Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/19/2009 R November 19, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 19,2009 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 Kolf1at Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. W olf1ey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 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 HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 15,2009, OCTOBER ]9,2009 GMP, AND OCTOBER 20, 20090MP 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 10, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2007/2008 TRANSMITTAL CYCLE GMP AMENDMENT A. Petition: CP-2008-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Mao and Mao Series. to create the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed- Use Subdistrict to allow 100,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-3 zoning districts, and residential multi-family use at a base density of3.55 dwelling units per acre with allowance for higher density for provision of affordable housing and for conversion of un-built commercial square feet, for property located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard (the site of Naples Christian Academy (NCA) and a church), in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of ,"20.71 acres. (Coordinator: Leslie Persia, Senior Planner) 1 B. Petition: V A-PL2009-1162, Elke Remmlinger-Behnke, as Trustee of the Bernd Schoenherr 1998 Irrevocable Trust, represented by Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, is requesting two (2) after-the- fact variances from Section 8.16 of Ordinance No. 82-52, Kings Lake Planned Unit Development, to reduce a required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 12.5 feet and to reduce a required side yard setback fi'om 7.5 feet to 4.84 feet to permit a screened pool enclosure for a single family home. The subject .26," acre property is located at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard, in the King's Lake Unit 3, in Plat Book 13, Pages 33 and 34 ofthe Public Records of Collier County, in Section 7, Township 50 South. Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) C. Petition: CU-PL2009-170, First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc., represented by Frederick E. Hood, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use expansion in the Agricultural (A) zoning district pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 2.03.01.A.l.c.7. The proposed Conditional Use will permit expansion of a church by adding 1,550 square feet to an existing church building and by adding a new ] 9,281 square foot general purpose building. The 4.59 acre site is located at 14600 Tamiami Trail East in Section 12, Township 5] South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) D. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, Theresa Cool" Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority and CDC Land Investments, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) and the Rural Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning Districts to the Airport Operations Planned Unit Development Zoning District (AOPUD) for a project to be known as the Immokalee Regional Airport Planned Unit Development. This project proposes to allow development of a maximum of 5,000,000 square feet of aviation and non-aviation development on 1,484," acres of land located north of CR 846, in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS I]. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 11/6/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/ld 2 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the November 19th 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: If okay, will the secretary please make the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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 present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner W olf1ey? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 Page 2 November 19,2009 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. First item is addenda to the agenda. We have a request to continue the very first item on today's agenda. It's Petition CP-2008-3. It's for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Element map series for a project at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The applicant has requested that we continue this. And I don't know how long, how far, but I think we'll hear more, then we'll need staffs -- both legal and staffs comment on it afterwards. Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Patrick White, the law firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, representing the petitioners this morning on the request for a continuance. We're here seeking your indulgence. We've had a dialogue with the staff about what some of our options may be in terms of a point to continue to a date/time certain. As you know from the e-mail communication provided by staff yesterday regarding the civic association's letter, that we've been in a dialogue with them, and believe that by continuing to do so we can further the productive conversations we've had thus far. Given the upcoming holidays and other factors, it seems that we won't be able to complete those activities prior to the BCC's January 20 transmittal hearing, so we believe a time frame beyond that will be necessary to do the things that we've preliminarily discussed with the association and amongst ourselves about how we should proceed. And therefore, recognizing in the dialogue with staff that there is a separate track ongoing for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, we had a preliminary dialogue, Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Weeks, about those Page 3 November 19,2009 possibilities and what the various factors would be. Obviously for us this comes down to a desire to take advantage of the things we would have conversations and work with the association on, and not let them get stale. So we'd like to be able to do those things as quickly and be as productive about them as possible and get back before you as soon as we can. We feel that that time frame, which is presently mid February for your consideration of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, is about probably the minimum. We know that you have a rollover date to March 4. That's probably a bit more realistic for us. But in thinking about this logistically and in terms of advertising, which we can see because we're certainly talking about a time frame that's more than five weeks from now, that there would be additional advertising cost for, that there would be a way to continue to the February 16th, and at that point we would knowingly have a request before you to be continued to the rollover date of March 4. I think that that helps to keep the two of the considerations you have, this Golden Gate Area Master Plan amendment and that and Immokalee Area Master Plan series of overall amendments kind of distinct in time and could give you some flexibility as to your deliberations. Part of our further conversation with staff of course has to do with some of the more I guess I'd say logistical aspects of moving forward in this manner. Prime among them of course from the two non-profits that are the petitioners here is the idea of being thrust into a position where a whole new filing fee might be necessary. We anticipate certainly that based upon our dialogue with the civic association and other neighbors that there may be modifications to the plan and certainly there's some need potentially for the staff to have to reevaluate what those changes might be. But we don't see those as being so vast or drastic that would make sense that we would essentially have to start over. So timing wise I think we have a point we can look to land as a Page 4 November 19,2009 date/time certain, with an understanding that we would then make a subsequent request for the March 4 date. That all leading up to the May 4th BCC consideration for transmittal, what's presently on the schedule for the lAMP and what would be for our proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan. I'm certain that staff has other input they'd like to share with you. And as far as the legal considerations go, I think the one thing that's out there that we're aware of, based on our dialogue with staff, is with regards to the number of cycles per year that the BCC, by resolution typically allows. Although the state statute allows too, and there's other exceptions and exemptions that I believe arguably may be sought by the lAMP process. We're amenable to, if we need to, going to the Board of County Commissioners and asking if need be for an exception to allow essentially what would be a limited -- I don't know if you could call it a second cycle, since it would be the first one in 2010. But suffice it to say, knowing there's already one pending '09 cycle private petition, we recognize that that doesn't have any hearing date set yet. So I'm not exactly sure how that factors in. But I'm certain that what we're trying to do is the best thing for not only our petitioners, but for the staff in its process, as well as your consideration to get this thing before you as soon as we possibly can. And I'd be happy to answer any questions now or at the end of the dialogue between staff and legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make some clarifications first. Ray, on the schedules that were recently given to the Planning Commission as part of our packet for this week's agenda, on the January 29th, it shows the Immokalee Area Master Plan transmittal review by us. Is that date no longer good? MR. SCHMITT: Let me have David come up. David's got all the dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason that's important is I think if Page 5 November 19, 2009 the dates are off we need to make Mr. White aware of that quickly. Because ifhe's counting on combining his efforts with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, we need to know what those dates are. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department. That January 29th date is no longer valid. On your December 3rd agenda, at the time we bring back the consent review for this 07 -08 cycle of GMP amendments, staff is also going to be discussing a revision to the schedule for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, as well as a revision to the adoption portion of the 07-08 cycle. Short answer, January 29th is out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And David, you heard the presentation made by Mr. White, and I'm going to start with you and we'll ask the County Attorney afterwards what's your position on this. I do want to stress to you that the effort here is to respond better to what the community's desires may be. I think the community realizes that the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway is going to be something some day. Now, what that something is is where the I guess discrepancy is right now. So any effort to make that better for the community, I think we should try to work with if we can. So with that in mind, what is staffs options in regards to the request by Mr. White? MR. WEEKS: Let me start with -- I don't know if worst case is the right term, but I'll start with the more extreme term, which I do not believe is being contemplated by the agent. And that would be if they were to request a lengthy continuance. And I would throw out perhaps six months or so as defined as lengthy. Possibly less. At that point staffs position is the application would need to be significantly revised. We would have new population data, we would have new commercial inventory data, we would have new AUIR adopted, approved and in effect which would in our opinion Page 6 November 19,2009 necessitate significant changes to their supporting information in their application. That would be where staff would say this is not a continuance, it's a withdrawal, you need to start all over. New petition, new petition fee. And then whatever hearing cycle you can fall within, so be it. Now, more to what is specifically I believe being asked for and that is to merge this with the Immokalee Master Plan cycle. The staff position is that because that is close enough to the present schedule for this 07-08 cycle that this petition is presently a part of, from that timing standpoint of is the application stale, to use Mr. White's words from last night, staff would say no, it's not. You can make revisions to it and we could review those under your current petition number, current fee, et cetera. But we believe we need to go before the Board of County Commissioners to get their authorization to add this or any other amendment petition to the Immokalee cycle. Because it presently is standing on its own. He alluded to exemptions to the twice a year adoption of plan amendments allowed by state law. The Immokalee Master Plan petition is -- may be an exception, one of those exceptions to the twice per year. That is certainly the position of the agent for that petition. Staff so far disagrees. But if it ultimately is determined to be an exception to the twice a year adoption allowed by state law, the addition of this petition to that cycle throws that out. Because this petition does not -- clearly does not qualify for that or any other exemption under state law. But -- I said a lot, but to narrow that down, we believe that it could be accommodated in the Immokalee Master Plan schedule timing-wise from our perspective, but we need board authorization to add that. A third scenario, and it's not been asked for here, but a third scenario, if there were time for the applicant to resolve their issues Page 7 November 19,2009 with the community, to at least attempt to do so, would be for them to stay part of the 07-08 cycle, have another advertisement for their hearing, because we're almost at the five-week period from the November 19th hearing that you began with for this 07-08 cycle. If they were to re-advertise and, for example, hold their hearing in early January before the Planning Commission and then have your consent review later and then still be part of the BCC hearing, though it would not be in January, they would be advertised for January but continued within five weeks to a later hearing. If that were to work for them, that's just a possibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So to sum it all up, we have -- there's two options. We can continue this to the Immokalee -- I mean, this is pending legal review comments yet, but from your perspective we could continue this to the Immokalee Area Master Plan transmittal, which would be on whatever date you tell us, subject to the BCC approval, for a combination with that master -- with the Immokalee Area Master Plan cycle. Or we -- or the option -- in addition to that, it could be alternatively, they could re-advertise in time to include it within this cycle at one of our future meetings. And both options could be made as a possible continuance, and then either one that comes up to the benefit of the applicant and the community may be the one that works. Is that reasonable? MR. WEEKS: That's accurate. I would just caution you, if you should make a motion similar to what you mentioned, not to tie your hands -- I mean, this is a continuance in the sense that it's not going to be heard today. Because it goes beyond the five-week time period for which your hearing was advertised on October 19th, it does require a new advertisement. I draw a distinction there between a continuance and simply a newly advertised hearing. A continuance in a more generic term than Page 8 November 19,2009 what I'm thinking of as a technical term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they would have to re-advertise within a time frame of the current cycle to get back on agenda. MR. WEEKS: Re-advertise to be part of the current cycle or to be re-advertised potentially as part of the Immokalee Master Plan cycle. That's the way I would phrase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is the date of the transmittal hearing that we're expected to be involved with as far as Immokalee? What's the new date for the Immokalee Area Master Plan; do we know? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: 16 February, David? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For BCC? MR. SCHMITT: No, for Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: February 16th for Planning Commission. I believe that in the earlier schedule, I believe that was your carryover date, yes. And now it is scheduled as your first advertised date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's two potential options, both of which require re-advertisement, one of which requires an acknowledgment from the Board of County Commissioners. So with that in mind, before we get questions from the panel, Mr. Schmitt, let's finish with staff comments, I'll get Mr. Klatzkow's and then Planning Commission comments. MR. SCHMITT: The only other option that is of possibility would be the yet to be scheduled RLSA amendments, which we've not scheduled yet. Those are being looked at by an outside counsel to determine what needs to be done to package that for a GMP submittal. But those dates have yet to be scheduled. It would be certainly much later in FY '10. And that would be a possibility if when we're looking at a future GMP amendment cycle. Page 9 November 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that gets past the -- that gets into the longer time frame -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- David was trying to avoid, so let's try not to go there if we can fit in an earlier one. Mr. Klatzkow, you want to have any -- do you have any legal position here? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, once again, we've got the tail wagging the dog here, all right? I mean, we have a schedule set up, it's ready to be heard by the Planning Commission, you folks are prepared to hear it. The petitioner is requesting that it not be heard today. That's fine, you don't have to hear it today. Petitioner can get with staff. However, staff/petitioner reschedule this thing down the road, whether it's new application or not a new application, whether there's a new fee, not a fee, I don't care. That's between the petitioner and staff at this point in time. All we're doing here is we're not hearing it today. That's all we're doing today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just one point, if I may inquire ofMr. Klatzkow. David had alluded to the situation regarding the lAMP and its status as potentially being exemption. The sooner that that determination obviously can be made, the clearer it becomes as to whether the request before the BCC would be one that would be ours alone in the one scenario we're discussing or would be for both of those. So to me I think that that has some legal consideration and I would just ask if Jeff could say -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're ready here today. If you don't want to hear it today, then get with staff and work it out with staff, then we'll review it for legal sufficiency. Page 10 November 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think those kind of analyses need to be done either before or after the meeting, not during the meeting. It's more complicated than can be analyzed right here today for the legal staffs consideration. So with that in mind, before we go -- I'm certainly going to open discussion up to the public, but I wanted to find out from the Planning Commission first, does anybody have any comments on what we've heard so far? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to presume, but it certainly seems like Mr. White's petitioner needs a lot of time. And I'm not sure where we're going to go. And I happen to agree with Mr. Klatzkow, this matter really shouldn't go on any further for us, it needs to be dealt with by petitioner and staff. We really don't -- that's my VIew anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the Planning Commission wish to make a comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there anybody in the public who wanted to speak on this item or have any information they'd like to provide to us here now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the recommendation is to -- for continuance. We were notified a day or two ago that -- I think maybe yesterday -- that this was going to be potentially continued. I know we're not prepared to discuss it today as a result of that. So a continuance is almost a given in some manner or form. We have options. We can continue it till just our next meeting. I don't believe that will work for the benefit of anybody. We can continue it under two frameworks that the applicant and staff have suggested. One is to continue it to 2/16/10, subject to the BCC Page 11 November 19,2009 approval for accommodation with the Immokalee Area Master Plan cycle. Or we could continue it to be included in this cycle. But in either case, whether it's with the lAMP or within this cycle at a later date, it has to be re-advertised at that time for whatever meeting it comes at. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question then. If it's contingent upon the BCC approval and they were to move in that direction, avoiding other directions, do they not then lose their opportunity to seek some other means of doing it? In other words, you have three options, potential. I go with the middle one. Do I not lose the other two? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I read my suggestion to everybody, it was for two, a double stipulation: A continuance either to the lAMP on 2/16/1 0, or leave the option open for the applicant to re-advertise and include themselves within this cycle as well. That was something David suggested could be done in January at one of our meetings. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I heard all that, but what I did hear, and that's what struck me, was the question of contingent upon the BCC approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be only for the application regarding to Immokalee Area Master Plan. That's the only one that's needed for. So the other one -- if they were to lose that one, he would have to then re-advertise and come back in with this cycle sometime in one of our meetings, either December or January. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that he could, he could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, the way I asked that question, you might want to think about that. Page 12 November 19,2009 MR. WEEKS: That's a good point, Mr. Murray. Because I think the way we framed it sounds like they only have two choices. What if they opt for the Immokalee Master Plan cycle and the board says no, are they then locked in there only twice? I would that they're not. It's their petition, they've been -- they can decide if they want choice C, which might be, well, we want to come in four months from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then wait a minute, if they want to come back four months from now, you already said that a lengthy continuance -- if they got a time specific continuance to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and they didn't get that from the BCC and they didn't get the time frames worked out to come back within this cycle, then that means they would need what you had previously referred to as a lengthy continuance and that you weren't in favor of that and they would be more or less deemed withdrawn and then have to go into a new cycle. So I don't see that as an option to continue, that's an option to withdraw. I mean, is it or is it not? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Again, it goes back to the technical what is a continuance. We have nothing in writing, we have no policy, no specific procedure that deals with continuance, other -- that I'm aware of other than the provision of you can continue for up to five weeks from the advertised date of a hearing without having to advertise. As long as each time a continuance is granted it's to a date/time/place certain, you can go up to five weeks. Once you get beyond five weeks, there is no continuance, you are re-advertising the hearing. The unusual circumstance here is that we don't have regular -- these are under different statutory provisions than the usual zoning petitions you deal with, re-zonings and conditional uses and whatnot in that we have a limited number of cycles that we're allowed under state law to adopt. I threw out six months. There's nothing in writing. We have nothing that says if you go beyond this time period you're a new Page 13 November 19,2009 petition and must submit all new data. I threw out six months as a suggestion. But it may be less. Maybe four months would be a point where staff would say, you know what, we've got new population, we've got new -- you know, what has changed in the background that would affect your submittal that we might be in a dialogue with the agent saying no, we think you are withdrawn, there's a new petition here. Because that's not black-and-white, there's nothing in stone, there's nothing specific, I don't -- I'm leery of making a decision right here, right now to say here's their two options: Stay within the cycle or go to the Immokalee Master Plan cycle. If you don't do either of those two, you must be viewed as a brand new petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they have to come back and ask for another continuance at the latest date of either one of those that they would have open to their opportunity. MR. WHITE: Exactly. MR. WEEKS: And the continuance is only based upon the hearing being advertised for their petition. After today, you know, and a handful of days after today, they'll be beyond the five-week time period. And of course you're taking your action today. So after today, calling it a continuance again is in a generic sense, yes, it's a continuance because it's not heard today, it's going to some future date. But from a regulatory standpoint, it's simply a re- advertised hearing. It's a brand new hearing. That's what I was talking about a while ago, kind of the technical continuance versus the generic continuance. And I believe you're discussing today the generic continuance as in we're not going to hear this today, maybe it will be heard on one of these other two dates here. Let me restate something I said earlier. Let me backtrack, erase it and start over. I think the cleanest way would be to simply say we grant a continuance to indefinitely and leave it to the applicant and staff as to when they get advertised, and the board, as might be Page 14 November 19,2009 required, to when they're going to come back before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you started out telling us that's the wrong thing to do, because you didn't like the idea of indefinite. You said if it was indefinite that's not where you wanted to go because it would have to go into a different cycle. So now we're changing that position, and that's fine. Because what we've got are two non-profits trying to do something better in regards to their relationship with the community, and I don't see that as a bad thing. So we ought to try to accommodate if we can. Mr. Vigliotti, you've been patiently waiting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to oversimplify this, but why can't we just grant the continuance and let staff and the petitioner work it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he just said. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Simply over and done. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. WHITE: If I could just briefly comment, Mr. Chairman. We would have originally proffered to do that, but based on the dialogue we had with staff and a desire to try to find a date/time certain and give a comfort level to this commission, we I guess have gone the long way around. And as Mr. Klatzkow says, maybe the tail is wagging the dog at this point, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I suggest that we're looking for a motion to continue this indefinitely, subject to the staff and the applicant working out the details as to what timing that will evolve to. Is that a fair way to state it, David? And is it effective stated that way? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Midney. Page 15 November 19,2009 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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. You are indefinitely continued until such time that you and staff work things out. MR. WHITE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I was trying to get a discussion. Could we guarantee that this is re-advertised? Because if we're having difficulty, I'm sure the public is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the law requires it to be advertised after a certain period, and they automatically lose the original advertising period within five weeks of the first meeting, which is coming up pretty close I think, isn't it, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: We recognize that requirement and acknowledge it. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not continued to a date certain here, he's going to have to re-advertise it. MR. WHITE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, did you have a comment you wanted to make? Page 16 November 19,2009 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you were raising your hand. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we still on the addenda to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to add something for new business. It's a presentation from the health department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would be under new business. Is that -- someone going to be here to present that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm going to request the ability for them to present it at a later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well they can just get scheduled with staff, but that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, that's the confusion part, is because they want to do that and staff said that somebody had to bring it up at the meeting. Ray was the one that advised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I saw the paperwork. I thought that whenever they were ready, they'd come in with it. The paperwork I read interestingly, because it certainly counters what transportation is trying to do to this county, so it will be a lively discussion, I'm sure. Maybe we'll get somewhere and cut our cost for roads throughout the county, because they're not needed if we can do healthy things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. So can we just make it on the -- I guess they want to come on the 17th, or whenever staff can schedule it, that's fine. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From direction of this board then, does any -- as long as no one objects -- does anybody here mind a presentation on trying to make people healthier in this county? No, I'm sure they don't. Page 17 November 19,2009 Ray, would you just try to coordinate that and pick a date that's best for us to add it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have been working on that, and I think the December 17th meeting would be the best. I tentatively have it on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And don't bother telling transportation that it's coming up. MR. KLATZKOW: Too late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Mr. Eastman is here. I skipped him this morning. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morning, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us past addenda to the agenda. And again, for everybody who may have been here, the GMP petition for Golden Gate, CP-2008-3, has been continued. We don't have a date yet, but it will be re-advertised. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is December 3rd. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will have a quorum. The other thing I'd like to bring up at this time because it has to do with scheduling, we all just heard about the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The master plan started two or three years ago and has gone through many, many versions. I can't even count the number of Page 18 November 19,2009 versions that I personally have read over the years. But it's finally to a point where they believe the version that they're working on now is a final stage and it's going to come before public hearings. We have a budget problem at the county and it gets very costly with this commission to meet where they have to reset up cameras and reset up a lot of photography and audio and all that other good stuff. As a solution to that -- and that's another reason why we haven't scheduled any meetings for this commission in Immokalee on issues like the airport that is coming up today. In regards to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, Mr. Mulhere called me and asked if we would mind holding a workshop in Immokalee. And the workshop doesn't necessarily need to be televised. It can be done very informally through staffs attendance. And the workshop would be managed, I would assume, by the team that is working for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, which would be Mr. Mulhere's group and the CRA. And they would orientate us to the community's concerns and needs of that master plan. And that would be in lieu of actually holding the meeting out there in February. It would actually be a primer for us to have a better understanding of where the community's trying to go and all the facets. And it would be a workshop, not a place where we make motions. We would basically have a lot of interaction. So at Mr. Mulhere's request -- and Bob, if you want to come up and give us your ideas of this -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll then consider it. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, for the record, representing the -- with RW A, representing the CRA, the Immokalee CRA. Yeah, I think that there are a lot of issues. It's a substantial complete rewrite of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. There are still Page 19 November 19,2009 some outstanding issues with staff that I think probably we will agree to disagree on until we go before the Planning Commission. It made a lot of sense to me maybe to have sort of a less formal environment to have some -- to make a presentation and then get some feedback from the Planning Commission. Also allows the Immokalee community to be involved in Immokalee in a less formal setting. And I hope and I think that that will also make the subsequent more formal hearings, advertised public hearings, less contentious and more focused on the issues, once we have feedback from you. I mean, we can actually probably address some issues that you raise between that workshop and the first hearing. Because the first hearing is February 16th, as we just heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And part of the process that I saw coming up for the Immokalee Area Master Plan in reviews, my intention originally was to always hold those out in Immokalee. But as we got the date fixed, which now hopefully that date is fairly fixed, I certainly would like to request from staff that they approach the Board of County Commissioners on an agenda item, whether it's summary, consent or whatever, with just a cost to hold our meetings for that Immokalee Area Master Plan in Immokalee. And subject to their approval, we may still be able to have those meetings out there. But because of the budget crisis, I would rather not arbitrarily do that. That would incur a higher cost for the county without the Board of County Commissioners saying it's okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire community, but I had a conversation with Penny Phillippi, who's the CRA executive director, and Fred Thomas, who's chair of the CRA advisory board, and I think they felt that the workshop was a very good idea. And I think they also felt that if that could be in Immokalee, that would go a long way towards I think making the folks in Immokalee feel like you're reaching out and doing the right thing. Page 20 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, we've held meetings -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been there before, and our premise was to try to be there more often until we started funding shortfalls -- or having our budget shortfalls that we currently have. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So you might not have to hold those subsequent. There's probably at least two public hearings for the Planning Commission for the actual transmittal. I assume there'll be two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: You might not then have to hold those out there if I think in a workshop we can get a lot done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time, as we go forward with this discussion, Ray, if the staff were to create a cost to hold two transmittal hearings in lmmokalee on a daily basis so that the board could say yeah, we like this idea, we think it's worth it and we could still do it, or that they want us to meet here, that's just a side bar to Mr. Mulhere's request. But it would resolve that issue early enough so we know what we're meeting for the February meeting, okay? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we can work that out with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. BELLOWS: -- planning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to be very much in favor of doing this. Given the magnitude of change, you envision a full eight-hour day, I would presume. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I guess -- I didn't. I was thinking probably something more like four or five hours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can cover it all you believe? MR. MULHERE: I think so, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. MR. MULHERE: I think, you know, we're not going to focus on Page 21 November 19,2009 every issue. We're going to focus on the issues that are substantive and that there are, we believe, differences of opinion on, based on staff review and the community's desires and what we put into the plan. There may be some issues that you all raise. And thinking about that and once we have a date, obviously I have to get the product to you so you can be prepared as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a wonderful idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a question, Bob. Were you talking about doing that workshop as a daytime workshop or an evening workshop? MR. MULHERE: I was thinking daytime. COMMISSIONER CARON: Daytime, okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't know if you have a preference. I was thinking daytime. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's just the community, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have thought maybe like start -- if it's going to be four or five hours, which I think is reasonable, and I've read it a number of times to know what's there, in an informal setting we could probably accomplish that. But if we were to start late afternoon, that way we go into the evening and people who wanted -- are able to get off work and come-- MR. MULHERE: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- could contribute as well. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my point of view is a little bit different. I don't think that there's been a CRA meeting in the evening for more than a year, and I think that's a serious shortcoming. Because the people who can come are people who own businesses or government workers, but people like myself can't go to a daytime meeting. And we've been shut out of the process. The working people of Immokalee -- Page 22 November 19,2009 MR. MULHERE: Well, let me ask -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- have been shut out for all this time. You need to have -- I don't know if it needs to be this workshop that we're talking about, but there need to be evening meetings. MR. MULHERE: Let me just ask this: If -- I can go back and talk to the CRA, I don't think they would object to doing that. I just wanted to not overly inconvenience you all. So if you don't object to something that's late in the afternoon, going into the evening, I don't think that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, and I wasn't -- that's what -- I thought if we start at around 4:00 -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we could end up -- because it's going to be four or five hours, we'd be done around 8:00 or 9:00, and that would give anybody that wanted to come in after they work plenty of time to be there for the bulk of it. And then usually the first hour of anything is a long introduction anyway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Whose fault is that, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be -- Bob will be talking. He gets paid by the hour, so -- MR. MULHERE: Get paid by the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I mean, is that more along the lines that you might -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you were thinking? MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I will make a commitment to get the draft in its most final version out to you ASAP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And all the backup, you know, all the data and analysis and everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then is there a consensus from this panel that the workshop idea is a good idea? Page 23 November 19, 2009 And that's the next phase. Bob, we would need to have distributed to us well in advance of the meeting drafts of, to be fair, both your position, your current -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll give you the staffs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- findings and that of staffs. MR. MULHERE: -- staffs sufficiency comments. I can distribute all that stuff at the very latest Monday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got my copy already, so-- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's actually changing since what you've got, because we're changing in response to this last sufficiency round. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we're resubmitting to staff on Friday. So that will all be done by Friday. I'm just saying we've got to worry about getting it to staff first. And then by Monday I can have it out to all of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what I would like you to consider is between now and December 3rd, which is our next meeting, get with staff, get with the CRA, figure out a series of dates. Try not to interfere with the holidays or our regular meetings. Because usually when we have a special meeting like this in between a regular meeting, that's the best thing to do. MR. MULHERE: Okay, so we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then midweek, whether it's the odd week, look at that through staff. And if there's a way to fit that in, come back on the 3rd of December with suggestions for dates, locations and times. And then we'll just go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm thinking that at this point it's going to have to be early January. That's what I'm thinking, right? I mean, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you, yes. MR. MULHERE: Because we still want to be able to have enough time to address your issues in advance of the 16th. Or maybe Page 24 November 19, 2009 we won't have time, but at least we'll know what they are and we can deal with them better at that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think David's got something to say. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the EAC is scheduled to hear this Immokalee petition on January 6th. And then your new date that we'll be I guess officially discussing at your next December 3rd meeting, is February 16th is your advertised transmittal date. Couple concerns come to mind. First of all, we don't object at all to a workshop. As Bob has mentioned to you, there are outstanding issues so far between staff and the applicant, and if a workshop helps to resolve those, good. Because ultimately when we come to you for public hearing and then to the board, as with any petition, the fewer outstanding issues there are, the better. Whether we walk hand-in-hand or at least close to each other, that's the best scenario as opposed to walking in with, you know, a 50-page staff report filled with issues. The timing is the concern. Are we talking about holding a workshop after the EAC has already held their hearing, are we talking about holding it before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it makes a difference, David. We're not -- we're kind of independent. The EAC does their thing and we still do ours, whether they -- we look at the environmental concerns just like they do. So I'm not sure why we need to worry about their timing. Their timing is their own board's Issue. MR. WEEKS: The other would be what is the expected outcome from the workshop in the sense that might you give certain direction or voice certain opinions that the applicant would then want to respond to by going back and revising their submittal? Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. The bad thing is what does it do to our schedule? Page 25 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it does anything. Because what I would anticipate is they would get input to be prepared to address at the transmittal, which would expedite the transmittal process, and you would already have a heads up as to what some of those issues are so if you had concerns about them, instead of being on the fly here at a meeting, you'd be able to more factually discuss them with us and react to them. And I see that as -- that's what I would see coming out of it. Certainly no decisions. Mr. Murray, then-- MR. MULHERE: I think it's germane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to ask a question of the Chair. Do we intend to have transcriptions? And that would impact on what David Weeks is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, only if it's required by law for a workshop. If it's not, I would rather keep the cost down and let someone take minutes is all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Well, that answers the issue anyway in that sense. MR. KLATZKOW: Minutes are sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: Minutes are sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Here's what I -- I think David raises a good point. I was obviously thinking the same thing when I was discussing, you know, the 16th. We don't want to lose that date. And to me we're going to get input from you, the staffs going to hear it, we're going to hear it. That can certainly allow us enough time to work with the CRA and the community to adjust, if we need to, any positions. While we may not actually resubmit, at the transmittal hearing we can be prepared to have those discussions with you with that Page 26 November 19,2009 workshop. Without that workshop we're going to do the same thing but at the transmittal hearing. So I don't want anything to hold -- to change that date. But I agree with David, you know, the workshop should give us enough time. We just probably are not -- there's not enough time for us to respond to whatever comes up at that workshop, revise the submittal and resubmit it and expect staff to review it. It's not going to happen that way. It's got to be just we understand, we've heard you, you'll know what you said, we'll know what you said and staff will know what you've said, and then we'll be more prepared at the transmittal hearing to address those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that -- MR. MULHERE: I think it's going to make for a better process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy? MR. COHEN: Yeah, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. As Bob mentioned, the third submittal, based off of the second sufficiency review letter, is this Friday. And obviously timing is very important. Based off of that submittal, my staff will immediately begin to review that and also draft not only the EAC staff report but your staff report as well too, because of the timing that's required. Undoubtedly we will be very close if not finished with your staff report in that first or second week of January. That's where the workshop becomes a little bit of an overlap there. And that's when, when Mr. Mulhere says, you know, we may not have time to address things, from my staffs standpoint, it does become problematic because we could be put into a position of possibly having to readdress issues with respect to what transpires at that workshop. It would be a lot easier on my staff if that workshop were to take place in December, okay, based off the submittal that comes on November the 20th. And I would feel a lot more comfortable if it Page 27 November 19, 2009 would transpire in that manner. So that's just food for thought and I would like you to consider that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and there are dates in December that may work. And I think staff -- you all ought to work that out. I think our desire, from what I can see, is that we're in agreement that a workshop would work for us, we have no objection to it, and we would attend it. It's a matter of staff coordinating it, both getting us out there and having the cost involved, which I think will be minimal on staffs part. Because this is going to be a CRA driven workshop, if I'm -- and you guys will handle the presentation. So we're looking at a minute taker from staff and minimal people to attend. So with that in mind, is that okay with everybody on the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the way, Ray, I would like, by December 3rd to have a consensus from staff and the applicant as to where this will go, dates and all that good stuff. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 15, 2009, OCTOBER 19, 2009 GMP AND OCTOBER 20, 2009 GMP Okay, next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. We have three. October 15th, 2009. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 28 November 19, 2009 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. October 19th. Is there a motion -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded, same people. 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. Is there a motion for approval for October 20th? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? Page 29 November 19,2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 50, the first line that starts with Ms. Homiak, it says, doing a restudy of the area bothers me. It should say -- I believe it should say not doing a restudy of the area. Just one word added. And then I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker accept the changes-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll change my motion to accept that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker and second have agreed. Any other comments? (No response.) 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, all of them 9-0 again. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOVEMBER 10,2009 That takes us to the BCC report. Ray? Page 30 November 19,2009 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on November 10th the Board of County Commissioners heard three petitions. The first one was a conditional use for the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church. That was approved on the summary agenda. They also heard the conditional use for the Collier County Solid Waste Utilities Recycling Park. That was approved by the board 5-0 on the regular agenda. It's my understanding that they approved it subject to the staffs recommendation or conditions of approval that was presented on the consent agenda to the Planning Commission. I'm not sure -- Kay's here, she can go into a little more detail the little twist that was changed on one of the conditions I think that came out of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the machinery. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The board also heard the PUD amendment for Winding Cypress that had to deal with setbacks. The board approved it 5-1 (sic), Commissioner Coyle was opposed. And his main issue had dealt with no AC's on the side yard, or ifthere was, there would be a notch in the building to accommodate that unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We apparently -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- added one commissioner there. You said five to one. MR. BELLOWS: Oh,4-1. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chairman's report. I have just- Page 31 November 19,2009 one follow-up comment. We have in 2010 a series I think of meetings coming up that will involve primarily Immokalee. One of those is the Immokalee Area Master Plan, both transmittal and adoption. And the other is the RLSA, which will be transmittal and adoption. It would be nice if staff worked up a standard cost per day for any meeting that we would hold in Immokalee, and that would include any transportation, staff support, video, everything else that has to go on, and let us know that and get -- so that we can get the BCC -- and I know this isn't required of us to do but I think the budget the way it is, we ought to, to certainly make the BCC aware of these costs and let them tell us whether or not they want us to meet out in Immokalee each time or not. That would require at least four meetings for just those two issues, or more. I'm not sure the adoption is necessary if we have transmittal, because transmittal is really the meat of the issues. But at least we'd have a daily cost. And if the board says they have no objections to those daily costs or they want a separate approval every time one of these comes up, then we would at least know ahead of time how to proceed. MR. BELLOWS: That makes sense, and I'll coordinate with David Weeks and we'll make sure that we get that direction. Item #9B PETITION: VA-PL2009-1162, 2454 KING'S LAKE BOULEVARD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's no consent agenda items today, so we'll move into our first advertised public hearing. The first one is Petition V A-PL2009-1162. The -- I don't -- I'm not even going to try the name. It's at 2454 King's Lake Boulevard, and it's a variance. With that in mind, anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this Page 32 November 19, 2009 item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, this morning I was shown the plan for the original construction of the pool deck by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, nobody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a letter -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we received. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I also observed the drawing that staff had made showing the setbacks on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that in mind, Ms. Bishop, it's yours. MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Karen Bishop. I represent the owner, which is Remmlinger-Behnke. That's the name that you can't pronounce, Remmlinger-Behnke. This is kind of a complicated matter. The original owner, Mrs. Pitman, built this house in 1983 and then later in 1991 applied for a pool and screen cage. The actual pool got started in '91 and wasn't C.O.'d until '93. So my application originally said '91 and there was a mistake in there now that it says it was permitted in '93. And it was actually permitted in '91 but wasn't C.O.'d till '93. Unaware that this pool was not built correctly, because apparently in 1992 is when spot surveys were required by Collier County for buildings. So this, since it was already in construction, wasn't required to have that spot surveyed. Page 33 November 19,2009 My client bought this property in 1994, and in 2005 the hurricanes came and took down the cage. These owners live in Germany and of course don't come here very often, they're here just a couple of months out of the year, bring their family. They're retired. They tried to get a contractor to come and fix this immediately. That of course, if any of you had issues at that time with your cage, you know that it took a very long time to find any qualified people to do this. They hired a contractor in 2007, without knowing that this contractor was unlicensed. They asked the question if he was licensed, but he said yes and it turns out he wasn't. So this all came to light over a code compliance issue, which was the contractor started building without a permit and was caught. And so during the process of trying to then apply for a permit, the -- it was found out that the house itself -- or the pool cage and the deck was over the setback lines. So I tried to go through staff and see if perhaps, you know, this could be a nonconforming use and be approved, because it had been there for 18 years, essentially. And they suggested that we really have to go through this process. So essentially what we're here today is to ask for this variance to allow for the encroachments that were there prior to this owner. And I do have -- I understand from staff that there was a request to see what evidence that we have that this has not been added to. Because this is a repair, not an addition. And the only thing that I have to offer is some photographs back in the Nineties when they were having fun with their children and grandchildren. And I have some aerials from 19 -- or 2001, which still shows the same exact structure. Of course, they're very small aerials because they're from our website. Now, there is one letter of objection from the HOA. I spoke to the management company and sent them a letter explaining, you November 19, 2009 know, what had happened. And apparently my client didn't know that Mrs. Pitman originally never went through architectural review for this back in the Nineties. Repair work in King's Lake does not require architectural review, but since she didn't do the original -- Mrs. Pitman didn't do the original, that's why we got this letter of objection from the HOA. If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was there architectural review back in the time of the request? MS. BISHOP: I believe there was, sir. And I asked the gentleman, you know, how could this be missed for all those years? And he said of course, you know, that there wasn't -- unless somebody complained, that no one knew that things were being built without going through this architectural review committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, in the packet it described that they had -- a contractor applied for a permit. He wasn't given one because of the setback issues, and then they went and hired another contractor, unlicensed, to build the thing; is that correct? MS. BISHOP: I don't think that is correct. Actually I think I misunderstood. I thought that's what happened, that they had one contractor. Because I came in at code compliance when it became a compliance issue. I'm a friend of the daughter. And so she had me come in then. And I was understanding that from the code compliance guy that they had one guy apply and then this guy built. But it was the same contractor. So I guess the same contractor applied and there was setback issues and he just went ahead and built it without the permits. Page 35 November 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is he an unlicensed contractor? MS. BISHOP: As it turns out, he's an unlicensed contractor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, describe repair, though. I mean, was the cage taken down? Was the physical structure of the cage removed and replaced? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Because it was damaged beyond being able to save it. There wasn't just screen damage, the cage was in fact damaged at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not sure the word repair describes that kind of work, but -- MS. BISHOP: According to the -- well, according to the criteria for King's Lake, any -- that damage, since it was an existing structure, existing cage, that repairing it. And as it turns out, part of it was damaged, but you can't just fix part of it based on I guess the structural issues with it, so it had to be torn -- I guess they took it all out and put a new one m. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that brings up, since it was -- was there a permit ever showing the structural? Was that ever approved and processed? MS. BISHOP: Originally there was. 1991 there was a permit submitted by Mrs. Pitman. It was approved. And there was a drawing submitted by Mrs. Pitman, a hand drawing that I've seen. I saw I think the same one you did just recently. Because when I went to the records room, somehow I didn't get that drawing. But I think what happened was it was mistakenly built incorrectly. It's the same configuration. I just believe it was a mistake. They drew it by hand and I don't believe that they used a surveyor, and they didn't have the proper survey information and they just built it accidentally in the wrong place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does show the proper setback, the seven and a half feet. Page 36 November 19,2009 MS. BISHOP: It did. Well, it does on the hand drawing. But for some reason because there was no spot surveys it was never checked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I'm not sure a spot survey would check the pool slab. Essentially that's for the structure. You're checking the walls of the building before you put the tie beam on. The pool slab probably wouldn't be included in a spot survey ever. And it's not the survey's fault, it's -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, no. And there was no surveyor. But I believe that -- I mean, when I do spot surveys now, the surveyor, he locates all concrete -- you know, anything that's got a slab on it is located on a survey. They're required by law to put that in there. They can't just say, oh, you know, let's skip the pool. They actually have to put all that in there. And there could be another -- since this was drawn by hand and it wasn't -- I can only just guess. This was done back in 1991. I can only guess what happens. And my guess is that it was a mistake. The pool guy laid it out and maybe the drawing didn't really reflect the setbacks appropriately and -- you know, or the lot configuration appropriately and it was just built incorrectly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say it was drawn by hand, I mean, the drawing I saw was a drafted drawing. Obviously back in those days we used pencils and drafting tools. MS. BISHOP: I was a draftsman for many, many years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that what you mean by hand? Because the impression I'm getting is somebody just sketched it. But it was actually a drafted scaled drawing that I saw this mornmg. MS. BISHOP: This drawing. The same drawing I'm assuming that you looked at today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That looks like it, yeah. MS. BISHOP: Right. And not suggesting that -- I was a very good draftsman, but it doesn't mean that I didn't make mistakes Page 37 November 19, 2009 sometimes. But the difference between now when you do it on the computer, you have the ability to check the closing and the geometry. And usually a surveyor provides -- when I do work now, they provide the work directly. So I just can only surmise. I didn't go back and check this work. And I didn't -- the people who built this are no longer around so I can't ask how did this happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is that there's nothing in the packet that shows that the pool was put back exactly where the other pool was. Do you have anything that would show us that? MS. BISHOP: I can only show you the aerials. And it is -- there was no construction, nothing new added in. I have some pictures from 1996 showing the structure literally in the same place, but that's -- there's no real I guess other evidence than what I've seen myself. And I went out there and looked at it and there was nothing added. The contractor added nothing. All he did was replace the cage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Did -- and let's go back. Since it hasn't been permitted, we don't know if it's structurally sound. We did learn a lot with cages through the years. So when you say he replaced it, did he replace it with physically the same structural components that it prior had? MS. BISHOP: I'm understanding that he did. And actually the code compliance guy -- I asked the same question. And from what I'm understanding, it was built to code, he just didn't have a license. And he put it back in exactly the same place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the structural plans review was completely done signed off by the building department? MS. BISHOP: Well, no, because they haven't -- they're going to have to do an after-the-fact inspections with the building department. But the building department wouldn't move forward until we get the Page 38 November 19,2009 approval on the location of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it never had a structural review from the building department. MS. BISHOP: Uh-uh. Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, you have a lO-foot PUE? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's it dedicated to? MS. BISHOP: It's dedicated to the master association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, has there been any release from the intrusion into that PUE? MS. BISHOP: Well, the PUE we're not encroaching into. We're only encroaching into setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUE is five feet each side of the line. MS. BISHOP: Oh, you're talking about on the right-hand side. Those are for utilities, and they -- there has not been any release. There's not been one requested, until we get permission that we can have it in its location. But those were for utilities specifically. There are no utilities in any of those. That was pretty typical back in those days to put those in on either side, but there was no utilities ever put m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Usually, though. But the party that they're dedicated to, you would need a release from -- MS. BISHOP: Right. And we still will have to go through that if we get this permission to have it in its location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You said that you had written a letter -- Page 39 November 19,2009 MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to the homeowners association. MS. BISHOP: I have. COMMISSIONER CARON: But have you actually met with them? Have you had any discussions with them? You just followed up with a letter after -- MS. BISHOP: Right, right. There was -- because it was a repair, that wasn't required. We discussed with our neighbors on either side, we met with them -- or the owner's daughter met with them, let them know what was going on. They had no objections. The -- according to the manager, when the sign went out in front of the lot, that's when the HOA saw that there was this variance request. And so he wrote that letter a couple of days ago. But the HOA doesn't require anything for repair, and that's what this was. And so I responded to him, spoke to him, gave him a copy of the package, hoping that he could review the package and get back a letter saying okay, it's all right. But that didn't happen because it was only two days ago. But I have a copy of the letter that -- in the package that I sent to him, if you would like to see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And since you did say on the record you have photographs, both old aerials and current, and some kind of family photographs showing that location, would you mind showing those to us? MS. BISHOP: I would not mind. This is the 2007 aerial. I have aerials that go all the way back. I even -- from 2001 all the way back up. But this shows the earliest one I could get. The 1995 aerial for Collier County is really furry and you can't really see anything. So this is the best one that shows that cage in place, in the exact same place that it is today with the cage on top of it. This is pre-hurricane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you take that one off, could you Page 40 November 19,2009 take today's and fold it so that the new -- today's picture is alongside that one? MS. BISHOP: This is the 2007 aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have to just fold the edge over on one of those so we can see them both. Oh, there we go. MS. BISHOP: So you can see the 2007 aerial is exactly the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception of the linage from the assessor's office. Looks like it's moved and shifted. That has nothing to do with the house, though. MS. BISHOP: Right, it's just their angle of view. I've got the 2006, 2002, 2005, if you'd like to see those too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one more compared to the newest one would be helpful, if you've got one of the older ones. MS. BISHOP: All right. Let me do 2006. That's the 2006. That's right after the hurricane. You can see the cage IS gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps a lot. Well, what's the one on the left? That's today's without the cage. The cage is gone in 2006, so we're showing the pool slab. MS. BISHOP: Right. And actually that's a 2007 aerial. That's when the cage went up is in 2007. It really doesn't show very well on this aerial that -- and this aerial may have been taken right before the cage went back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the cage in any way break the side plain of the residents? MS. BISHOP: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had those other pictures you said you may have? MS. BISHOP: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you volunteered those, I just think Page 41 November 19,2009 it's better we get them all on record. At least to see them the best we can. MS. BISHOP: This is the corner that is the encroachment corner. So this shows -- this picture showing that cage, showing the deck at that corner, that is in fact encroaching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is about what year? MS. BISHOP: 1996. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BISHOP: And the other pictures I have are some cute little kids in the pool, if you want to see the date on the pictures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only ifit shows the side of the site in question. If it doesn't, then -- MS. BISHOP: It really doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members ofthe public-- oh, staff. Let's do staff before public. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this variance petition. It's consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And also I have copies of documents that I had shown to some of the commissioners prior to our meeting starting this morning, if anybody's interested in seeing them. You've already -- Karen has already shown you the site plan from 1991 building permit file. And I also have a copy of the current boundary survey that shows in color the area of encroachment, if you're interested in seeing that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just -- Page 42 November 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like to see that one showing the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Now, the yellow and red both represent the setbacks? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Yellow represents the IS-foot setback and pink represents the seven and a half foot setback. And then I -- you can see where I patched in the area of encroachment. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that's -- that cover, that screen closure could have been built farther south or down below and still been in compliance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If you eliminated that encroachment by designing the screen a little different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a question, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Of? I'm not -- could you rephrase that, that one -- I can't understand your -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is it possible that that screen enclosure could have been built in accordance with the setbacks and not have an encroachment there? A different designed screen. MS. GUNDLACH: It could have been designed and built in accordance with the setbacks, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the concept, this is not really just a repair, the total cage was taken down so it has to be built up. Repairs, you put the screens back in it. So the building department has not done a structural review of this project yet? MS. GUNDLACH: I do have a copy of the building permit file, if you would like to look at it. I looked at it briefly yesterday. And I Page 43 November 19,2009 did notice that there were some -- it appeared to be some structural drawings. And we do have one set of review notes from the building permit reviewers. And there was a structural review on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- but was it signed off for structure, or did it -- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, you can look at it. I mean, they really can't sign off on it because, you know, the setbacks weren't correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they could sign off for their division, the structural, without the setbacks. MS. GUNDLACH: We could take a look at that and see if they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While she's looking at that, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is anybody in the public wanting to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe while she's doing that I can ask Ray. Ray, do we have letters from the neighbors on this at all? MR. BELLOWS: None that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, positive or negative. Other than the association itself. MS. GUNDLACH: Regarding letters of objection, there was only the one from the homeowners association. Okay, I have a residential plan review comments prepared on April 5th, 2007. Okay, we have one from a residential plan review and it says not a failure, but please be aware that any changes to the structure due to the setbacks will require a new construction layout for the review process. That sounds like it was structurally sufficient but he couldn't sign Page 44 November 19,2009 off on it because of the structural -- I mean the setback issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah. That's good, thanks, Nancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Anybody -- oh, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I just have a quick one here. On all these diagrams, the ones that I looked at and obviously that are in here, it never shows the setback. It shows the utility easements, but I haven't been able to find other than what was written in the front of the setback and I didn't see any PUD in there that shows that. I mean, it obviously is, if you wrote it, but how come none of the diagrams, none of the draftings, if you will, or architectural does not show setbacks? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, probably the best place to look, and sometimes it's hard to see. Let's refer to my colored in -- that's actually a boundary survey that shows the encroachment. And there's a lot of lettering so sometimes it's hard to see. Okay, you can see obviously I wrote in that it's seven and a half and 15- foot setback. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But that's also -- that's what the five- foot utility easement goes to, or the total 10- foot utility easement. You point to that, you point to the dotted line, and this is where my confusion was, is I'm thinking that whoever designed the pool cage and the deck thought that those dotted lines were the setback. I would have if! were there doing a layout for a pool and didn't see anything else, that's what I would have assumed. I mean, that's what it looked like. When I first looked at this whole thing, whenever it was ago, that's what I thought. I said, well, I would have done it the same way, hit right on that dotted line. I didn't see any other setbacks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) Page 45 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, one thing I did notice, the pool cage actually is set back 5.09 feet. The slab is a few inches past that. And the slab's the only thing that protrudes into the utility easement, at least according to the blowup of the detail of that corner. I mean, that makes a difference from the aspects of the easement. I don't know if MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, we're here today for the setbacks, which is seven and a half feet, the encroachment into the seven and a half foot area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's just about two and a half foot difference is what they're looking at. MS. GUNDLACH: Um-hum, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, I know we have a code enforcement case that's bringing this to us, but what -- is there any kind of -- anything happening to the contractor who's building in the county without a license, and obviously causing these kind of problems? MS. GUNDLACH: I would have to inquire about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't your reference to the reason for the variance instead of a setback of 4.84-foot, they need a 5.00, since it's the cage that's in question, not a slab? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the variance they're asking for is not 4.84 feet, it's to 5.09 feet. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. That's my error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, Mark, that's the existing setback. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- Page 46 November 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They've got to go to seven and a half feet, so subtract from seven and a half, 5.09 is what they really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'm saying is the cage is at-- isn't the current, this detail, this plan here, the large 9/29/09 survey -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you're right, I see it. You're right. Instead of 4.85 it should be 5.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be 5.09 is all, so-- MS. GUNDLACH: It shows up in the enlargement. Or the detail, rather. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So really they're looking at a 5.09 setback in lieu of the previously stated 4. -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I would have to change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody else have any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No question, just a comment when we come to that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll seek a motion first and then we'll go to comments. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve changing it to 5.09 feet from what you had requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the rear setback of 12.5 foot? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was two of them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Now discussion. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm going to vote against the motion for the following reasons: I don't believe that they meet the Page 47 November 19, 2009 requirements ofthe LDC. Number one, a pie-shaped lot is not a special existing condition peculiar to land and structures, as required, while owner expectations of construction approval is not a special condition either. A literal interpretation does not result in unnecessary and undue hardships. This variance confers a special provision on the petitioner, and I will vote against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well I'll be making-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to be voting against it. Although the hardship and everything I'm not so much against, but the fact is that they knew that this was a setback issue during the permitting process, so the information was in hand and they just bullied ahead and found themselves here today. So I can't reward that because I can't punish the people who do it right by rewarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll be voting against the motion as well. I don't think that it -- of the criteria that we have to judge by, I do not think that there are special conditions or circumstances. They bought the property, it's a pie-shaped lot. It can be built on appropriately. C, the literal interpretation, if they could afford to rebuild, they could afford to rebuild correctly. I think the variance will not be the minimum, we just heard that, which is D. E, we would be granting a special privilege. Apparently there have been no other variances, according to the staff report, in King's Lake. F, I think granting a variance will not be in harmony with the purpose of the Land Development Code. It's not a legally permitted enclosure as it stands now. I think that they probably would have been better off to spend some more time working with the homeowner association. These Page 48 November 19,2009 homeowner associations have the authority and they should have worked with them before they even did the repairs. Most PUDs are that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just -- I don't see a problem with this. I think this happens. It happened in our homeowner's association, and you don't -- things get -- they just go by the wayside somehow. There was a pool cage -- and you don't realize it until the hurricane came and it took a pool cage down. And it's not the fault of the homeowners that own the property now. And it's a huge expense, it's not a little expense. The pool cages, when they came down, ours cost over $17,000 just for the pool cage. And generally when you have -- in a homeowner's association, if you're replacing something that's already in existence or if you're repainting the same color or putting on the same roof, you do not have to get permission from the homeowner's assoc -- it might be in the documents, but you generally do not. And this is -- it's unfortunate, but it still does not go into the public utility easement. It's 10 feet in the back and 10 feet on the side. And it's really not encroaching on that, so I don't think it's a big issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- for the record, I'll make a comment. I will support the motion for approval. This particular house and pool in that location's been there since I think we heard testify since '93. The neighbors have not complained. I can't see how it's harming anybody. And we shouldn't be penalizing people because the damage is caused by an act of God that they couldn't control. So at this point I'm in favor of it. And with that we'll ask for a vote. And please signify by both raising your hand and saying aye. All in favor of the motion for approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 49 November 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-3. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up, and we will take a break in about 15 minutes, Cherie', does that work for you? THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is Petition CU-PL2009170, the First Haitian Baptist Mission, Inc. at 14600 Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I had a discussion with Mr. Hancock. I suggested some refinements that I'm sure we'll be discussing today. So other than that, we'll move forward. Tim, it's all yours. Well, he was up there. Oh, there he is. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I made the mistake of trying something new this morning. I found it interesting when I bring in PowerPoint presentations that one Page 50 November 19,2009 of the few people in the county that knows how to load them is Joe Schmitt. And so it gets a little bit of a bind up here sometimes, it's not easy to do. So I'm trying to use my laptop here. If you'll give me just one second to see if I can fix it. If I cannot, I'll use slides on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: To avoid holding this body and everybody up further, while I'm a fan of technology, never underestimate the power of a paper backup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could take a break right now, we're pretty close enough to it. Why don't we just try that and maybe that will make it easier. MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a break till five after 10:00, we'll continue at that time. (Recess.) Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go into the next item, during the break through conversation with the County Attorney's Office for the last item today, which is PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, which is the Immokalee Airport Master Plan or PUD, the -- there's some issues involving the circumstances of that plan, and some details that were missing. And in discussions with the County Attorney and Mr. Arnold and Ms. Cook, it was best recommended that we continue that. They've requested a continuance to the 17th meeting in December. I think that's a good thing, because there is a lot of outstanding questions that could get resolved by then. So anybody have any Page 51 November 19,2009 comment on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Wayne, do you want to come up to the microphone and officially make the request to continue? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, representing the Airport Authority on this matter. And given the questions that have arisen and after conversations with County Attorney, we believe it is in the best interest of the project to request a continuance to probably December 17th. That gives us essentially a month. I understand in talking to Ms. Deselem with the county that the packets are already in process for your meeting in two weeks, so it probably makes more sense to put that out two more weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay for staff? Is there any concern on staffs part? MR. BELLOWS: Only -- for the record, Ray Bellows. Only -- I just want to get some assurance that if there are information that cannot make the packets for the 17th meeting, the petitioner will be prepared to present that to you verbally during that hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure they will. I mean, we're going to have -- any questions that they miss I'm sure we'll pick it, so with that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do we need a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with that in mind, I'm going to ask for a motion. First of all, are there any members of the public here for that item that wish to speak today that cannot be here on December 17th? (No response.) Page 52 November 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made for petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12294 for a continuance to December 17th. Motion was made by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER 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. Thank you, Wayne. Appreciate your cooperation. I think it will be a better product when it comes back. So that will work out a lot better for everybody. And I would recommend to the Planning Commission to save the information packets they have that we've already got, because there will most likely be a supplement that will be issued to that, so set that stuff aside. Okay, Tim, it looks -- did you get your computer working -- did you correct that computer? Page 53 November 19,2009 Item #9C PETITION: CU-PL2009-170, FIRST HAITIAN BAPTIST MISSION, INC. MR. HANCOCK: We have done our best and I think we're up and running. So thank you again for the break and the time, I do appreciate it. I hope that it makes things go a little smoother. Again, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. Mr. Hood was going to present this item but is home sick watching it on television. So I'll be pinch hitting for him today, and of course I will give him some very terrible tasks to take care of next week for making me be here. But I'm here representing the applicant, First Haitian Baptist Mission, a church ministering to the Naples Community at 14600 Tamiami Trail East. I'd like to take a few minutes to talk to you about the history of the existing conditional use, an existing and absolute conservation easement and the proposed conditional use application for expansion on the subject property that's before you today. The subject property is located three miles east of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Collier Boulevard. It is zoned rural agricultural with a conditional use for the existing church facility. The subject property lies within the urban coastal fringe sub- district future land use designation. It has approximately 500 feet of frontage along Tamiami Trail, and it bordered on three sides: The east, south and west by Charlee Estates, Habitat for Humanity single-family residential development. The zoning ofCharlee Estates is in fact the Charlee Estates PUD. To the north across Tamiami Trail right-of-way is undeveloped C-2 commercial zoned property. Page 54 November 19,2009 The eastern boundary of the subject property shares a border with a water management retention area that is part of Charlee Estates PUD. In May of 1993, the applicant was granted a conditional use to provide for the establishment of a church and accessory uses to a church in the rural agricultural zoning district on the parcel which is 4.59 acres. Subsequently a site development plan application was approved in July of 1995, that's SDP 94-64, for the construction of the existing church and parking areas shown in this aerial photograph. Under that SDP approval the applicant was granted the operation of a church and church related uses, associated parking and water management areas for a 9,360 square foot square sanctuary. The sanctuary currently seats a 345-person congregation, and that translates into an existing 148 parking spaces provided on-site at the required ratio of three spaces per seven seats. The church currently is on well and septic on this site. Under the prior SDP approval, the applicant identified and preserved a 2.15-acre area under conservation easement to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, formerly the DER. You can see that area here on the existing plan of development. This area was set aside per a settlement agreement with Deltona Corporation for the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in December of 1992 to preserve an enhanced wetlands and other areas of environmental concern in perpetuity at the time of the easement's granting. A portion of the subject property -- and you can see the property here in yellow. A portion of the subject's property, along with a number of others, were selected by DEP for preservation, assumedly due to their proximity to extraordinary waters to the south. The areas here highlighted in pink are areas however that were approved for development. The subject property is within that area. Page 55 November 19,2009 After looking at and analyzing the 1973 aerial shown here we've confirmed, along with environmental staffs agreement, that there were no wetlands existing on the site then nor are there wetlands and vegetation on the site now. The intent of the applicant going forward is to vacate the conservation easement that we believe was placed in error at the time of the SDP approval by the applicant, and to request that conservation easement through DEP be lifted. We believe that the modification of the surrounding properties in the years obviously have made this not some kind of environmentally significant two-acre parcel. There's no vegetation on it, it's not a wetland and it's surrounded on three sides by a residential development. We have contacted DEP and are awaiting their determination to lift the conservation easement. Any granting of the conditional use today obviously would be subject to that conservation easement being lifted or amended. Now that we've gone over a little bit of the history, let me share with you what the church is intending for the property. The congregation has grown out of their current administrative and activity areas. Fairly common for a church to build the sanctuary first and some additional administrative areas, and as funding comes available, then expand as their programs expand, such as the case here. Though the sanctuary is still of sufficient size for Sunday services, the areas to hold Bible study, Sunday school classes, administrative functions and receptions for the congregation is now inadequate to meet the needs of the church. The church is not seeking to expand the seating in the sanctuary. The maximum permitted congregation size will remain at 345 seats. If in the future the church's congregation should grow to a point where more space is needed, an amendment to the conditional use application would be required at that time. Page 56 November 19,2009 To adequately accommodate the congregation's fellowship programs and to provide more area for the church's administrative offices, this conditional use proposes to expand the existing church sanctuary and reception hall by 1,550 square feet. In addition, they would like to add a separate 19,281 square feet general purpose building. As you can see on the site plan before you, if you'll look on the bottom of the plan, that's the existing sanctuary. That's going to have again the 1,550 square feet added to it primarily for administrative space. The building just to your left as you look at that would be the new general purpose building for the church. The general purpose building will house a fellowship hall with an associated kitchen, administrative offices, a reception area, restroom facilities, a conference area and additional classrooms. The new structure will allow members of the congregation to gather and hold events and functions such as receptions for weddings, Sunday school classes, Bible study and other church related events for its members. The intended use is compatible with the single-family residential development and vacant land surrounding a near proximity to the subject property. The proposed expansion will be buffered from those uses via landscaping as required by the Land Development Code and shall conform to the dimensional standards in accordance with the rural agricultural zoning designation. Planned access will remain via the existing driveway connecting the property to Tamiami Trail East. There are a few issues that may have come up in your review of this petition. I'd like to try and address some of those at this point, as well as some comments that I received from Mr. Strain. The first of those really is that we discovered as we were going through this conditional use that the boundary survey and survey provided to us, that the existing structures are actually encroaching into a required 50-foot setback. Page 57 November 19, 2009 What it is our intent to do and the church's intent to do is the expansion and remodel of the sanctuary will remedy this existing condition and avoid the need for coming back before you for another fun-seeking variance. The second issue is that the -- and don't get me wrong, I really enjoy being here. The second issue is the additional 98 parking spaces -- I thought I could pull that out without laughing myself. There's an additional 98 parking spaces on the master plan. It's in excess of what the church seating currently requires. And I'm sure that drew some of your attention. When designing the site for circulation and potential water management areas, we maximized the parking areas trying to think of the future. The church's congregation size does not exceed the 345 seats now, but it may at some point in the future. We've decided to allow for that now instead of later, showing you what the site would look like and what its development extents would be at its maximum development potential. Also, there is a misprint on the provided master concept plan that is our responsibility. There are 246 parking spaces, not 245. So for those of you that counted them, I'm going to intercept you right there. We do have amended master concept plans we'll provide for the record, but at consent you will see that change, should we get to that point. The design before you also allows us to design and install the stormwater management system to accommodate the build-out of the full site. Future growth may result in designating what are shown here in parking areas and converting them to an additional building, for example. Or more than likely what would probably be the case is the larger building may at some point be converted to more of a church use allowing for increased seating. Nonetheless, any increase in seating over the 345 would have to Page 58 November 19,2009 come back before you as an amendment to the conditional use. But we thought it wise to at least project out what may be the needs of the church in attempt to master plan those at this time. The way we've done that in essence is to install placeholder parking. At the time of development of the additional building we mayor may not construct all of those spaces, but the stormwater management system will be designed to accommodate them so that future runoff and future development envelopes are designed and adhered to in the future. As it stands today, the church's congregation cannot expand on this site, cannot add one single seat. Because the trips on this link of Tamiami Trail East are not available. We've agreed through our traffic impact statement filed with the application and reviewed by transportation planning staff to limit the number of seats that govern our trip generation because of that road failure. The section is defined as being from Collier Boulevard to the west and Greenway Road to the east along this section of Tamiami Trail. When the roadway's been improved at some point in the future and trips become available, the opportunity to expand the seating of the congregation would be present. At this time it is not. The third issue we would like to address is the proposed ADA accessible off-site pedestrian walkway. We have a lot of members that live in Charlee Estates surrounding the church. This is in fact a community church serving its immediate community. As a matter of fact, a review of the membership roles showed approximately 15 percent of the members living in Charlee Estates currently. The walkway was provided basically to keep cars from traveling out Charlee Estates onto U.S. 41 to access the church. Candidly, folks are walking to the church now. They're just not doing it across an Page 59 November 19, 2009 approved pathway. And we felt that by addressing this both internally to our site and working with Charlee Estates in the construction of a sidewalk through what is a common area adjacent to the church, that we could maybe make that a little more of a smooth transition. As someone who enjoys getting up Sunday morning and walking to my own church, it's something we'd like to promote, obviously. And as a result, we think that there may be some trips that normally are going on on the Trail that people are accessing it by car that would certainly use this pathway, if it were present. So we're trying to promote the pedestrian connection as in essence a good neighbor act and also as a way of mitigating any potential traffic impacts that even the additional building may create. And Mike Green is here with transportation staff. And we can go into that a little bit further, if you'd like, but the reality is that when you look at the actual traffic impacts of the church, there's two ways that we evaluate traffic. For churches, for weekend services it's based on the number of seats. But when you look at the weekday effect, you look at the square footage of the facilities. So you really are doing two TISs within one use, because the uses are distinctly different. During the week I believe we exceed the p.m. peak hour by something in the area of eight trips. Eight trips is not a lot. Eight trips represents -- if we had five percent of our congregation that actually walked to church, that would be about three families, then that would address that five percent. So it's a fairly minimal number, but it is in fact in excess of the p.m. peak hour in the way we review our TISs. So this pedestrian pathway is designed specifically to address that deficiency, and we believe it recognizes an existing pattern that is already going on. But by doing so, addresses the mitigation requirements of the application. Another issue that came up that was posed at the neighborhood November 19,2009 information meeting was who would be responsible for constructing and maintaining the walkway. What we will do is we will obtain -- do everything we can to obtain a cross access easement through the community area. The church, though, will be responsible for construction and maintenance of any sidewalk in that area. That will be the church's responsibility. And last, of course the DEP conservation easement that currently is active on the property, I mentioned earlier, any proposed change in the site within the area of conservation will be subject to the vacation or modification of that easement. I'd like to go into a couple of items that Mr. Strain raised in a conversation I had with him yesterday. One of them is contained in your staff report with respect to hours of operation. And those hours of operation were listed specifically, and I want to clarify this, not just for the church operation but also for the general purpose building too. So those hours of operation we listed. We tried to accommodate all of the operations on the site, not just the church sanctuary itself. But that does include the general purpose building. Secondly, we say in our application that events are limited to church members. And let me clarify that. This is not a rental facility, this is not an Elks Lodge where you're going to have outside groups come in and have events. When we talk about weddings, we're talking about weddings of church members. When we talk about baptismal celebrations, we're talking about baptisms of church members. And I do want to be very clear about that. This is not a facility that's going to be rented to outside parties. It is indeed for church members. Third, outside music and celebrations. Well, one of the reasons for building this nice new facility is to be able to have more general purpose events. And we are anticipating no outside events as a part of the normal worship function of the church. If there were to be any type of an outside event with outside music, it would be subject to the Page 61 November 19, 2009 special permit requirements of the county and we would have to apply for such permit. Those permits carry with them limitations as to hours of operation and time throughout the year. And again, one example that I offered is that my particular church, we have one event that's outside every year that specifically has one of the local high school jazz bands play, but we have to get a special events permit in order to do that. That same thing would apply here. Weare not including in our application outside music or amplified music. And last is you'll see a reference to a fence that is six to eight feet. Now I've never met a six to eight-foot fence. It's usually either six-foot or an eight-foot. And so that was our mistake. We somehow plugged six to eight feet in for some reason, and it just kept going right through the process. So let me be clear, any fence requirement -- and I believe the LDC requirement is at six feet when you have a use like this that is adjacent to residential, so it is a six-foot fence requirement. The church may opt, should they wish to at the time of SDP, to request an administrative fence waiver where you take the fence -- instead of the fence you do a landscape buffer and whatnot. But we would only do that if we had the agreement of the adjacent property owners and follow the LDC requirements for buffering. So we're not asking for any exceptions to the LDC requirements for buffering. Any fence as required by the LDC I believe would be six feet in this location, so please allow me to correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only difference to that statement, Tim, the recommendation of staff is not to give you the option to require a wall six to eight feet. So you had just I thought alluded that the LDC has an option that it can be more landscaping and we can eliminate the fence or the wall. That's not what would happen if the recommendation here was included. And that's what I was suggesting is that I believe a wall is called Page 62 November 19,2009 for, especially that close to residential. My question to you was, well, let's just make it six or eight feet, not leave the -- so everybody knows what's happening, so -- MR. HANCOCK: The one area that I would ask for some potential relief of that is where the church property does not immediately border the residential homes. And I'm not asking you for the variance here today. I've been down that road with other churches and I know where it ends up when it gets before the board. In the past the board has directed that we go through whatever administrative procedures may be available to us. And for example, we had New Hope went through a process. And what the staff actually did is they bifurcated our request and said well, over here we think you need a wall and over here we can understand you may not. And so we got a partial relief, if you will. My specific concern for the church is the cost of constructing a six-foot wall along a water management area or along a common area where it's a playground may not be appropriate. If staff determines that it is, it shall be constructed. But where we are immediately adjacent to single-family homes, we will not be seeking relief in those areas. So I wanted to leave that option open only with respect to where we are not immediately adjacent to single-family homes. If it is your desire to follow staff recommendation, we're not going to fuss with that a lot, but we would like to have the opportunity to make that request to staff and allow them to make a planning based decision on whether it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it does say along the residential land uses, so I don't know what -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, because the entire PUD is a residential PUD -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I got it. Page 63 November 19,2009 MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, it can be construed that -- and probably has been construed more consistently than not in the past. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Certainly don't expect you to put one along the street. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is when -- because you've got parking on where most of the homes are. And heading up into there, people walk away, lock their car, beep, beep, you know, that's not going to work. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Charlee Estates was what, is that a Habitat community? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And as we know, those people are, quote, forced to keep a very tight neighborhood. Very clean, tight neighborhood. And it would just be terrible to make sure that that's not kept (sic). Which brings up my point about the buffer. In your NIM meeting, in your neighborhood information meeting, was that buffer acceptable? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. There were no objections in the neighborhood information meeting with respect to the buffer that's proposed. And we propose the same buffer there that we did (sic) now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And they understood what that is, that type of buffer is? MR. HANCOCK: It was explained. And Nancy, I've reviewed the minutes of it, but I was not in attendance. But the buffer was explained what a Type D is and that it mayor may not include a wall. And I believe that exact verbiage was used. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Now, along the residential area there will be a wall, you said eight foot? MR. HANCOCK: Six foot is the LDC requirement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. You didn't feel like Page 64 November 19,2009 going eight foot in the residential since you're getting relief? I'm not here to negotiate, I was leading into something. MR. HANCOCK: What I'm heading to is our plan is a six-foot wall. If the Planning Commission feels that eight-foot is more appropriate immediately adjacent to residential, that's something I would understand. When we get away where we're not immediately adjacent to residential, we would prefer to have the option of requesting a waiver from the wall requirement to install a heavily opaque landscape buffer in lieu of the wall. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to -- that's where I was going with it, was with that buffer. And that's going to be on the residential side or on the church side property? MR. HANCOCK: It would be planted on the church's property and maintained by the church. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Correct. And then the wall or -- which is facing the residential? MR. HANCOCK: Well, when you have a wall requirement, a Type D buffer, the vegetation is on the residential side and the wall is on the church side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, had you finished with your presentation? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'd just like to point out that the process that we're going through is a conditional use. It's not a PUD where there's an ordinance adopted and you have deviations. There is no deviations from the landscape requirements that the Planning Commission can recommend on. However, there is an administrative fence process the applicant Page 65 November 19, 2009 can go through to address either the height or portions where it doesn't abut actual residential units, that they can ask for elimination of the fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the stipulation that staff has included in here says there shall be a wall. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Presentations done from the applicant. Questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, I want to focus in on the existing building. The original PUD showed a 30-foot setback, and it looks like this building has that. But it also looks like you're intending to trim off five feet of that southeast setback. Is that true? Or is that necessary? MR. HANCOCK: It is my understanding, based on the survey, that there's a six and a half foot encroachment into the required setback. So yes, the renovation of the building would attempt to correct that. We'd be required to correct that encroachment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your new building shows 35 feet. And like I said, the original PUD allowed that to be a 30. So I guess you'll argue that out with staff at the time. But -- because these setbacks -- I mean, trimming off little slivers of building seems to be a very difficult thing to do. Is there no administrative way to allow you to have those small encroachments? MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe that degree of encroachment qualifies for any administrative waiver. So if we cannot do it economically, we'd be forced to come back through a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Anyway, check that, because it was 30 feet, and it looks like they built that right. The existing building has a porte-cochere in the front. You're not going to build that back? Or this level of drawing not going to get into Page 66 November 19,2009 stuff like that? MR. HANCOCK: We have not. That's going to be a budgetary issue for the church. Since the porte-cochere would not increase the seating requirements, we've just simply not gotten into the architectural issue of showing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. And then the only other comment, and this would probably be worked out in SDP, is putting the trash containers in somebody's backyard versus all the other locations. It doesn't seem fair. But anyway, thank you. MR. HANCOCK: We can do a better job at that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tim, looking at the hours of operation, the statement in the staff report says days and hours of operation of the church are as follows. I'm wondering if that's used in the more generic sense, inclusive of those two buildings. When we talk about half -- almost a half an acre of a building, the general purpose building, you've mentioned classrooms, and I was just trying to visualize what that configuration may be. I almost saw a gymnasium. I don't know. How many people would we be bringing in for a prayer meeting? Now, the prayer meeting, according to the statement here, prayer meeting would probably happen in the sanctuary. I'm guessing, of course. Do you have a feel for where I'm going with this to try to understand what a half an acre of building would really be used for and how many people will it draw? MR. HANCOCK: I do have an idea. And I actually have a very real word example of my own church. And we have a general purpose building that is roughly the same size. And as you walk in the entryway, there are different size meeting rooms to handle different functions. One is maybe a Christian library and the other is a parlor Page 67 November 19,2009 for receptions, and then on the second floor there are Sunday School rooms. And then there's a kitchen area that can serve both front and back side of the building that is more central. The back side of the building is created as a general purpose area. And the floor plan, the preliminary floor plans for this were similar to this, along the same lines, that that open area can be used for a variety of activities. You could have a youth basketball league. For example, my church runs a youth basketball league, a Christian basketball league in there. We also have Wednesday night dinners for our church members where we'll have fellowship and dinners and Bible study that breaks out following that. So the number of people that it can hold depends on the type of function you have there. One of the reasons I think the additional parking is being put in there is to ensure that that does not create a problem, because this is a site where you can't exactly park out on the street ifthere's an overflow. So those are the -- that's the mindset of the building. And one of the big problems they've had is that -- and this portion of Collier County, if you have a wedding and are looking to have a reception, there are not a lot of facilities that are available for church members to use, and I'll say at a reasonable or acceptable cost. And they've had a lot of requests for special events by church members on the property. And so that's one of the functions the building's intended to serve. I hope I've answered your question. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think you have. And I certainly am not against it. My -- the route of my question in that sense, and you hit it right on the head, is -- I'm going to use an absurd example here. The cousin from Des Moines having their wedding there because they're a cousin of one of the members. I'm making that Page 68 November 19, 2009 kind of a ludicrous example because I really don't believe that has happened very much. But there is a question that I think should be asked about what real control do we have over whether or not that's going to turn into something that will be a promotion for the benefit of the church but to the detriment of the neighbors. Try to help us with that, if you would. MR. HANCOCK: You've hit on something that we run up against with every single church. And we seem to appear before you on an inordinate number of churches, and we're actually very proud of that. But the range of events that occur with churches are so incredibly varied you almost have to -- and I hate to use these words, but you almost have to trust in the institution that most churches do not provide weddings for non-members. Therefore, a reception on site following the wedding, ergo it would be a member. The only enforcement that really exists is, and I think this would come about, if there were a high degree of events or events that were creating noise and somebody looked into, there was a complaint filed, hey, you know, these aren't church members, they leased it out to, you know, "X" organization to have a fundraiser, and that were confirmed, it would in fact be a violation of their zoning. That's the only enforcement I can offer to you that I can think of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. What I'm guessing -- I'm not guessing. What I'm relating to here is when one looks at the statement of what all is going on there: women's ministry, I'm thinking sanctuary; youth and adult Bible study, okay, maybe classrooms in the room; choir rehearsal, I assume would be in the sanctuary; prayer meeting, not sure. Most of the activities from this statement here suggest that it would be held in the sanctuary . So a 19,321 square foot building or 281 square foot building seems an extraordinary enterprise for something that doesn't seem to Page 69 November 19,2009 have any clear apparent use other than probabilities for limited use. MR. HANCOCK: We probably got caught a little bit in the trap of talking about what the church currently does in determining of hours of operation and applying it to the larger building. I'm not entirely sure that they think they're going to use all 19,000 square feet right out of the chute. But if you're going to build 10,000 in this market, it makes a lot more sense to build the other nine, even though you may not have an immediate need for it. I can tell you that, for example, our general purpose area, we have a production called Night in Bethlehem every Christmas, and it's a walk-through production. And it doesn't allow any more folks to be there and use that facility for that purpose than our sanctuary does. But it takes a lot more space. And we have the ability to do it because we have the space to do it. I think that's part of the planning that the church is trying to implement here. I don't see a 20,000 square foot wide-open facility with rock concerts going on here. I know that's a fear, it's a concern, it's a worry. But from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure how to preclude that from ever happening, but that certainly is not the intent of the church and I'm not sure how to further limit it, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm satisfied with your statements. And I understand it's either a problematic issue based on history, or ifthere's no history it's likely not to become a problem. MR. HANCOCK: One ofthe benefits of this site, because its only point of access is on Tamiami Trail, is it doesn't use residential streets to get to and from the church. So people parking, you know, overflow parking, if they were to have a large event, occurring on residential streets, which can be problematic, is far, far less likely here. And I think that's at least a degree of mitigation for those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? Page 70 November 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying is that the church will not be hiring Mr. Vigliotti's son to put in a sound system so that the actual -- while your seats in the sanctuary are limited, you essentially have 19,000 square feet of additional sanctuary space. MR. HANCOCK: No, ma'am. The sanctuary is the sanctuary, and services will be held in the sanctuary. And overflow seating -- we can only have 345 seats period for any service to occur. And that even includes, for example, you could have a wedding in the general purpose area, I guess, but I don't see that happening. I don't recall it happening in other facilities of similar design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My question is to the County Attorney. Jeff, where do we get to a point with over-restricting hours and uses in the church? Don't we start to cross a line and wind up in a possible problem? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you have to be reasonable in your conditional uses. How's that? And if I'm hearing something here I think is unreasonable, I'll pipe up. But I think that's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm just concerned because we're getting into hours and usage. I don't want to be too specific. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but these -- a lot of these churches are in residential neighborhoods and that's why we have these reasonable times and hours. I mean, there's a difference between a church and more of a commercial setting with nobody around them and a church surrounded by homes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Page 71 November 19, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, let's go back and start right from the beginning. You said that you would limit hours of operation. And I'm recalling the Covenant Church on 41, if everybody remembers what happened in regards to the Pelican -- or Pine Ridge community there. There was a lot of concern about the hours of operation. And we did restrict that church, and they agreed to the restrictions, for certain hours of operations to not disrupt the neighborhood. The neighborhood there was equally close as the one you're dealing with here. I think you said you were comfortable with that all buildings will be limited to the hours of operation that was in the staff report. Is that the Page 4 that you're referring to where it says the hours of operation of the church are as follows? MR. HANCOCK: It is with -- and the notable exception, and I should have mentioned this. For example, there's nothing in here for Tuesdays or Saturdays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that and as well the hours that the church itself operates. You may want it to have different hours for the multi-use building; otherwise what good is it? If it's multi-use, you're probably going to need it for more hours than you're operating the church. So I think that your hours of operation need to be considered in regards to the way you previously defined it. I think you really want a little more flexible hours, and I think that would be reasonable. So I would suggest that you suggest something more reasonable, and we get that in. Because we have to come back on a consent and I want this as carefully stipulated as possible. So are you prepared to have that now, or -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before this conversation is done Page 72 November 19,2009 today? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., Sunday through Thursday. And 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m? MR. HANCOCK: To 9:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. MR. HANCOCK: I said 10:30. I can be negotiated downward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 10:00 would be better than 10:30. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're against a neighborhood that's probably got children living in those houses right up against this building. And that's where my concern is. There's a lot of families living there and they're going to have to sleep. 10:00 is more reasonable than 10:30. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. And we will agree to that limitation, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the outside music goes, you agreed to have no outside music, either amplified or otherwise, until -- but only through special permit application. Is that -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fair to say? Okay, the members of the congregation will be those who -- the only people using this multipurpose facility will be members of the congregation; is that right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. The only problem I run into is if you're having a wedding for a member of the congregation, there's folks from outside the congregation that are invited, I don't want to preclude that. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. And that's why I brought the question up, because I want to make sure we define it. Page 73 November 19,2009 Should we be better off saying members of the congregation and their guests? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's who will be limited to using that multipurpose building. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I thank you for that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dumpsters. I heard Mr. Schiffer correctly indicate there's a concern with the dumpsters. I had also written the same concern. My suggestion was that you not just say you're going to fix it, that you tell us today you're going to move it to the line that's bordering the water management area in Charlee Estates to the southeast. Is that a fair statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that should have been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And lastly, where is your water management on this plan? MR. HANCOCK: The water management area is located between -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a lot of impervious, from what I can see. So that's why I was wondering where you're going to have your 12 to 15 percent of your site for water management. MR. HANCOCK: The water management is located between the parking area and U.S. 41. There's a linear area there that will accommodate the dry retention. This plan shows approximately 31 percent of the parking spaces is grassed parking spaces. And we are willing to agree to a minimum of 30 percent of the constructed parking spaces will be grassed. That does help us to some degree with the water management. But we believe the water management as designed is acceptable for the church uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your water management is all designed on this property? Page 74 November 19,2009 MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because when we talked about when you -- during your presentation, I thought you mentioned you had a -- you were sharing the water management with Charlee Estates, but that's not the case. MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fence -- the wall that needs to be put around it, I didn't see the wall as a barrier or as a security issue, I saw it as a sound preventative issue. And I understand your argument that you could potentially stop it where there is a playground or stop it where there's water management. But if you stop it there, the houses are right behind both those areas. And as we learned in the Lely application with commercial in Lely and we were concerned about the travel of noise across the water, the same thing would occur here. So those people on the triangular side -- that little triangular water management area are still going to have noise issues from the church property. And I saw that as the concern for the wall over any other issue. And I heard you make a -- you're willing -- you don't want the staff recommendation I believe to stand as it's written, you want some flexibility in dropping that wall. I really think that would be detrimental when you're in a neighborhood as close as you are. And I don't mind stipulating it be six feet instead of eight, but I think a wall of any kind there is more beneficial to noise transmission than a hedge that -- or a landscape buffer that we know especially when you're dealing with non-profits, there's a potential there for it to not be maintained or fertilized in a manner that keeps it as lush as it might be to be the effective hedge it could be for its life, whereas a wall, it doesn't change, so -- MR. HANCOCK: I can't necessarily obviously disagree with that thinking, with one exception. The areas where the church buildings, and there are no activities between the church building and Page 75 November 19,2009 the property line, the buildings themselves act as a sound barrier for noise occurring on the far side. In other words, the entrance to the church is facing U.S. 41. The rear of the church, there's no activity back there. And it does seem costly and maybe unnecessary to construct a six-foot wall 30 feet away from a 25-foot building that does not have activity or access to that site other than emergency access only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem I have is that as we heard on the Pine Ridge subdivision's concerns about the church that they had there, when the people were inside the building the noise and the vibration from inside the building could be heard across the street. And that's what I'm concerned about. Maybe as a consideration the point that a wall could be administratively requested to be dropped is where the building ends and you just have parking lot. And where there isn't residential alongside it. And that would really apply only to that southeast corner from 41 down to about two-thirds of the way where that triangular water management area is. And that would be more practical not to have a wall there. But I think for the rest of it, especially around the buildings, I'm more concerned about the activities that go on inside. And religions tend to be a lot noisier nowadays, all of them do, with singing and entertainment than they did in the past. That's what I think we're going to run into any time we have compatibility issues. So just that's my consideration. And David, I've still got more. Let me fin -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Before we lose track of it, I think I scaled, I think it was about 180 to 200 feet from that corner up to where, you know, that entrance to the building would be. So that's the distance -- that's the only distance we're talking about is about 200 Page 76 November 19,2009 feet. MR. HANCOCK: I'll be candid, I'll take what I can get. I'm trying to save the church money in areas where it may not be necessary . But as you mentioned, Mr. Strain, it's tough to make that one size fits all. It's very difficult to do. So I'm -- I understand your point and I'm not going to belabor it any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last question I have, and I think it's more of a staff and you combination, you have an existing conditional use. I believe it's the existing conditional use that limits your number of patrons to the church. Does this conditional use wipe out the first one? And if so, do we still have -- I want to make sure we don't lose any of the restrictions that we had in the first one that we're counting on here today. MR. HANCOCK: You make a good point in that the new resolution -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't have the-- MR. HANCOCK: -- does not have the number of seats contained in it. We have no objection in putting the number of seats into the resolution, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was 345? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And I apologize, I should have picked up on that and did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for the sake of being redundant, I want to walk through this again. The hourly limitations of the multipurpose building will be Saturday through -- or Sunday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There'll be no outside music or amplified music outside unless with special permit application. The members of the congregation and their guests will be the limited users of the multi-use building. Page 77 November 19,2009 The dumpsters will be moved to the southeast side of the property. We will add a limitation of 345 seats to the resolution for the quantity of church members that are allowed at this time, which is consistent with the original conditional use. There will be a wall that will be six feet high around two and a half sides of this project, basically ending, as Mr. Wolfley described, about 180 feet back from 41 on the southeast property line. And I believe -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, from the corner where (sic) the residential up towards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, up, okay. But I think the point is where the parking lot is on the southeast property line, that's where staff -- we could stipulate that staff could administratively drop the wall, okay? I think everybody -- those are the stipulations that I've gotten out of our conversation. We haven't -- we're not at a point yet to make a motion, but that's -- I just wanted to summarize where I believe we're at. Mr -- Ms. Caron? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good '01 what's her name. I have a couple of others I think that were brought out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, let's go. COMMISSIONER CARON: And one is the conservation easement. We need a letter that says that that's been lifted. You need to address the 50-foot setback issue. And you committed to 30 percent of the parking to be grass. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, with that we've still got to hear staff report. Or does anybody else -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 78 November 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tim, is there any midnight services that this church might have, Christmas Eve or something that we're out of compliance here? Is there any need for that. MR. HANCOCK: To date they've not had any. Let's see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there are some special services that might be outside your hours. If there's not, there's not. MR. HANCOCK: I was trying to craft something that may be acceptable. Under stipulation number two, which I know these are going to be renumbered as things are coming back to you on consent, where it indicates the maximum number of special events per year, if we were to add including no more than two services extending up to but not beyond midnight during high holidays, I think that would allow that, if it were to happen in the future. And I appreciate you bringing that up. It just -- not every church does those, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other might be Easter morning at sunrise. MR. HANCOCK: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't those be some of the special -- you're asking for 20 special events per year. Wouldn't those be considered special events? MR. HANCOCK: I kind of thought they fit under that, but then when we did the hours of operation, I see the potential for an internal conflict between those two, and I think that's what Mr. Schiffer's raIsmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't the special events on the application be able to deviate on the hours of operation? Or does this lock it in 365 days a year? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the special events are in where you're defining the days that you can have services. And one of those days obviously is religious holidays. But I think if it's not Page 79 November 19, 2009 in the sentence or paragraph with the hours it wouldn't be obvious that that's what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then maybe where the hours are written, we just put except for the 20 special events as approved per year. MR. HANCOCK: That would more than accommodate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you could have a Christian rock concert in the parking lot at midnight, so that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Fifteen times a year. MR. HANCOCK: Let me ask, is the term high holidays a generally accepted term? Because whether -- it's based on the individual faith. I mean, the high holidays for the Jewish faith is a little different than Christian, but it does have a limitation. Is that clearly defined enough that events may occur earlier or later than the prescribed hours, but only during high holidays? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if they sell it to the Rastafarians. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer, you both are talking at the same time. I think Mr. Schiffer, you have the floor at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, mine was a bit ofa wise- crack. If they sell it to the Rastafarian church, you'd lose your definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just making a facetious comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you both were. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the truth is is that I'm not sure that anything anymore in the next five years to 10 years, whether that will roll away as being meaningful. And I know you're struggling to find a way of putting it. I thought the way it was couched here just a little while ago was fine, Page 80 November 19,2009 quite frankly. It needn't be -- I think if you referenced them as exceptions, I don't think they're going to hold a 2:00 a.m. rock service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they may not get approval for it if they do. So -- and the other concern I think we have is not all religions we're finding out are the same. And what we're looking at are holidays known to most of what, Christian religions, and we now know there are holidays for other religions that have to be honored as well. So I'm not sure we want to limit or even get into a discussion on which holidays we pick for every religion. So we might be safer just leaving it with the 20 special events and let staff handle the logistics of that. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: To address the potential conflict, I may have one more quick shot at some language. It would say no more than two events per year may exceed the prescribed hours of operation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No more than two events? MR. HANCOCK: Two events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fair. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're really limiting yourself. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fair. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no, no, no. MR. HANCOCK: Well, and the reason is that a special events permit doesn't allow you to have music typically, you know. And we're not going to have 2:00 a.m. events. And so while I agree that I am limiting my client, I don't think I'm doing so unduly or in a burdensome manner. I think if we had two that went -- I think the special events permit, there's limitations that go until either 10:00 or 11 :00 and then there's an additional condition till midnight, if I remember correctly. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, the special events permit would define that. And if he were to exceed any of the limits defined in the noise Page 81 November 19, 2009 ordinance, it would identify it as such. For instance, if they were going to do an outdoor concert, it would list the times. We would still most likely specify that it would be completed at 10:00. For instance, they just had the film festival at the Mercato, and I think there was a time limit when the outdoor music stopped, that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to say, and there's no possibility that the other language restricting it to the time frames that we're intending here would negate that? MR. SCHMITT: The 20 events a year, to be frank with you, if there's a sunrise service, we're going to recognize that as such. Likewise, a midnight mass. I don't think we as a county are going to attempt in any way, shape or form to try and litigate or issue a citation. My goodness, Jeff and I would be trying to deal with the -- let alone the media, but any other legal -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, that would be you dealing with it. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, thank you. I deal with the media, you deal with the legal challenge. No, we're not going down that road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I do think -- MR. SCHMITT: So we would clearly recognize -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as many as you want. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I didn't-- MR. SCHMITT: If they want to do a sunrise service, they do a . . sunnse servIce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now everybody, please, we can't talk out of turn. Cherie's having a hard time taking the minutes and these need to be accurate, so -- MR. HANCOCK: On top of trying to keep up with me. With Mr. Schmitt's clarification, I think the verbiage that's contained in the staff report gets us where we need to go. But Mr. Page 82 November 19,2009 Schiffer, I do appreciate you raising the point. I think we're addressed with that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did you have something else you wanted to add? MR. BELLOWS: Just make a quick point that if the church wanted to exceed the 20, that they could do that through a temporary use permit process also. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy? It will probably be short, I imagine. We've already covered most all the ground. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Yes, the staff report will be short. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And we are recommending approval of this conditional use, subject to staff conditions, as well as the conditions that you have proposed today. And I'm happy to go through staffs conditions on Page 11 of 12, if you would like me to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we all have it in our packet. Unless there's specific questions, I'd prefer we didn't. With that in mind, we have related to you during this discussion, besides the staff conditions, we talked about nine, one of which was a redo of condition number five of staffs. Are you -- did you take good enough notes to know what those nine are? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of staff on this particular application? (No response.) Page 83 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just one. Is the indication on the master plan of the sidewalk good enough? We don't need any -- you don't need a letter or anything saying that they have an easement through Charlee? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, one of staffs conditions of approval is that that sidewalk must be shown on the site plan that will be presented at a future date when they submit their site development plan. And it will have to be in -- constructed prior to their certificate of occupancy. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, they're going to have a wall there, but they want to allow access. Will that be a gated wall or will it just be open; do we know? MS. GUNDLACH: I think that is at the petitioner's discretion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we might find out, if that access is going to be open, maybe Tim could just quickly nod. Will that access be open all of the time, or will that be subject to closing of the church property at a certain time? MR. HANCOCK: Because Charlee Estates are public roadways, open and accessible to the public, we have no intention of gating the access. If it is their request that we do so, we certainly will honor that request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I was just thinking about sound penetration through an open portal. Which tends to negate what you're trying to achieve with the wall. MR. HANCOCK: Fortunately that location is to the rear of the buildings, and so I think between the wall and the fact that the opening is only going to be about five feet wide, I think we'll accomplish most of that with those in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a thought. Page 84 November 19, 2009 MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, before you sit back down, I meant to ask earlier, what's that dark gray triangle between the two buildings? It's on all your plans but it's not defined that I can find. Yeah, that's it. MR. HANCOCK: That would be a dark gray triangle. I think the intent there was that -- and you'd mentioned a porte-cochere earlier, Mr. Schiffer -- is that it may be an expanded connector between the two buildings to give a single point of entry, but it had not been designed, so we showed it as -- if you were to look at this from plan view, maybe it would be an elevated or higher section that would connect the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop-offpoint. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But actually, if you look at the large plan, it's a pochette of a patio, a lot of pavers, so it's just a graphics. I don't think there's any function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it doesn't seem to be problematic, I was just curious. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, we have no public speakers, because I don't see anybody left, is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. Please remember, we already have staff recommendations and nine stipulations that have been reiterated for the record when you make your motion, if you are so inclined. Anybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go ahead. Page 85 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, I would move for a recommendation of approval of CU-PL2009-170, known as the First Haitian Baptist Mission Church, subject to the recommendations/stipulations made here in the foregoing testimony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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. And this will be coming back for consent in two weeks. Tim, thank you for your -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you very much. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS Page 86 November 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- efforts today. We appreciate it. With that we'll go into old business, and I don't have anything on the agenda. But we do have a new business item. Presentation for the health department. Did we resolve that enough in the previous discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But just for point of information, if somebody does want to come to us, can't they just be put on the agenda? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- this is a republic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's why I didn't know why you asked. I assumed it was just going to be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because Ray was the one that said I had to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to -- basically Ray would have to contact me as chairman, and I would just acknowledge it can be added to the agenda. Ifthere's an issue with it, I'd -- like I have 90 percent of the time, I request things come back for general discussion with the board to give everybody an opportunity to weigh in, rather than I make a decision on that. But that's how it's worked in the past, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that the time and date for this be heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is this like an eight-hour presentation? MR. BELLOWS: No, it wouldn't be more than 15, 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So yeah, it shouldn't be a problem. Anybody have any other comments? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Signature sheets for the Page 87 November 19, 2009 conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, signature sheets for the conditional use. Mr. Vigliotti pointed out there's none in our packet about. MR. BELLOWS: Remember, we've changed the format to be-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good. One less thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Help some of us that can't remember these things. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One less thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nothing else, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Page 88 November 19,2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:03 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 89