to correct that. And so I just want to reiterate again that we do acknowledge ~hat this is an after-the- fact hopefully corrective measure that we're trying to take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. J.D., did you have any on record objections to these towers? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you come back, I have at least -- I have three or more things that I would suggest staff come back and -- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make sure that when they come back in with your report they're included in. Do you recall the Tower Road collapse that occurred a few years back? MR. MOSS: I don't know of it, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure, Ray, you must remember it. There was a collapse of a similar tower of a similar type on Tower Road off of951, south of U.S. 41. It would be interesting to find the collapse criteria of that, meaning not the specifics as what bolt failed here and there but where the collapse zone was. Because that would provide us with a little bit of understanding of how the engineer's certification when he comes back, validity to his collapse zone. So I think that -- and that should be readily available. I know county was involved in that quite a bit, especially it came before this board for re-approval --a Page 75 October 15,2009 MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get back up and-- MR. MOSS: Right, I heard about it, I just didn't know the details. So I'll definitely find that out. CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The primary user, you know I had a lot of questions about the. Section 5.05.09 in regards to essential services and how you establIsh the primary user. What does the word primary mean? Is it one, is it 51 percent, is it -- what? Does it mean just the fact that you had to have a tower for this one guy and no matter how many you add on, just because that one guy is there it's okay? Those are the kind of questions we're going to need answered the next time you come in. And I know Susan has already addressed those. MR. MOSS: Yeah, that was addressed in the staff report, too. There is no definition in the LDC, but staff has historically and consistently applied it a certain way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you address it in regards to a temporary user under lease? Because then what happens is if you allow a tower at 450 feet under a primary user being the FBI who only leases for a year, they drop the lease, you run into a mess of problems if it's no longer an essential service tower. Because you couldn't even have gotten to 450 feet unless you are an essential service. I think the height prior to that is only 185 feet. So I'm real concerned how the county is looking at these primary users if they're temporarily leased. And that I don't believe was addressed. And ma'am, it would be handy if you wouldn't mind redacting the parts of the lease that are objectionable for you to make public record, but I think we would like to see the terms of the lease so we know what we're dealing with in regards to what you're claiming to be a primary user based on a lease. MS. MADISON: Okay. Page 76 October 15,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's something you may want to ask your client, if they would -- I don't care what you redact, but I would certainly want to see the terms and conditions for the length of the lease. That's what I think's most important to us. MS. MADISON: Okay. And just for clarification on that issue, I just want to be sure, because obviously we're bound by the code and the code does not define the word primary user. But you're wanting to know I guess based on usage and experience in the county how they've applied it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we know now that the FBI being on your tower is a primary -- can be considered a primary essential service user. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've heard J.D. say that's been established, and that's fine. But if they're a temporary lease, which is only a year lease, does that still qualify them as a primary user? Then my last task that I would want to suggest to staff is if they lose the FBI or any other essential service user, how long of a period do they have -- and we might want to consider this as a stipulation to a conditional use -- before another user has to be signed up before we enact the actions that need to be taken to make that a nonessential use tower? Now, that takes care of what I would think staff needs to address. As far as from the applicant, I think you need a Florida State -- Florida certified engineer. Not that this gentleman couldn't help; and he's obviously got a lot of knowledge to contribute. But we need someone in Florida to define the collapse zone and to certify those two towers. They have to be certified to the appropriate codes as to when they were built and make sure that the certification is by a Florida engineer. We need to know the distances of the towers from the Page 77 October 15,2009 neighboring property lines and from any structures that are nearby. We certainly need the representation of who is coming here today to talk on behalf and who can commit to whom, all that cleaned up. I think we've had numbers of suggestions on that. We need to see a copy of your filing with the Mosquito Control District. And if you have filed any documents as required by our code yearly for the inspections, it would be nice to see -- we would need to see those too. That and along with the primary user's lease I believe is the list that I've compiled. Does anybody else have anything? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, there was one thing I'd like to make sure John focuses on, and that is the definition between an essential service tower and an essential service antenna on a private tower. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir, I have that written down already. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's essentially the primary lease question. And then the collapse zone. You know, in the past they may have looked at collapse zone, but they always expected that other tower to be removed, so the collapse zone study has to entail one collapsing, you know, and the other one doesn't; the other one collapsing and the other one doesn't; and then both collapsing. MS. MADISON: Okay. And just to clarify that issue for the record, because again the code does not require a collapse zone, but what you're really wanting to know is for your own -- you want to know what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. MS. MADISON: -- that is nonetheless. I just want to make sure I understand. Because we walked in not anticipating a collapse zone to be an issue, which is why I don't have anyone here to speak on it, because there is no such requirement under Page 78 October 15, 2009 the code for this particular site. But you are wanting to know the collapse zone within both towers? I just want to make sure I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Give me a space, I'll come in. If -- you know, we may determine that this may not be an essential services tower. This may be an antenna on a private tower. So -- and I think in terms of the health and safety of the community, especially the neighbors, we really do want to know where this thing's going to go in a collapse. MS. MADISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you have building code issues that are going to make you do that, or should have made you do that anyway. Remember, this-- MS. MADISON: We've not been informed of any issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- this thing's been designed as you were going to replace a tower. And that's not what happened. So it's totally different engineering questions out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Miss, before Mr. Murray speaks, I want to clarify something. You had made a statement it's outside the code requirement. You could simply choose not to abide by our direction. We could simply choose to vote no. So it would be to your benefit to provide these things, so -- MS. MADISON: And I'm not suggesting that I won't. I just want clarification, as I do every time we get additional questions. Because like I said, maybe -- I would love to come back next time and have all the responses to all the questions that are being asked. And that by no means meant to suggest that we're not going to produce that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? I'm assuming you're finished, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I am. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I strongly urge all parties to Page 79 October 15,2009 consider that since it appears that the basis here for avoiding a variance for the guys and the setbacks is the so-called essential services lessee being there, or as you're going to try to find out whether the tower is somehow perceived to be in the absence of that entity, it no longer is an essential anything, it belongs to a private owner. So I would strongly recommend that as an alternative to what may happen here, that you consider the full implications of what would happen under the correct, that is to say, the most restrictive requirements. Do I make myself clear, John-David? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Ma'am, do I make myself clear to you? MS. MADISON: Absolutely. And just to clarify on that, and again, we could only go by what the code says under 2.01.03 for essential services. So it was based upon our reading and interpretation of the code that we believed and actually still do believe that the FBI provides an essential service. We submitted that information in a timely earlier stage of the review process and was told that that was acceptable. So, I mean, that is just the explanation as to why we presented this application. Had we had any thoughts or I guess forewarning that they may not be considered an essential service or maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think anybody's -- MS. MADISON: -- a here's a distinction between the tower or antenna, we would have been prepared to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're missing the point, though. I don't think any of us are questioning the FBI is an essential service. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we're questioning the terms, times and locations of -- the length of the lease and then which does our code define as the necessary attach -- is it an attachment to the Page 80 October 15,2009 tower or is it the tower itself. That's an issue not yours, that's more of staff. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to qualify further for you so that you appreciate where I'm coming from. I have no objections to this tower being there with the other tower eventually under an appropriate setting. MS. MADISON: Sure, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to say to you is that consider the possibility that we go forward with this, we have an essential services user and then six months later they say bye-bye. What will you be responsible for? What will the county make you and the tower owner responsible for? To me that's so simple it should have been right there at the outset. MS. MADISON: In the code or in our-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, I'm not concerned with the code as much as the business function. MS. MADISON: Sure. I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The code is a means by which we can compel. We can also stipulate things that make it so difficult MS. MADISON: Okay, I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't want to get that far. MS. MADISON: No, no, no. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Murray, 1'11 make sure that we have some way of tracking this in the future. When I come back 1'11 let you know what the mechanism is and how it will operate. Because obviously this is something that must be done -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. MR. MOSS: -- it's a code requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there any other -- Mr. Ko1flat? Page 81 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: John-David, do you intend to bring back another report, or should we work from this one? MR. MOSS: I will provide you a supplemental report addressing the questions that were raised today. But please hold onto this one in case you need to refer to it again. Because my report won't be a complete report, it will just be supplemental addressing these specific questions that were asked. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. MOSS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One real quick thing. When the research is done regarding the Tower Road tower, I believe it was a self-standing. I used to work there and I just can't remember, it could have been a self-standing. They do collapse differently than these types of models. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can check that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to make sure that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to see how the collapse zone of that one worked, then if it worked as predicted. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. And we -- then that gives us a little more reliability on what we may hear from the engineer when he comes back with his report. Okay, if there's no more questions, Ms. Madison, we are here to either vote or grant a request for a continuance. And I would suggest it be indefinite to give you time to get your paperwork together, if -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's what you would like. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're discussing Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, and Variance V A-PL-200937. Are you looking for a continuance or are you wishing us to Page 82 October 15,2009 proceed? MS. MADISON: We would like to request a continuance indefinitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On both of those? MS. MADISON: Yes, on both petitions, the conditional use and the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the continuance -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has been requested. Mr. Murray has motioned both. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continuance for both. Also seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Are there any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This item is continued indefinitely, 9-0. Thank you for your time and cooperation today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? Page 83 October 15, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I want to ask John-David, and I didn't want to ask it within this application. John, the licensure of design professionals, isn't that something you should be checking to make sure they're licensed in Florida? This firm has an extremely high reputation, so don't misinterpret that question. But the documents I have show, you know, a California license. So do you check for professiona11icenses in the State of Florida? MR. MOSS: Yes, we do that normally. It is a code requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Except this time. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will-- that ends our advertised public hearings. We'll go into old business -- well, before we do, I had a public speaking request by Mr. Gaddy. He had on here item seven and then number 12. I believe it was the issue that he was here for that we did discuss under item seven. So I notice he's not here now, so let's just make that assumption. There's no old business. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business, that's -- we each year on the first meeting in October, we go through the election process for officers. And I'm looking for nominations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1'11 nominate. I'd like to nominate Mark Strain as chairman and let him pick his officers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 1'11 second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay, well, that would make it Page 84 October 15,2009 simple. I like it the way it is. So if you all don't mind, we can keep the same body in attendance. I'm very pleased with that, if that works for all of you. And I'm honored that you would make that recommendation, so thank you very much. All in favor of that new slate of officers which remains the same, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Public comment? There's nobody left. So I guess we need a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 85 October 15,2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. Unanimous, we're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:56 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 86