Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/15/2010 R & LDC April 15, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 15, 2010 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 AND SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 15,2010, 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 MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 18, 2010 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -April 13, 2010 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: RZ-PL2009-910, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, is requesting a Rezone from the Conservation (CON) and Resort Tourist (RT) Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use for essential services to the Public (P) Zoning District. Subject property is located on 4.848 acres in Section 4, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion to V A-PL2009-1077) [Coordinator: Kay Deselem] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: BD-PL2009-918, Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc., represented by David Turley, requests a Boat Dock Extension that includes expansion of the northern most dock by constructing two new finger piers with three new slips and constructing a new dock with eight finger piers, with 13 new slips and the retention of the two existing docks, totaling 40 slips. Subject property is located at 226 Third Street, part of Lot 6, of Block D, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ashley Caserta] IContinued from March 18,2010 CCPC meetingl 10. OLD BUSINESS A. LDC Amendments IContinued from the April I, 2010 CCPC meetingl I!. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 4/7/10 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 ADDENDA to AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL IS, 2010 Meeting commences at 8:30 AM 10. OLD BUSINESS A. LDC Amendments [Continued from the April I. 2010 CCPC meeting I Subsection Descri;;tion Author Publication Sum. Paoe 1.08.02 Definitions - D\vellinp"-multi-familv S.lstcncs Book/Packet 5 A 1 1.08.02 Definitions - Lots, corncr-intcrior-throU2h S. Chrzanowski Book/Packet 5 C 5 2.01.00 Deletion of Recreational vehicle Drovisions S. Istenes I CAO Book/Packet 5 E 9 1.08.02, and Density Standards and Housing Types B. Duane Book/Packet 5 N 21 2.05.01 {Private Petition No. PL2009-4671 R. Y ovanovich 4.05.02 M T\mical OfT-Street Parking Design -- Exhibit A S. Chrzanowski Book/Packet 5 Z 29 5.05.02 MPP Shoreline Calculations S. Lenberper To Be Continued 5.05.05 B Automobile Service Stations 1. Kelly Book/Packet 5 EE 33 This item is being returned to the rcpr as language regarding llon-cO!~fiJrmities was unintentionally omittedFom file version nreviollsiv distrihuted. C:\Tcmporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\M2XOPTYF\CCPC AGENDA addenda (040110).doc April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any changes to the agenda? Ray, is everything still going forward as scheduled? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just so everybody in the public knows, we have one continued issue today called the Hickory Harbor Condominium. And after that we will close this meeting, open another one up, which is our continued meeting on LDC amendments, and we only have half a dozen of those to go through today. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting -- my goodness, when's our next meeting, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Well, let's see. We have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be May 6th, wouldn't it? MR. BELLOWS: May 6th would be the next regular one, yes. I was just seeing ifthere's an LDC one in between. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything down, ifthere is, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Doesn't look like it, yes, so that's the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody know if they're not going to make it to the May 6th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll assume we have a quorum. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 18,2010 REGULAR MEETING Page 3 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. March 18th, 2010. They were sent to us electronically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Commissioner Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 13, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps. Ray, April 13th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners approved the reconsideration of the FLO TV communication tower. That was the one, where off of County Barn Road there was a communication tower where the second tower was built and the first Page 4 April 15, 2010 one should have come down, so they applied for a conditional use. The board had some concerns about monitoring reports when it was first heard and it was denied. It was placed on reconsideration, Commissioner Fiala agreed to rehear it, and the petitioner brought evidence of monitoring reports and it was approved unanimously in that agenda. The board also heard the PUD amendment for the McMullen PUD off of 951. And that was continued at the petitioner's request so they could better address the concerns raised during the meeting regarding group housing. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Chairman's report. It's been so quiet, there's nothing to go on the -- to discuss, other than the fact that our agenda's been very light. Ever since Nick has taken over, I guess he's discouraged everybody from applying for anything in Collier County. Nick, you had to walk in, I had to take a shot. What can I say. Okay, we have -- we'll go right into the consent agenda item. Item #8A PETITION: RZ-PL2009-910, PORT OF THE ISLAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The first one up is - and it's consent for Petition RZ-PL2009-910, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District. Before we hear this one, Ray, there was two pieces to that one from last time, but we only have one on our consent agenda. Is there a Page 5 April 15, 2010 reason for that? Wasn't there -- it was a variance and a rezone both, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BELLOWS: There could be two reasons. One is there were no changes, and I can't recall if there were any changes or not. If there were, and if they didn't have the changes ready to make it on the packet for this agenda, you'll see it in the next Planning Commission agenda as a consent. But I don't know which scenario it was. I don't remember if there were no changes to it so it doesn't come back or if it -- there were changes but it just wasn't ready for this meeting. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There were no changes on that one, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I remember the rezone had the bulk of the issues, so that's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had one question. Is the County Attorney's Office happy with exhibits -- Exhibit B with the map here? Is that detailed enough for what all went on? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I thought that it was, because the issue was to properly designate the CON and the RT. And the map that had been attached, the conceptual map, I thought that could have led to some confusion using that map. So I thought this -- between this and then if someone needs to historically go back and look at the other map, that that provided the best clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I too had a problem with that. Could we not in the upper one put the letter A and in the lower one put the letter B and then be precise? I put a dimension from the top of A to that dividing line, just so there's no -- because this thing the way it's given to us, it doesn't really -- it's just one big grade scale with a line starting outside and coming through it, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So you want an arrow pointing to A? Page 6 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See down there, just an A in that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- area and a B -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the other area. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you wanted to get more precise, you put the dimension from the top of A to the bottom. Because I do agree with Donna, it doesn't show anything. It doesn't show that division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the instruction would be that in order to finish this one up, you would label the top square A, and the lower rectangle B. I think the suggestion of a width and length dimension for A which protrudes into the CON both north, south, east, west would probably be useful to B is not as relevant, since it's an R T district anyway. But the CON was the more sensitive district. Would that work for you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So would staff see that those two dimensions are added and that the letters A and B are added to the appropriate category? MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. I've got it here and we'll have it done for the board agenda packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions or concerns on this consent agenda item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve with the recommended changes from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Page 7 April 15, 2010 Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. Item #9 A PETITION: BD-PL2009-918, HICKORY HARBOUR CONDIMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Now, our first advertised public hearing is Petition BD- PL200991A, Hickory Harbor Condominium Association, Inc. This is a continuation from a previous meeting of March 18th. 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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, the applicant can go forward with their presentation. Page 8 April 15, 2010 MR. TURLEY: For the record, my name's David Turley, returning on the Hickory Harbor Condominium boat dock extension. I was not well prepared at the first meeting. I have resubmitted my impact -- native marine impact narrative. And it -- there is a typo on that sheet that I submitted. Apparently one of my fingers didn't work properly. It's supposed to be 279 square feet. What I had done originally was added the two existing walkways. They came up to a total of 132 square feet. And the impact of the new walkway is going to be approximately 147 square feet. This is only for construction purposes. The final impact would probably be closer to around 140 square feet. It's just -- so anyway, that comes up to right at two percent of the 13,909 square feet of mangrove area that's already existing. You -- I submitted -- I submitted a drawing exactly where this walkway was going to impact the mangroves. I believe it was resubmitted to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've -- in our packet we've got the calculations -- MR. TURLEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I believe the paperwork that you submitted to staff. Is that correct? Just nod your head yeah, it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. TURLEY: And I did extensive copying of manatee mortalities, and the area does -- is a low manatee impact area, completely. I believe six within the last -- well, since 1998 were killed by -- or boat related incidents, and other -- oh, let's see. The other seven were natural deaths, et cetera. But, I mean, as far as boating is concerned, I find that that's a very, very low impact area. And the water depths, that bar or shallow area in the center of the bay is actually anywhere from four to five feet deep. I have an aerial Page 9 April 15, 2010 of the navigable channel in Little Hickory Bay leading north that shows that that area is much shallower than the area in the center of the bay. So determining water depth, if the boat accepts a two to two and a half foot draft, there's more than ample water in that bay. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're there. MR. TURLEY: I'm there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's see if there's any questions before we go to staff report. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to clarify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, when I was reading your explanation on the mangrove issue, why if the other two docks in combination only required 132 square feet is this new area going to be l47? Is the mangrove depth and width that much greater? Because-- MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is. MR. TURLEY: The other two walkways go through a trimmed mangrove hedge or area. And this one, the canopy of the mangroves extends out about another 10 feet further than the trimmed area. It's not necessary for us to trim those mangroves; it's just making that access through those mangroves for the walkway. And other than that, you should be good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. It's hard -- you can't tell by the drawing, you know, the -- MR. TURLEY: No, no, it's -- I had to -- instead of me chopping a hole through the mangroves to try to actually get a full picture -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I wouldn't want you to do that. That's not the point. It's just hard to tell, that's why I asked the question. MR. TURLEY: Yes, it is. Page 10 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, in the center of the waterway, I think you said you have it four to five feet; is that right? MR. TURLEY : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that mean high or mean low water? MR. TURLEY: That's mean low. The way the state -- or when water depths are recorded on charts and whatnot, that's mean low low. That's the extreme low it can possibly be. But the mean low is -- actually the depths were closer to -- yeah, mean low would be a good assumption. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just understand, I see what you have here is approximately mean high in the rest of the document, that's why I wondered if we were going to be consistent. But that's all right. There's four to five feet of water. So that's navigable water. But when we saw the original pictures, it surely didn't give that impression today. MR. TURLEY: No. I have some -- I have the 2009 aerials. I also have the 2010, but it looks like a big flock of birds flying over and you can't see a whole heck of a lot. The 2009 aerial doesn't depict that shallow area very much at all. And this was what I was originally looking at in trying to determine why the -- it looks so shallow. And I have aerials of the navigable channel going from the bridge at Bonita Beach Road south. And that navigable channel marked navigable channel is considerably more shallow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interesting. MR. TURLEY: If you'd like to see-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir, you have given us your testimony and that's fine for me. But it's very interesting, isn't it? MR. TURLEY: It is, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the Page 11 April 15, 2010 applicant before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Ashley? MS. CASERTA: Good morning. Ashley Caserta for the record. Included in your packet was a supplemental staff report. And staffs position has not changed since the last hearing. I also included some information on a conversation that I had over e-mail with Army Corps of Engineering regarding width of waterways and how they measure water depths, and it seems to be pretty consistent with the way that we've historically done it. I've provided that information to you in your packet. And no further information from staff, just here to answer questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, if you could go to Page 4 and 5 of the original staff report, the primary criteria. MS. CASERTA: Okay, I'm there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The criteria number two says whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide. And then the analysis says criterion not met. According to a survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth at the site is appropriate for the proposed facility. Does that mean up against the shoreline in your opinion the water depth was adequate, had they wanted to put docks the full length of the shoreline there? MS. CASERTA: I didn't consider that the -- up against the very shoreline would even be appropriate, because the existing mangroves are there. Page 12 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: So I considered it to be just past the mangroves where it would be appropriate to put the dock. And I think that it's -- it is, according to the application, not too shallow to put in a dock. I didn't even consider where the mangroves are, because I didn't think that would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just trying to figure out where you were thinking when you said this. So basically what that means is if they had came out from the shoreline, instead of putting T docks going a long distance out, they could have put a longitudinal dock matching or mirroring the shape of the shoreline just past the mangroves and there was enough water depth there to keep it in that area. Is that what your (sic) said basically by the way you wrote this? MS. CASERTA: Can you say that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to build a pathway out through the mangroves just like these docks have -- MS. CASERTA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but instead of running a dock straight out you ran it mirroring the shape of the shoreline -- MS. CASERTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but outside the mangroves, there's enough water depth to have done that and kept the docks closer to the shoreline? MS. CASERTA: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number three, whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on the navigation with an adjacent marked, and it says or charted navigable channel. The criterion met says: According to the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not have an impact on any marked navigable channel. Did you check to see if there were any charted navigable Page 13 Apri115,201O channels in that area, or where the charter one -- or even if there is one; do you know? MS. CASERTA: I don't know from personal experience. I was just going off of what was submitted with the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: And the applicant stated that there was no marked or navigable channel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it just says marked or charted. So I didn't know what the chart showed in that area. And maybe the applicant's representative knows. Sir, would you mind coming up and telling us if you looked at the charts. MR. TURLEY: The chart shows absolutely no marked navigable channel in that basin. It's outside in Little Hickory Bay itself that it was a manmade basin, so it was never any concern to any of the local authorities, whether it be the DEP, Fish and Game, or the Army Corps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so there would be no -- there are no charted navigable channels in that bay? MR. TURLEY: Not in that bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when we -- under the criterion met, would there be anything misleading or untruthful if we were to say any impact on any marked or charted navigable channel? MR. TURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody have any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ashley. Any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. Page 14 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we approve BD- PL-2009-18, Hickory Harbor Condominium, and add that notation about chart to the file. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Is there any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask a question about the resolution that was attached. And again, I just want to make sure that the County Attorney's Office thinks that this is written clearly enough so that going back there are no issues about what was intended or meant to happen here. MS. WHITE: Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to bring the mic. closer to you. MR. WHITE: Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney. I'm the attorney that reviewed this resolution. I believe that it does meet the intent of the CCPC, as discussed at the last meeting and at this meeting. If you have a specific concern, I can certainly answer that question. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just want to make sure that it's clear to everybody with this language. There is no site plan, there's no drawing attached to this. I'm not so sure that that shouldn't happen, that the drawing that was proposed shouldn't be attached to this so that everybody has a real clear understanding of what has been proposed. There is a site plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can put it on the next agenda on the consent so that it's a completed -- a complete copy should have been included in your package. Page 15 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. That's all that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the consent agenda, one of the site plans, the most appropriate one will be attached to the resolution, so that will be part of it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the resolution should have all exhibits attached to it. That should have been in your package. But we'll make sure that a complete copy is included in the consent agenda for the next meeting on May 6th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion for approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. Mr. Turley, thank you for completing the package as well as you did. It was appreciated. MR. TURLEY: Thank you very much, Board. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that brings us to the conclusion of the first meeting of today. County Attorney, does it matter whether we adjourn and reopen for the LDC hearings, or do you want to pro -- is that a process we should follow? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think you need to adjourn. If Page 16 April 15,2010 you want to take a break, we just need to state for the record that it's a continuance from the prior Land Development Code hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with the Community Development group. Before you proceed with the LDC hearings, if it's possible to discuss some business before I have to leave, for -- to submit some documents to you for consideration at a further hearing, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Your mic's not picking you up too closely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm not getting it here either. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is that okay? How about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit better. Your sensitivity, Ray, can you turn that up a little bit? He's got a real, real soft voice, so, you know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. Bashful. As I always have the pleasure of being in front of this commission and the board to do the CIE and the AUIR, I had staff-- one of the first things I did when I took over or worked with the Community Development folks, Mike Bosi and the folks from transportation, and Kim Grant's office, is look at the ClEf AUIR process and the budget process and said why do we do the CIE and the AUIR so separately apart when there's always this conflict with the documents and timing. So I had them do an analysis of what it would take to combine the two processes together. So you'd actually be reviewing the annual update and inventory report and also looking at the CIE at the same time, right after the budget was resolved. And so what I'd like to do is submit an executive summary that's going to be scheduled to go to the board after we get comment from the Planning Commission, along with some backup material for your Page 17 April 15, 2010 reVIew. No action needed today, just that you take a look at it, read that and then maybe provide comment at a future Planning Commission, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, sounds good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, are you -- you're asking us to review this and get input to you prior to your presentation to the BCC; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a date for your BCC presentation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not, so ifthere's discussion at the next meeting, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie' hates it when I do that, ask you off -- without the speaker in front of you, I know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #10A LDC AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that wraps up the advertised public hearings for today's meeting, and we'll move right into old business, and that is our LDC amendments, continued from the April 1 st, 2010 CCPC meeting. So this will be a continuation of those items. And Susan, before we go into all of it, the ones that are on today's agenda, after we get done with these, what's left from that cycle? I know we have Immokalee and the shoreline calculation. There are at least two. Page 18 April 15, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Well-- Susan Istenes, for the record. Immokalee is complete. But we have the MPP shoreline calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, it's the GMP Immokalee that we're dealing with. MS. ISTENES: Correct, yes. The LDC Immokalee is complete. Let me take a quick look at the summary sheet. But I will say -- and I realize the MPP shoreline calculations are coming back, but we have exhausted our advertising with this meeting. So if we're coming back again, we're going to have to advertise. I did just e-mail an inquiry to John and Ray about the advertising for the MPP and we can answer that later. But I'm not sure, if we do bring something back, we may have to try to fall in line with that schedule for the MPP so we can kind of capitalize on savings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. And I would suggest we do it at a regular meeting, since we don't have -- our meetings aren't too backed up anymore. MS. ISTENES: Other than that, I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in good shape. MS. ISTENES: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ISTENES: And if you want to go ahead, I'll look through, and I could answer that question shortly after I go through the summary sheet, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's no problem. We'll move right into the Land Development Code 2009 cycle LDC packet number five that was recently provided to the Planning Commission. The first one up is the definition section 1.08.02 and 2.05.01. It's a private petition. Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Duane. And that first item in our packet, it starts on Page 1 and goes to Page 4. So let's -- as soon as staff is ready. Page 19 April 15,2010 MS. ISTENES: This is actually Rich Y ovanovich, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you want to brief us on where we left off from last time and then we can get up to speed and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I thought the amendment I was involved in starts on Page 21. I do see there's a definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. It is on Page 21. But you're the first one up. We'll get it right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is a reference that I wasn't aware of on Page 3 that does make some sense for better differentiating between multi-family and other types of uses, and I understand that is -- you're trying to distinguish between a timeshare and a multi-family. A timeshare is primarily intended to be a transient type use versus a multi- family residential type use. I just -- I see that and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the first thing in the packet is that definition. And although it's not the first thing up, because Page 21 is the first thing up, but that definition does have some problems in the way it defines timeshare possibly in relationship to Page 21. In that definition that you're -- we started with on Page 3, it references timeshare shall be considered as intended primarily for transient occupancy and shall only be permitted in districts where specifically designated. In reading that you would think that it's only allowed in hotel/motel designations. Is that the intent? MS. ISTENES: No, this is left over -- this is leftover language from the definition of multi-family that we're trying to put back into the LDC, as it was not intended to be taken out during the recodification. So this language has not changed. And essentially what it is saying is timeshare is only permitted in the districts where timeshare is specifically listed, which is RT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is where I'm going to be a practical person versus what I think the law really means. As we talk -- this is a Page 20 April 15, 2010 classic example of treating timeshare as a land use, which is exactly the wrong way to go about doing this. But since I'm only here to deal with the RT zoning district, and timeshares are allowed in the RT zoning district, from a practical standpoint, although I don't think this is technically correct, I don't have an objection to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but in light of the Florida statutes' interpretation and reading Pages 21 and the ones that you're here for, it does bring some -- add some confusion on the definition on Page 3. But we'll go back to that when we go back to that particular LDC amendment. And we'll start on Page 21, which is your amendment. Once we refine that, we can go back through the rest of it. So starting on Page 21 and it goes to Page 27. Part of this, if I remember, was a request for some research by the County Attorney's Office involving the reference to the exception in the Vanderbilt Beach RTO for the timeshare to be allocated at 16 units, while the other one, the hotel and motels, are 26. And if! remember the question correctly, the statement on Page 27 was what spurred the question. The timeshare plan is a form of ownership and is not a land use. Collier County is prohibited from applying different standards to a land use based upon the form of ownership as a timeshare. Now -- and that's what concerns me. If we're prohibited from doing that, even though I'm not against trying to get it done for the Vanderbilt Beach overlay, how can we differentiate in that overlay a different standard for timeshare when you've got hotel and motel at 26 in the same overlay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we believe that that can be done, that you can regulate timeshare. And that was -- and that's been historically how the county has handled this since 1980 when we added the timeshare into the R T district. And specifically that board at that time had pulled the timeshare unit out of the multi-family, because they felt it was more like a hotel Page 21 April 15, 2010 and motel. So we're really not in favor of undoing what was done in 1980, because there were reasons, legitimate reasons, why that was done. So the answer to your question is no, we do not believe we're prohibited from treating timeshares differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then from your comments, are you -- is the County Attorney's Office then seeing that the definition changes on Pages 21 are beneficial, or are you saying that they're not needed in regards to your previous review of the 1980 language? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The definitions on my copy which are on Page 22 are a reinsertion of the language that was left out of the Land Development Code when the recodification occurred. The County Attorney's position on this particular item I think continues to be what Mr. Klatzkow had stated before, that our first preference would be to handle this through a zoning interpretation. Because Mr. Y ovanovich had stated that he felt that if his client had a hotel and motel and then they offered timeshare units, that they would trigger the lower density and they wouldn't be able to have the 26 units for the hotel and motel. I believe that's what you said, and you can clarify whether that's correct or not. If that is not the -- if that's not the way that the Planning Commission wants to go, and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners, then the position of this office is to limit it to the Port of the Islands. Because we have very specific concerns with how this is going to play out with unintended consequences with increased density in other portions of the county, and we're not really clear that an analysis has been done or could be done that's truly going to capture what all those implications would be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: My preference is to go with the zoning change that specifically says in Port of the Islands you can have a density of 26 units per acre if you operate a hotel timeshare. Page 22 April 15, 2010 I can't tell my client that a zoning verification letter will protect him in that particular case, because I don't think that that would be, if challenged, when it so clearly says 16 units per acre, that somehow I made that number go from 16 to 26 for a timeshare in that R T zoning district would stand a challenge. So that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And Mr. Chair-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that's my preference. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- we are supportive of an amendment that's limited to the Port of the Islands, as I previously stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this amendment doesn't do that, though. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where I'm getting at, and-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: One of the earlier iterations did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was going to say, I think it's probably best to make this as narrow as possible. Because nobody has done an analysis of the rest of the county. So I think the County Attorney's Office is right in that respect. I have one question for you, though, with respect to the Port of the Islands. The FLUE says that the Port of the Islands is eligible for all provisions of the urban mixed use district in which it's located to the extent that the overall residential density and commercial intensity does not exceed that permitted under the zoning at the time of the adoption of the plan. So if we increase the density, are we not -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you're not. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- doing something? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're not. Because remember, I'm a hotel. Hotels -- if I were a -- I could go in in Port of the Islands today and do a hotel at 26 units per acre. And Rich Y ovanovich, you know, Page 23 April 15, 2010 resort hotel, own it by myself. I could do that same hotel by selling the individual units as a condominium at 26 units per acre. So you're not increasing the density. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So I think then it is really imperative that we make this as narrow as possible. And I think it should state specially that any hotel or motel can have timeshare units as opposed to the other way around, which is what's been said, which is timeshare units can now have the density of hotels and motels. I think we need to go at it from the other way. It gets you where you want to go, it moves us on, and it makes the County Attorney's Office I think happy, and we all sing Kumbaya. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm fine with that, and you probably can do it in that footnote that says -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think you can probably do it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You could say any hotel and motel may be owned as a timeshare and it only applies in the Port of the Islands. And you put it in that footnote. I think that's one of the early iterations. I really hate to come back again, because we've seen that language before, and I just -- I'm here for one client, and that's the piece of property, and I want to fix that issue so we can move on. I'm not trying to have any unintended consequences anywhere else in the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and I think we probably can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it means cooperating with Rich Y ovanovich, we've got to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I feel like that hamster. I'm on that wheel that I keep running and running and running. And I need some water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I think we ought to do is we're going to be here for a little while this morning. I think we'll Page 24 April 15, 2010 finish up fairly early this morning. But between now and then, the original language, Susan, do you keep all that language with you? I have every packet you've given us in this one book right here. So at break, if you have -- if it was previously issued to us, we ought to take it out of here, make the copies, make sure we're reviewing and approving the right thing and then go forward at that point. What do you think? MS. ISTENES: Are you referring to the reference to the Port of the Islands? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: I don't think that was ever in a document we presented to you. Heidi, did -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe-- MS. ISTENES: -- we just discussed that I think amongst staff and we're drafting it. Did it get distributed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if it got to the Planning Commission. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it did not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do know that there was a draft with that language in it. MS. ISTENES: I think it was just going between -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And maybe that was just something that Heidi had prepared and submitted -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and was I okay with it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can locate the draft. I think that we are proposing language that's slightly different. So when we take a break, I'll work with Mr. Y ovanovich and we'll come back with a proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be good. If you guys could come to a meeting of the minds, we can finish this today. Because it's Page 25 April 15, 2010 not -- we're not that complicated any further. We've gotten down to the bottom of it. I do have one thing that might complicate it, just to throw something in to keep everybody on their toes. If this is limited to the Port of the Islands, it may not be as relevant. And if that's what your language does and it looks like you're heading that direction, we've still got this jet-ski operation issue. And I want to make sure that we're not opening up jet-ski concessions or commercial concessions equivalent to hotel/motel operations in timeshares, no matter what they're in. And if we can make sure we resolve that or if that doesn't come into play because the way you write what you're going to propose to us, then that's fine. But I want to make sure we don't open up a Pandora's box with that issue as well. Okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only other thing I'll have with it when we get to it. So you're going to have to hang around for a while. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up will be where we started, Page 1, definitions, dwelling, multi-family, and it has timeshare in it as well. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I did rewrite the change and the reason to describe the changes I made to the document between last meeting and today. They -- and as you recall, we're simply attempting to readopt this because it was unintentionally left out at recodification. However, based on our discussion and discussions on this, which makes it a moving target, if you look on Page 3 you will actually see what I attempted to do. Because I think -- and I remember, I believe it was Commissioner Schiffer who started discussing the information or the text in Item A where it talks about multi-family dwelling units may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership, et cetera, et cetera. Page 26 April 15, 2010 And so what I did was attempt to distinguish between the various characteristics by putting a header. So it says under the definition, dwelling, multi-family, for purposes of determining whether a lot is for multi-family dwelling use, the following characteristics shall be considered. And then you have the language from the old LDC, Item A, plugged in under there. And then I separated B, C and D under another heading and that heading says, for purposes of differentiating between multi-family residential dwelling units and other similar or related uses and for density calculation purposes, the following shall apply. And then reinserted the language from the -- again, from the old code B, C and D, I believe it was, under there. You talked about timeshare state facilities, Item B, here on Page 3. I will caution you that that was in the old code, and I'll caution you also that that gets back to that unraveling effect that I talked about last time where you have timeshare state facilities specifically listed currently as a permitted use in the RT district. And this Item B helps -- ties into that. And that's why we're essentially bringing it -- just trying to bring it back as it was, just with that distinction between the characteristics versus the regulatory provisions of that definition. I agree, it is not 100 percent perfect. I did quite a bit of research on timeshares, looking at what other communities do. I believe the City of Naples, actually, what they attempt to do in their definition, and they call it timeshare lodging facilities, is they attempt to classify lodging facilities into two different classifications: One of them being very short-term, and the other being similar to timeshare where you've actually -- it's greater than short term, usually about a week or two in length, but it is also usually filled or occupied by a preset schedule. So it attempts to try to get away from the ownership issue that I know the County Attorney's Office discussed with you at one of our meetings, and attempts just to kind of classifY it Page 27 April 15, 2010 as a form of lodging, regardless of the ownership characteristics of it. And I think in the future that might be something that we need to look towards or go towards. But for right now staff would prefer to just reinsert the language back in as it is. Because we do have other provisions in the code that are affected by it. And that's essentially our position in a nutshell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Iftimeshare is by statute now a form of ownership and not a use, wouldn't though, if you were to eliminate B, wouldn't A take care of it? MS. ISTENES: No, I believe there's a distinction between A and B still. And A is referencing hotels and motels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: And B is referencing timeshares. And we do have that distinction within the code. You have timeshare listed as a permitted use in RT and you have hotels and motels as well. So I'm hesitant to blur the lines between those uses for purposes of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And I'm just trying to solve a potential problem, should someone else come forward and not want to limit it to Port of the Islands because of the ownership status of it. Then we basically have then got to deal with it. And I'm just -- was hoping there'd be a simpler way to deal with it today, head off that. MS. ISTENES: My indications are it's not that simple. And that was based on my research I did between last meeting and today. I would suggest, however, that perhaps you may want to recommend that we do take a look at this for next cycle and we can begin working on it and kind of approach it from your concerns and the other board members' concerns as well and try to tackle it next cycle. I hate to push it off, but I also hate to try to make a Band Aid fix that may not -- may have unintended consequences that we're just not thinking about. Page 28 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I actually just was going to agree with Susan. I think that it probably needs to be looked at, but it needs to be looked at holistically and researched that way before we again make a Band Aid fix here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to take B and apply it, what if you have a timeshare that's eight days' duration? MS. ISTENES: Well, I don't know that B -- I mean, B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're just saying all timeshare, even if it's for 14 days or 21 days, is still considered transient? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in A, to be transient, it's basically less than one week. MS. ISTENES: Right. I'm not saying it's perfect, it just -- it is what it is, and we have been living with it this way for quite some time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it only proves it's got to be fixed. MS. ISTENES: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why anybody in this economy is going to bring it up any sooner, but I think if we put it on the slate to get looked at it would probably be a smart thing to do. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, you started out by saying it was inadvertently not put in the new version of the LDC. How do we know that? In other words, what are we gaining by bringing this back in? What are we missing by not having that here? MS. ISTENES: Unfortunately, and what we attempted to do when we recodified, was to take the regulatory information out of the definitions and put it back in other areas of the code. My research indicates that this was simply taken out but it was not put back in other areas of the code. And what we did was contrary to the intent of the recodification, which was not to change the regulatory documents Page 29 April 15,2010 of -- or regulatory provisions of the code. And that's -- I'm probably taking a real conservative look here, but that's my fear. And I believe this -- this is regulatory. I mean, A and B are clearly regulatory. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And by not having it, what kind of problems do we have? Because, you know, in the regulatory part of the code we do discuss the density, we do discuss how many dwelling units. So, I mean, our land use densities and everything makes sense without this, so what is the need for this? MS. ISTENES: I think you've got especially under A under the second heading there, you've got some issues related to -- or potential issues related to dwelling units that are being rented for shorter periods of time, some potential for some abuse there. And same under B, I think the timeshare state facilities being clearly stated, it's only permitted in districts or specifically designated. You may have some confusion there as well. But I mean, that ties back into the whole intertwining of this issue within the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is that a condo somewhere could be renting less than a week and therefore you would like to control that by pointing out that they're now a hotel or a tourist home or -- MS. ISTENES: Potentially, yes. Yes. And then as you recall, you also in C wanted to add that limit. And I believe you -- my record says we agreed that one unit per dwelling -- or one per dwelling unit for guesthouses, employee quarters and the like, for purposes of calculating density. So there's another provision there that is regulatory that if it went away could potentially be an issue, or at least raise a question about how to apply the code relative to that type of land use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, that's something new we just came up with. That wasn't carried forth from the old one? Page 30 April 15, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Correct. Right. I believe I indicated that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I'm still not seeing where we really have a prob -- I mean, Ray, you wanted to jump in. Do we have a problem now with this definition not being in there? MR. BELLOWS: Well-- for the record, Ray Bellows. The recodified version of the LDC has a provision in it that basically indicates that any provision from the old code that was inadvertently left out during recodification is still in effect, because the board didn't officially take action to remove it. So staff has been referring to the old LDC. When questions are asked about this particular issue, they're forced to open up the old LDC to look for these things and compare it with the new. And it takes a lot of research to figure out yes, this was inadvertently left out and this wasn't. So we're just trying to make it easier for everybody to say this hasn't been officially removed by the board, so it's still in effect based on that language in the current LDC that says as long as the board -- it was inadvertently left out, it's still in effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. If you say -- alls you have to say is, you know, we have at least once gone back and had to look at the old code to solve an issue, then I'm with you, I'll pulling it for -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, I've got one more question on C. It says guesthouses, employee quarters and the like shall not be considered as dwelling units in the computation of density and shall be limited to one per dwelling unit. So if you have a 100-unit condominium, you could have 100 guesthouses and 100 employee quarters, so you'd have 300 units occupiable, but only 100 of those would be counted for density; is that Page 31 April 15, 2010 correct? MR. BELLOWS: In that scenario, correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, do you like that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's insane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do too. MS. ISTENES: It's one per unit, meaning-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: It's not -- you said you had 100 units. So it would just double it, potentially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, no -- MS. ISTENES: I thought you said 300. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, it doesn't say or. It says guesthouses, employee quarters and the like. So the way I would look at it is if! had one of these 5,000 square foot high-rise condominiums and I wanted to have a guest quarters, I could have that. And I could also have an employee quarters for my -- you don't call them servants anymore, whatever you do call them -- working staff. So now you've got two more units with equivalent residential computations for ERC's for utilities. You're definitely going -- they're going to create more traffic probably than the owner of the main unit. So we really have more intensity times whatever number of these you want to call because the like could be who knows what that is. So now we end up having a lot more density than we ever planned. MS. ISTENES: That wasn't the intent to be read. In other words, you could have a guesthouse, you could have employee quarters or you could have something else in one unit. It's meant to be one of these per unit. So if I need to put or in there to clarify that, that it's -- I wasn't reading it that way, but it's -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree, that is how we would interpret it normally. Page 32 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: But even that -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- if you have-- MR. BELLOWS: We just don't have a clear -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a tower with 100 units, I can have 100 guest quarters or 100 employee quarters? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a similar concept in Golden Gate Estates, you can have 100 homes or more on a couple streets, and each one of those, if they meet the minimum lot width, can have a guesthouse and it's not counted as density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, it's only 20 percent of the main house. That severely restricts the impact of that facility. MR. BELLOWS: I agree with that. And I'm not saying this language is perfect. And you make an excellent point, and I'm not very comfortable with it either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And we're also going further, and not just guests who are going to be short-term, but you're talking about employees. Employees are full-time people, they're here all the time. They have as much if not more impact than the residents probably in some of these places. So I think it's very different from having a guesthouse in the -- MR. BELLOWS: It is. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- Estates. MR. BELLOWS: I've worked on a few projects over the years, multi-family projects where they had these guesthouses and things, but it was more like on end units and things. But I agree, it could be interpreted to allow -- but I agree with Susan, it wouldn't have been a combination of all of those. We would limit to the one of those. But I think the language does need to be looked at, I agree with Page 33 April 15, 2010 your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me make a case for where this would make sense, is if you're building a large condo, a lot of times there is, especially off the back, a house corridor, an area that is a staff room. It's pretty obvious, separate entrance and everything. So I think this would make that not become an issue as to whether that's another unit for density. Which is all you're saying here is that you don't have to count that part of the unit as part of the density. So in other words, you have a main unit, it could have a guest segment, it could have an employees segment, it's still one unit. MR. BELLOWS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all it's saying here. MR. BELLOWS: That was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's -- it doesn't have to be read that way, that's the problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's not-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's read it the other way: You have a property that allows 16 units per acre. You don't have to count this portion of the unit -- or that unit as two units just because you're providing a guest segment or a staff segment. I mean, that seems fair. I mean, I think if you wanted to limit a percentage so it doesn't get out of hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The out-of-hand thing would be this: You build your 100-unit tower that Mark wants. In front of that I put a 100-unit little guest cabana down at the beach area. Essentially I can have 100 guests and 100 people living there at the same time. That's the abuse of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you're making an argument-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what the language -- Page 34 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. You're making an argument about an issue that we're not in disagreement on. I don't -- I under -- if it's contiguous part of an internally connected to an existing unit, it's nothing more different than another bedroom with a mother-in-law's unit in it, or whatever you call it. But when you don't signify it that way here -- and we even went further, we took the old language that said guesthouses and servants quarters shall not be considered as dwelling units in the computation of section A above. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was never in the old language. I think it entered into our packet one for the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just read it from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look, it's not crossed out here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is on the bottom -- well, okay, is that part of the old language or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is there. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got to talk one at a time, so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is there. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it is part of the old language. In the new language we went further and we restated that. But we also said it would be limited to one per dwelling unit. And that's actually like an invitation to say you get one free unit per every dwelling unit by the way we've restated it. So I'm -- we actually may have done more damage -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by the way we've stated that than leaving it the way it was. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have we considered the implications of additional vehicles associated with that parking as an Page 35 April 15, 2010 issue? If we were -- even if we were to allocate that there would be within the structure and it be a section or a part of the unit that would house those people, inevitably some of them at least would have vehicles. So how does that jibe with our parking requirement? Would it even be considered? MR. BELLOWS: They're not -- would not be considered as individual units. I think we're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, sir, I'm talking about the parking, the implications for the parking. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the parking does -- calculations do address guest facilities in quarters and employee like -- in regards to, you know, maintenance type of people who reside on the premises. I think we can address it from that point. But what I was thinking is these units, guest quarters, aren't intended to be rented or sold as regular dwelling units, they are basically incorporated into the dwelling unit. So if they were using their buildable area to add more of these guest units that aren't to be sold, that's going to restrict how much units they can actually sell. If they were marketing all of the units and guesthouses as individual dwelling units, then they could sell those for the fee. But if they're incorporated into the single dwelling unit, you're not getting -- and say if you have 100 dwelling units, you're selling all 100 and you had 100 guest units, you can't sell those guest units and you can't rent those guest units, they are for residents of that single-family unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I agree with you, I think we should go back to taking the unit out of there. I think that is an invitation, and that isn't the intent. I think Ray, isn't it in the past you would find a condominium might have two or three or four little guest units somewhere on it where guests of the people living there could stay? I mean, I know a lot of condos that have that. I think that was the intent. Page 36 April 15, 2010 Mark might be right, that if you do set a limit then you now have code that tells you you can have that many. Prior to that you would have to discuss -- you know, I mean, if you had 100 guest units and 50 units, then obviously something's going down there. So I would suggest we just go back to the original wording. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I live somewhere where they're -- within my PUD there are guest units within towers. And there's no question. I don't know whether they rent them or not. I have lived other places where the guest units are rented to owners and you have to pay to have your people stay there. So I think, Ray, there is a control issue here. They can be rented. And I don't know how you would control, you know, that they weren't. MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make it clear that any multi-family unit or any single-family unit, you might find the owner renting it out to somebody else. But where I was trying to make the point is the person renting that unit is in control of the guest unit also. So there's not two individual disparate families living in one unit with a guesthouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think where we're at with this is basically C needs to go back to the old C -- actually, the old B. COMMISSIONER CARON: B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take the language in the old Band replace the new C with that language. And that gets us a completed issue for this exercise today. But on the caveat that we do two things: We look at the overall impact of the timeshare changes to the code; not the changes here today but the changes as a result of Florida Statute, and then look at that as potential LDC amendment in the future. And then I would suggest at the same time, now that we've talked about this a bit, relook at a further defining of what is or is not Page 37 April 15, 2010 additional density in relationship to guesthouses and employee quarters, as defined in this particular definition. And the reason -- Susan, what I'm referring to is in Golden Gate Estates -- and Ray had a great example. If there's a limitation as to the location, as to the quantity, as to the size, and if we have that specificity in this item here, we probably wouldn't have nearly the amount of problem we've got right now. So I think that's all we need to do is bring that into this code at some point in the future through another amendment when the time is more appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing, when you do go back to the original wording, I think what that really means is that if I had a duplex and then I -- one of those duplexes had a guesthouse behind it, I don't count that as a unit in computing the density, thus it's not a multi-family because of that guesthouse. And that's the only thing you would get out of that phrase. It doesn't tell you whether they're allowed, doesn't tell you how to control them. It just says that if you're counting, don't count the guesthouse or don't count the servants quarters. That's all. It doesn't tell you can have them, doesn't set you any regulation on it, just says don't count them when you're working with the definition of lllulti-f<llllil)1. And that was probably the original of that. We've had more fun with it than we should have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But we do need to narrow that as well. The only change I would make from the old B is we had all agreed to change servant quarters to employee quarters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's still valid. Page 38 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so with that caveat, maybe we can finish with this one today. And the caveat is we would change the servants quarters to employee quarters, move the old B to the new C. Recommend staff look at the overall impacts of timeshare based on the current Florida Statute definition, and relook at the density or the way we describe the guesthouses and employee units in this particular definition. With that in mind, is the Planning Commission ready to make a motion for Section 1.08.02, definitions dwelling, multi-family? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move, with that in mind, that it's in -- compliant with the Growth Management Plan and we forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. Next item is definition of lots, corner, interior through. It is 1.08.02. It's on Page 5 of our packet. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 39 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're having fun today, aren't you? MS. ISTENES: I looked at the agenda and I said gee, these are all mine with the exception of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, this one's Stan's. MS. ISTENES: Yes, it actually is. Okay, let me get my head back in here. Again -- and I'll just -- I'll go ahead and right back on Page 5. We are adding the definitions and we are adding illustrations now for lot, corner lot through and lot interior, again left out of the LDC when it was recodified unintentionally. We are -- however, we are removing them as well. So I'm putting them back, then removing them, because we are modifying them and then adding them back as amended. The substantial modification really is to the definition of corner lot. And the change we have proposed will require that the measurement of the angle of the intersection of the two streets shall determine whether or not a corner -- a lot is considered to be a corner. As a reminder, corner lots have two fronts and two sides, so they have no rears. And that is also being clarified in the definition. We -- the main reason for doing this is really the recognition over the confusion of attempting to apply the old language when it comes to measuring arcs and corners and things like that with a lot versus the center lines of a street. And I know we have one case in particular where that really came to light. And this isn't being changed because of that, per se, but when things like that happen it does cause staff to look at the code very clearly to dissect the issue, where things went wrong and why, who was confused, who didn't do what or did do what, and to try to take a look at the regulatory language and help -- or hope that it doesn't happen again by amending it. I will tell you, in this case the proposal will not address the angle Page 40 April 15, 2010 of cul-de-sacs and curves, per se, so there is a shortcoming here. And I'm going to kind of leave it at that and let Stan take over and explain, if you don't mind, Stan, what we're doing here in the shortcoming of this. But that's up for you all to decide whether or not that's important. We feel that the county is essentially what, 90 -- we guess 90 percent build-out and looking at plats that have been approved, we weren't sure if that was going to be a major issue or not with leaving out the curves and the cul-de-sacs. But that again is for you all to look at as well, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer had a quick question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Susan. One quick thing is why is this important? Because Collier is unique in that every street is a front setback. So what benefit does somebody get by classifying their property as a corner lot? In some jurisdictions where the narrowest dimension is your front, you know, there's a lot of other ways. But Collier is simple, it's every street is a front setback. So what would be the advantage of me determining that my lot's a corner lot anyway? MS. ISTENES: Two things, and I will answer your question. I don't think Collier is unique in that every setback for a front is -- if you are on a street that causes you to have a front setback requirement. That isn't unique. There may be other communities. And even in our own code when it comes to the Estates, we actually allow them to modify frontage on -- front setbacks on one frontage. Some other communities do that, some others don't. But it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I made that point though is that every street's a front setback. So -- MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So whether there are 100 communities or ours, the only one that's irrelevant (sic). Every street in Collier is a front setback. MS. ISTENES: It really -- I would probably not be the best Page 41 April 15, 2010 expert to comment on that, because it really depends on the structure you're attempting to design to fit the lot. Usually the corner lots usually -- obviously aren't perfect squares, especially if you get around a cul-de-sac or the way the lot lines are drawn out causes a curve on the rear or the side lot line, as you will, if it's a corner lot. But the benefit may be that you do not have the rear yard setback, which is usually larger than your side yard setbacks. So we've seen side yard setbacks as low as five feet. And in that case you may -- and that's for principal structures I'm talking about here. And then you may have a rear yard of 20 feet, for example. So in that case if you had a corner lot you would have two fronts and two sides, and your sides would be five versus having one at 20. Now, there's a disadvantage in some cases to having two fronts, because front yard setbacks are generally a little bit larger than even rears, so if25 were the case then you would have two setbacks at 25. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: So there could be a tradeoff there. It really depends on the type of structure and what's being designed for that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, one correction I'd like to make. You said there's a current example where this issue came to play, and it was because -- and staff was confused. That isn't the case. Staff was confused on the current example because they didn't even know the old code applied. They had not looked at it and they had not seen how the calculation in the old code applied to the example that they had. And when that was pointed out to them, they didn't seem to have any problem at that point understanding what it meant, so -- MS. ISTENES: I didn't recall it as being that, but I don't know that that's a big issue. But I would ask one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to clarify the record. But you Page 42 Apri115,2010 weren't there. MS. ISTENES: Right. Right, yeah. Stan, just out of curiosity sake, I thought when we looked at that one issue, even the layout of the building had the measurement taken in the wrong place; was that correct? Meaning the arc for the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't remember. MS. ISTENES: Don't remember. Okay, I won't bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. The last time I was here I attempted a rather crude on paper drawing with a pencil that probably might have been more confusing than it should have been. What I brought with me this time is a presentation I made to the board many months ago before that other hearing about this item and why it is so difficult. And if you bear with me for a couple of minutes, I will tell you what the problems are. Simple geometry. A circle is the lowest of points equidistant from that center point. This is a point outside the circle. If you want to find the farthest point on that circle, on this circle here, if you want to find the farthest point from this point here, it's intuitively obvious to the casual observer that that is this point here. That's the arc drawn from here. There is one point on that circle that is the farthest point from this point. That's what they're calling the foremost point of the lot. Because for a lot of any given frontage -- now, can you zoom out a little, Ray? Okay, you have three different shaped lots here. One lot has this, one has that, one has this for rear lots, rear lot lines. But the front is the same. Starts here, comes around a curve and comes to here. For these three different shaped lots you have three different foremost points, the point through the center of the circle to the arc. This is the foremost point of the lot, this being the back corner. Page 43 April 15, 2010 This is the foremost point of the lot, this being the back corner, and the other lot, too. Now, when you have the same lot -- and I drew the second one in, just to make it -- and I measured it with a protractor, because that's how the person at the front desk would probably do it. This is a 90-degree -- technically a 90-degree lot. You know, it's a 90-degree corner. The two outside roads have -- intersect at 90 degrees. But when you measure the internal angle, the internal angle is 101 degrees, here at 10 degrees different. And the internal angle on this lot, having the same frontage and the same shape in the front, is 99.9 degrees. There's a degree in the difference. Now, the problem with the code is the code says 135 degrees, which means 135 degrees 00 minutes, 00 seconds, if you want to be really exact. Now, the only way to do that is -- to compute that is by using coordinate geometry. You compute the coordinates of the points, you compute the bearings between the coordinates, and you subtract the bearings from each other to get the angle between the lines. Now, that gets extremely complex when you have different shapes, and also if you're dealing with a lot -- with a very small front radius and very long lines, or if you're dealing with a lot with a very large radius and very short lot lines. You're going to have different angles all the time. It is not something the person at the front desk can do with a protractor easily. However, like Susan says, 90 percent of our lots are probably already built out. And the odds -- everybody talks about redevelopment, but the odds of a standing subdivision being razed to the ground with the infrastructure removed and re-subdivided in a different shape is kind of slim. So -- oh, one last figure. It gets really complicated when you have a lot that looks like that. And I would not inflict that upon the Page 44 April 15, 2010 front desk person at all. So they come back to me. And it takes a while to compute that out. That's why I suggested we change it. But the other argument is it's been there for a long time. We've had this problem in a handful of cases; less than a handful. Kind of your choice. I'm just here to explain why the calculation is so different, why it would have been nice back in the old days to have had the definition we have now, but I -- you know, after going through this so many times, do you have any questions? We could get into extremely more complicated shapes. All these lots are 90-degree corners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody got any questions of Stan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's so confusing, I have no question. I mean -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's what I tried to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I cannot imagine a setback -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually, I thought that was very clear. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, your presentation is. But, you know, foremost means the first point. So obviously the si -- I agree with you on the side. I'm not 100 percent sure your -- you're coming up with the longest dimension on the site to determine the foremost of the front of it. Because I think what they were thinking back in the old days -- remember, they were a lot more logical and simple than us. They were thinking you take the foremost point where the side setback hits the right-of-way and then you take that angle, that line to the point where it starts to enter the curb or if it's on a curb and then the other one and see if that's an angle greater than 135. Which it would not be a corner lot then. I can't imagine them proposing to do that kind of geometry, because they didn't even have the skills and the tools really to do it Page 45 April 15, 2010 like we do today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm hoping the person that wrote this was not Polish. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Hey. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's irrelevant. You know, I hope they were a surveyor is what I'm hoping. But the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not sure of that either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the thing is that I don't know what the definition means. I'm not sure that's right -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Had they said that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're the guy in charge of it, so I'll bow to you. But again, it doesn't -- what advantage do you get? Like take this thing here, where would the streets be in that? It would be on the curve? Then that whole thing has front setbacks, so it doesn't really matter. You'd have setbacks that would probably -- it's a one, two, three, essentially five, six, seven property line things. So some would be -- some of them could even be a rear, Stan. I mean, if you take the typical rectangle lot. Yes, that gives you two side setbacks. But let's say in the back I truncate one of those property lines. That would then become a rear, so you could draw a corner lot that has a rear setback. No one's ever had trouble with what's side or what's rear because you look at the street you're on. In other words, ifthe adjacent site, that property line is the side setback, it should be a side setback on the corner lot. I mean, that's always been simple, no one's ever had trouble with that. If there is a fifth property line and it's into the rear property of all the other properties, then that's a rear property line. MS. ISTENES: It gets a lot more complicated than you think. The zoning staff -- and there's a provision in the LDC that says the zoning director has the ability to interpret what the lot lines are. Fronts are always easy because they're always on streets, so at least you can eliminate that. But you can get some pretty complicated, Page 46 April 15, 2010 you know, five, six-sided lots, short little lot lines that nobody knows whether they're sides or rears, and not necessarily on corner lots. Obviously corner lots are a lot easier too. So I just caution you, it can get very, very complicated as to how to layout a lot and where the setbacks fall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, fronts are easy. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: May I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sides are easy, because they're always the one connecting to the front. It's the rear that could be confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's stick with this definition -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The solution you're giving is the extension of the side -- the extension of the front lot lines toward the -- toward where they meet in front of the arc is the same as we're suggesting the extension of the center lines of the roads. Because the front lot line is parallel to the center line of the road. Had they said the extension of the lot lines, that would have been clearer. Had they said the midpoint of the arc, that would have been very easy. But they didn't, they said the foremost point. And the interpretation that some previous member of the planning staff gave that was the point that's foremost from the rear point of the lot, which is what we're stuck with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, the intent here is we're going to bring the old definition back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what they're trying to do, which is where my concern is. But when it gets to me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done, thank you. Go to your -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm confused as what we're trying to do, but I'll just -- I'm just here for the geometry. Page 47 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm confused about the proposed new definition, so that one confuses me. The old one did not. The new one, it says the intersection of the right-of-way center lines of two streets. Where do you consider a center line of a street, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's generally shown on the -- on a straight road -- well, it's -- it's the point -- it's the extension of the line that splits the two side property lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the center line ofa street is n MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The property lines on both sides of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what do you do on an area like a cul-de-sac? Where would the center -- or the area where you have a property line abutting at the end of a cul-de-sac where they're right up against one another, there's no separation between the two of them? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Generally the -- generally our right-of-way is 60 foot. And the center line on a 60-foot straight or curved line is easy to determine. It's the splitting of the two sides of the street. But when it comes to the cul-de-sac, every set of drawings on our file shows the center line ending at the point that's the radius point to the cul-de-sac. That's where it ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you -- you'd have to continue an imaginary point beyond that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, there's no -- because none of those are corner lots, there'd be no sense in doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if they're not corner lots-- okay, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What (sic) are we looking for a corner lot on a cul-de-sac? What is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- Page 48 April 15, 2010 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Where the cul-de-sac starts off, if you have a very -- I hate doing this again with a pencil, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How could a cul-de-sac have a corner lot? That's-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, I'm going to draw a little picture and not say anything, because I'm not into multitasking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like a kidney, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. This is the curved street coming into the cul-de-sac. This lot here, because the point from here to here to there, that angle in here could be less than 135 degrees, could be construed as a corner lot by the old definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wow. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This lot formed right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what advantage would that give you then? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you know -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- it makes it a corner lot instead of a regular lot. And whatever the rules are apply. MR. BELLOWS: It changes setbacks. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, with the new definition, the setback would be a front yard, which I believe would be greater, which is generally 25 feet. Generally, I think? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is a good example we're talking. And the two -- there's two side yards. Those are the guys that are connecting to the right-of-way. And then there's actually a rear yard in your example. So what is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not anymore. It's a corner lot, there's no rear yard. That's the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not -- I mean, that's assuming that every corner lot has four boundaries, I mean. But this Page 49 April 15, 2010 one definitely has a rear yard. MS. ISTENES: Not as a corner lot it doesn't. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But with the new definition, it wouldn't fall under the definition of a corner lot, so therefore the entire front yard would be 25 feet and then you'd have to opine what the other two sides are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So on a corner lot -- so here's the advantage. Corner lots never have rear yards. Every other boundary on it, no matter how many or how few, are all side yards from that point on. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though there could be a person living behind you and that property line is his year yard, it's no longer your rear yard, it's a side yard? MS. ISTENES: Correct. Unless -- yeah. Yes, in that case, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't get it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any other questions of staff or Stan on what to do with the definitions on Page 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Now we need to decide what we want to do. Personally I don't know why we'd want to change the original to something even more confusing. I don't think the original is confusing. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Stan, could I just ask you one question here? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: How long have you been with the county? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It will be 19 years September 30th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Nineteen years. And this issue has only come up less than a handful of times? Page 50 April 15, 2010 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think three times. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three times in 19 years. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All recently. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and all recently. Hey, I don't know, I see it as full-time employment for you and leave the code the way it's been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have a summary of this, so -- at least in a motion. So does anybody feel like making a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we -- I have no idea what's going on, so I'm a good one maybe to make this motion. The -- and I really feel like I'm missing a trick here somewhere that somebody -- Stan, I hope you teach me some day. I make a motion that we bring back the old definition, since the county's mostly been built out on it, let it go the few remaining plats with the old definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And that's for corner lot, correct? Just for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's for corner lot. The other ones are fine; we've discussed those. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the recommend -- the motion is to bring back the old definition for lot corner, not make the changes on Page 6 in that regard, but leave -- make the changes for lot interior and lot through. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. Is there a discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the reason I think the new definition fails is that there are situations in the geometry of lots and platting where you could have other than side yards on a corner lot. And you may then be setting up a situation where a neighbor has to Page 51 April 15, 2010 honor a rear setback and the lot with this definition would treat that as a side setback. So I think that has a lot of unpredictable conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Okay, with that, we will take a break till 10:15, and when we come back we'll resume the deletion of the recreational vehicle provIsIons. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We were still having fun with the LDC amendments when we took the break, and we're going to continue to have this enjoyable day march forward. So with that in mind, let's move on to Section 2.01.00, deletion of recreational vehicle provisions. This is with Susan and the County Attorney's Office. It's on Page 9. The actual text of what's being proposed is on Page 16 and it goes to Page 20. It is actually not an LDC amendment for those pages, it's struck out of the LDC and moved to an ordinance separate from the LDC. Susan? MS. ISTENES: Correct. And if you recall last time, you had gotten a handout of the revised ordinance. And we had just gotten it a Page 52 April 15, 2010 little bit late so you didn't have an opportunity to read it. And so that's why this is back on your agenda today. So that ordinance was handed to you by the County Attorney's Office I believe it was last meeting. And that's why we just went ahead and delayed that, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If! could just add to it. What had occurred is that the Board of County Commissioners had wanted to move a permitting process related to recreational vehicles into the Code of Laws, and there was some staff direction to make that change. If you move part of it and not the whole thing, it creates some problems and becomes very complicated. So when I looked at the 08-64, which had been drafted by Ms. Student, you couldn't have the text in 08-64, but then the exceptions in the LDC, it became very confusing. So the proposal before you is to take everything out of the LDC, keep it in one place and then at the same time we'll go forward with this proposed 08-64. And it's partially written for readability. It's not in the form that will go to the Board of County Commissioners. And what I mean by that is I've provided some underlying language, particularly under the definition section, and then again on Page 18 under B-1. That is the language that's currently in the Ordinance 08-64 in which was moved. And I did that just for your reference so it would be easier to read. The remaining text is essentially the same text in the -- as what is in the LDC. It just moves it out. But then I've provided some italicized areas to draw your attention to to make sure that you understand the applicability of this ordinance, which is how it's being interpreted by the Code Enforcement Department. And they had some questions and wanted some direction, if you would like to provide any direction as to whether or not some of these sections should apply to the Estates or not. The code enforcement had received some direction that some of the sections that deal with mobile homes and single-family homes Page 53 April 15, 2010 would apply to the Estates. I don't believe that's how they are currently interpreting it. So we just want to make sure that if you want to provide any direction, this is the proposed ordinance where it says it does not apply to the Estates. That's just for your reference so you can follow. When it goes to the board and is approved in final form, that language will not be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I've got to ask why someone saw the need to take this out of the Land Development Code and move it at all into an ordinance. And the reason for that question is this is an effective impact on the land use. If you for example change the language under Section 7, commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in residential areas, and somehow you insert the Estates in there, you basically wipe out all the small business owners in Collier County who drive their trucks home, who park their vehicles and landscape trucks in their garages or back yards or somewhere in their driveways or a lot of this, or a car with a sign or a truck with a sign on the side or a piece of conduit on the roof. The Estates is full of working people. And I know that's not in here, it's excepted out now. But the change then becomes outside the realm of a Land Development Code change that affects land use. It becomes an ordinance change that can be done on a simple quiet summary agenda at the BCC and then it has an impact that's far reaching. So is it a necessity to take this out of the Land Development Code and move it into a separate ordinance? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, my understanding of the board direction, which was a little bit vague, was that the whole section was to be taken out. Because this item went to the Board of County Commissioners on an agenda item when they were looking at the expedited permitting process for recreational vehicles. So my understanding was the whole thing was to be taken out. And what was Page 54 April 15, 2010 presented to the board at that time is this wasn't so much a regulation ofland use and land development rights and it's something that could go into the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree that it's not probably intended to be a land use application, but in reality it becomes one because of what it regulates. And that's your -- you know, home operations, home businesses, you -- and that's what this county -- this is how the county works. I mean, we basically rely on those home businesses to keep the prices down and keep the workers here and do the best possible -- least expensive jobs they can. And this helps them do that. And I agree, in some parts of the county, like the coastal area, they can have their rules where they don't want to have commercial vehicles parked in driveways with signs on them or conduit, but that's not offensive in the Estates. And I think that if we move this into a process that doesn't open it up into full public review if there's such a change, we could have things done that we don't expect. And I'm concerned over it and I know -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, any changes would require advertised public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that means the fine print in the legal ads, and it goes on a summary agenda, unless somebody knows to pull it, which all the time is not -- you know, if you read a summary agenda, a lot of times you don't get the succinct information you need to know if there's a problem there or not. So I really think that the multiple public process it goes through by being in the LDC and having it changed in the LDC is more advantageous to the public than a single blind process, let's say, that almost comparatively an ordinance goes through. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I don't know this, did I Page 55 April 15, 2010 hear you correctly say that the board decided to move all of this because they were concerned with an issue of expediting permits? And then relate that to me to how it affects Collier County parking storage and use of recreational vehicle control. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This dealt specifically with recreational vehicles. And the board wanted to move the section that dealt with the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and allow an on-line permitting process for -- I have too many papers here, so let me refer to it. MS. ISTENES: I believe it was to allow like RV's, what have you, to be parked temporarily in the front yard for a period of time, if I recall correctly, and they were going to issue a permit to do that. And then the permit would be visible. So if a code enforcement officer stopped by to check to see if they had a permit, they would know whether or not to issue a citation. I'm not sure how that ties in with the whole thing -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It actually -- MS. ISTENES: -- moving. That's-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm trying to get. MS. ISTENES: -- the part I can't answer. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, they directed to take it out of the LDC and put it in the ordinance. And when they did that, they took part of it. And then the whole rest of the section, it makes it very confusing unless we totally rewrite it. And you know when you totally rewrite it, you could have unintended consequences. So they wanted to add another permitting period that would allow vehicles to be parked for 48 hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've just -- I have looked through the Code of Laws, and there are issues in the Code of Laws that are addressed in the LDC, but they're addressed differently in the Code of Laws. Why couldn't we just address what was needed to be addressed in the Code of Laws, which is the process for on-line permitting, say, Page 56 April 15, 2010 but not change the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code's language and leave it in the Land Development Code to be dealt with as we always have in public meetings, numerous public meetings, to make a change like this? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And to just further that, all you would have to do in the Land Development Code is note that permitting issues are dealt with in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. So somebody has a reference, they know where to go, but everything else remains in -- in the LDC. I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just was trying to understand. I didn't see the meeting, I didn't know what the issue was, and I couldn't figure it out from reading this why the change was wanted or needed. And I'm not sure I still get it. But it would seem to me that if it strictly has to do with wanting to have a way to permit something, and that's more appropriate to be in the Code of Laws, that's all fine, well and good. Leave the rest of this alone and just note that issues regarding permitting, you must refer to the Code of Laws. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you take a look at Section 6 and you look at B-1 and B-2, they both have to do with the permitting of recreational vehicles. Would it be your suggestion -- I could try to come up with some kind of proposal to move that portion. Because you've got a seven-day permit and then you've got a 48-hour permit. What creates confusion is you have a seven-day permit in one and a 48 in the other and you have to go to two different sections. So if, you know, certain things like you can't use it for sleeping, those kind of things, possibly I could take a look at that first under Section 6.A -- I'm looking at the ordinance -- and keep some of that but then allow a -- there's a permitting procedure in the Code of Laws Page 57 April 15, 2010 for the temporary parking. And then I guess I could look into pulling just the permitting portions out and put it in the code. Would that address -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might get you something, but why was the advice even offered that that's the better way of doing it rather than just write it up in the LDC like this amendment's doing and be done with it? I don't get it. What was the point of even suggesting it be moved to the Code of Laws or a separate ordinance when we had the LDC already loaded with the language, and if they needed to tweak a paragraph, they could do it just like they're doing today? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can't really speak as to why they -- what different options that they looked at and why. I can tell you that I think options were presented to the board that it would allow it to occur more expeditiously, and the board chose the option to go the most expeditious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like they got there. But we have a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the Chinese drywall issue, you're going to get into a situation here too potentially certainly that's up in Fort Myers, Lee County now, where they had to make an exception to allow a guy to have his -- an RV, whether he rented or not, I wouldn't know, in order for them to rehabilitate the house. Are we going to get into a situation if we go forward with this where they'd have to go in again and again and again, or are we going to see a lot of exceptions? Because I suspect that there's a lot of Chinese drywall. That's an unintended consequence, I surmise. But as I've met, where you have on Page 18, and then you wrote up the issue that I was going to talk about, so long as a permit, you don't define what kind of permit there, not to exceed 48 hours within any given seven-day time period, but under number two below you Page 58 Apri115,2010 talk about it's okay to have your -- a temporary use permit to have your vehicle there for repair or cleaning, and then you speak about it having to have it stored otherwise. But that's a land control item, I would think. So I agree wholeheartedly with Mark Strain that this seems to be unnecessarily onerous. And I just think that the impact will be more severe than it needs to be. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So would your recommendation be then to pull the permitting process that was in the 08-64 and move it into here, or just have two separate processes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we have -- at the minimum in many instances we have it strongly inferred that there are permit activities associated with other things. And so if it needs to be stated or stipulated, that's fine. But I think it needs to come back to where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, why are we reinventing the wheel? We already have a code that has 99 percent of the language needed. There seems to be something somebody wanted to change, like we always have had in our code, two cycles a year, practically. Why don't we just make the change in the code and go on, instead of creating a new ordinance in another document that doesn't have the same level of protection for public involvement or public notification that this one does? This is actually the better of the documents for more public involvement. You have more opportunity for the public to be involved and be noticed of a Land Development Code change than they do of an ordinance change. So I think we ought to be working towards what's best for public involvement and leave this in there. It doesn't hurt. I just don't see the need. So, I mean, that's -- I know we have a couple of members of the public who want to speak on this here today, and I certainly think if Page 59 April 15, 2010 everybody's in agreement, we'll hear from them now. Peter, do you have anything you want to add? And then Mark. MR. GADDY: Thank you. I agree with the comments that I've heard from the Planning Commission on keeping this in the Land Development Code. r just want to point out that many people moved to Golden Gate Estates and continue to reside in Golden Gate Estates because they can retain on their property a recreational vehicle or a trailer or their own commercial vehicle. It's a very serious matter to take those existing property rights away from people by changing the rules sometime in the future. So r would be in favor of keeping this in the Land Development Code. One technical item r wanted to raise in section five. The words immediately operable. This has to do with inoperable vehicles. It seems to me that if r go home tonight, this ordinance is passed, and I leave my lights on, my battery's going to be dead in the morning and I'm going to be in technical violation of this section of the code. I don't want to open a Pandora's box on the issue of repairs, but I think something needs to be done with this language so that people aren't continuously in technical violation. Because this is the one section that of course does apply to Golden Gate Estates. But this comment really is for all residents of the county. People have a broken vehicle, sometimes they need time to fix it, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, those -- and if that happens, though, the fines start and they're on an hourly basis. That way we have another source of revenue. MR. GADDY: Oh, okay. Oh, great, we're going to need it. MR. BELLOWS: Could you state your name for the record, too, please? MR. GADDY: Peter Gaddy, president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. We have talked about this on a board level, and all the board Page 60 April 15, 2010 members are concerned about this ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point too, Peter, thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, just to draw to your attention, the language he just read is the language that currently is in your Land Development Code. I just want to make sure you were aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if we're making changes, I think we can make them better. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Certainly. I just wanted to make sure you saw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. Understand. Thank you. Mark? MR. TEATERS: Yes, for the record, Mark Teaters with the Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates. Just to let you know, we have not had a formal meeting about this. However, we have had discussion amongst ourselves over the Internet e-mail about this. And there is concern as well. I think that I do agree with the Chair and everyone on leaving this alone. And Mr. Murray's point is well taken about Chinese drywall. And in Southwest Florida, you know, we still have quite a few areas where people are still recovering from storms and different events where they may need something like that parked in front of their place for whatever period of time. And there was something else. The other thing too is I noticed in here -- and I understand that this isn't -- what I'm going to talk to you about is in the original documentation, but some of this appears to be a little bit convoluted or mixed up. There's a lot of conversation in here about commercial vehicles and recreational vehicles in the same item in here. And I think as it related to Golden Gate Estates -- I was reading through this again last night, and I think -- I'm trying to look and see where that was again. Exempted small commercial equipment Page 61 April 15, 2010 and ladders and pipes. But then again they said vehicles or trailers of any type that are not immediately operable or used for the purposes which they were manufactured without mechanical or electrical repairs, or the replacement of parts or do not meet the Florida safety code. It says vehicles or trailers of any type, not just RV's or anything like that. Then it talks about or used for the purpose for which they were manufactured. We have folks out in the Estates that have trailers on their property for storage purposes. You know, if you buy a tractor-trailer or whatever it is, you know, storing something in it may not be the end use for which it was originally intended. So -- and I understand that that is in the original language as well. That isn't in the changes. But I do agree with you folks about this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mark. Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another thought. A utility trailer; horse trailer is usually a utility trailer. I have seen horse trailers that have a residence, if you will, in the front, isolated of course from the horse area. But that's an RV. So you're going to get into some wacky situations with that. I just think let's keep it where it's sane. That would be where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, first of all, this is -- this document that we're reviewing is a proposed ordinance which the Planning Commission doesn't have any -- weigh in on ordinances, normally. It's here because I think we're trying to be shown than it's complete in regards to removal from the LDC. But I think the consensus from this board, and when we get to the motion maybe that will be the way it will go, is that we're recommending that this ordinance not be adopted and that the LDC -- it contain all the language needed that the commission is looking for and not create a separate document to do that, leave everything in the Page 62 April 15, 2010 Land Development Code. Is that seemingly where everybody's going? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I'm going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other input from anybody or any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I would like -- Mark, would it be appropriate in Section B, it's on Page 18, to add one more thing for the County Manager. There is a group working on how to do housing after hurricanes and stuff. So could we add a number four, which is during times of declared emergencies, which would allow the County Manager rather easily to allow recreation of vehicles for people whose homes are damaged and things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. I think, though, that you wouldn't want -- well, that's in this ordinance, so I guess Heidi, that's a recommendation as to whatever way it goes. If the board insists on letting it remain as a separate ordinance, then Brad's suggestion would probably be a good one to consider. But if it goes back in Land Development Code or stays there when the changes are made that the board is seeking for permitting purposes, we might want to look at further making the code better. And I think Mr. Gaddy's and Mr. Teaters' concerns on over Section 5.A are well noted. And then Bard's point about adding a BA for emergency issues. But I think you'd have to come back anyway so we'd have a complete rewrite to rejudge this thing at that point. To put it back into the LDC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I think your recommendation would be to deny -- you know, the recommendation of denial of the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ms. Caron, do you have anything -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I just wanted to Page 63 April 15, 2010 comment here. On Page 16 it says what the BCC wanted to do. They wanted to provide additional time for recreational vehicles to be stored or parked on properties within residentially zoned areas, for whatever reason, as well as to provide for a streamlined permitting process. So I think all of that can easily be handled right in the LDC. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not finding anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there a motion to deny this recommendation -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of changes to the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. And I'm assuming it's for Section 2.01.00, and the reason for denial is to retain the consistency with the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is exactly the way I would have said it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 64 April 15, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming today. We appreciate it. You might want to keep track of it when it gets to the BCC. I'm not sure how it will get there, so -- MR. GADDY: Thank you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is 4.05.02.M, typical off-street parking design. Stan Chrzanowski. This was a rehash of one he's presented a couple of times. MS. ISTENES: I can present this for Stan. Susan Istenes, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Page 31 is being removed. Page 32 is being readopted. My recollection is you had indicated you wanted to see some changes to the drawing. The location of the handicapped signs was one. I think you thought that was confusing. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ramp. MS. ISTENES: The ramp, thank you. The other discussion we had was with respect to the landscape buffer requirements in the vehicle bumper overhang. I consulted with staff on that. The -- there is actually a reference in the LDC to this drawing with respect to the requirements of the vehicle -- or the allowances, I should say, of vehicle overhang in the required landscape buffer. The text had said that a two-foot vehicle bumper overhang is allowed into any landscape buffer 10 feet or more in width. So where you have a five-foot landscape buffer, you cannot have that overhang. But where you have 10 or greater you may have that overhang. So if you look on the right side of the page around the center, we reworded that to explain that requirement. And so that is how it has Page 65 April 15, 2010 been applied. So hopefully that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And sue, what that's saying is that if you had a lesser than 10 feet, you could have the grass area, you just can't count it as part of the buffer. MS. ISTENES: You got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I think -- I looked at everything else, I think this has been well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any comments, questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a recommendation for Section 4.05.02.M? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that. I move that we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and we recommend approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second's been made by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Let's run back, and I notice we can finish up on this -- well, who Page 66 April 15, 2010 knows if we can finish up -- timeshare. Okay, Richard, do you want to tell us how much in agreement you are with everything? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Everything, or just on this particular provision? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice ifit was everything for a change, but let's just move forward. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One thing at a time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe on Page 4, footnote three, you have some handwritten revisions. And those are fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, did you have anything else to add to this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just on Page 3, footnote four, determination of whether the language that's added, or 26, should stay in. In talking with Mr. Weeks, who was involved in the earlier drafts of this LDC provision, he indicated footnote four only applies to residential. So I think if you delete the "or 26" under footnote four -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't mean footnote for, you mean R T footnote four -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I'm sorry, RT-4 and 17. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the "or 26" comes out where the RT footnote four, footnote 17 is referred to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which would be the seventh line -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- eighth line down. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody have any questions relating to the changes? MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, if you would, because this was a handout, probably would be best to read the proposal into the record with respect to the Port of the Islands addition that you were -- Page 67 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, it's your handwriting. I think. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, well the handout is a little bit different in the text of what is in the book. So if you go to Page 4 under footnote three, I'll read what the language should read: A maximum of 26 dwelling units per acre are allowed for hotels and motels. A hotel or motel in the Port of the Islands may offer timeshare units and retain the density of 26 units per acre. Then under footnote four on the same page, I guess I'll just read it for the record: For the RT zoning located inside activity centers as designated on the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Map, residential units, including those for timeshares and multi-family uses, are allowed at a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre. Similarly, for R T zoning not located within activity centers but in existence at the time of adoption of the LDC, October 30th, 1991, residential units are allowed at a maximum of 16 units per acre. And then the remaining addition on your prior drafts is no longer proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under footnote three, after you added the language for Port of the Islands, the last part of that former sentence that was underlined is all struck through now -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and no longer valid. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on Page 3, we struck on line seven the reference to "or 26". MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all the changes? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to note for the record on the prior draft under Page 4 for G.G.D.C.C.O., one of the checkrnarks was left off. That is -- the checkrnark is hand-checked on your draft, but that's not a text change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions of Page 68 Apri115,201O the proposed changes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on this chart, we have three RT's. How do we know where they apply and where they don't apply? Is it -- I mean, we also have it with VR's. So there's no identification. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I had the same question. And it made sense the way it was explained to me, so maybe since I had the same question I can help answer the question. It's really the footnote that governs. So for R T with the footnote three, that's the commercial type uses, hotel/motel. R T footnote four applies to residential and capture density at 16. And then footnote five, I don't remember which one that applies to, but it's the footnote that's going to govern. So you'll see that if you're zoned RT, you have to look at the footnotes to figure out what your density or intensity is, depending on your type of use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're allowed -- if I look at a zoning map and it says RT, I can choose out of any one of these three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hu-uh. It says it on the zoning map. I believe -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, if you're RT, yes, and you want to be -- if you're RT and you want to do a hotel, you do 26 units per acre. If you're R T and want to do a hotel that's owned as a timeshare, you can only do that in Port of the Islands, that 26 units per acre. Because that's -- the footnote will govern when-- COMMISSIONER CARON: The other footnotes have to do with whether you're in an activity center -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or you're not in an activity center -- Page 69 April 15,2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: And those were intensities -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that's the difference. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- for residential, not commercial uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I still would go look at these three, see which ones apply. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If two apply, I get to choose what I want, if that's ever the case. Sounds like it might not be, but-- okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thing we are doing is we're only allowing timeshares in Port of the Isles. We're clarifying that they're allowed. So does that mean they're only allowed in Port of the Isles? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're only allowed at an intensity of 26 units per acre as a hotel use in Port of the Islands. If you wanted to have a hotel at 26 units per acre owned as a timeshare not on the Port of the Islands, you're capped at 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until such time that staff comes back-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with a rework of the LDC that we requested under the previous definition -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To analyze it in greater detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron. Motion -- Page 70 April 15, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: LDC 2 -- I'm sorry, I guess we have to go -- I guess this is just for 2.05.01, because we've already done the definitions. We've already given an approval for that, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we got definitions in here too. It wouldn't hurt to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just do them both. COMMISSIONER CARON: So for LDC Sections 1.08.02, definitions, and 2.05.01, density standards and housing types, I find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and forward this to the BCC with a motion of approval, based on the changes that we have made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Sorry, Richard, this is a -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to miss our time together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, this was a -- this brought the paycheck in, didn't it? Page 71 April 15, 2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we're eating this month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one, and I think the last one for today, is 5.05.05.B, automobile service stations. And it's on Page 33. And the language part of it goes to Page 35. Susan, you want to enlighten us as to -- or John or whoever's going to take this? MS. ISTENES: I can do that. We would be done by now if! hadn't picked up this error. But in reviewing the Immokalee overlay standards with Mr. Mulhere, I picked up an error on the automobile service station criteria that was again not intentionally left out during the recodification. It's a very important piece, because it speaks to nonconformities created when this original -- these original automobile service stations were adopted, which I believe was '98, I think, or towards the end of '97. So they've been around for a while. But on Page 35 under P, the exceptions to the standards dealt with certain development criteria that was adopted with these regulations. That potentially could render existing automobile service stations nonconforming. And the intent wasn't to do that. The intent was to essentially grandfather those provisions in that are specified there. What I did do, though, since I was bringing this back, was I did attempt to rewrite them because in my practice of applying these there has been some confusion about how they apply. So hopefully I rewrote them -- did not change the regulatory language, but just rewrote them so it was a little bit more clear as to when to apply. And I'm just simply asking that you all recommend approval of adopting these back in so we don't have nonconforming issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions or discussion from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this one is not as complicated. Page 72 April 15, 2010 Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I make a motion to approve, recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that 05.05.B? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 05.05.B, consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it most certainly is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Okay, that brings us to the end of our LDC. Now, we can't continue because you've got to readvertise. MS. ISTENES: Correct. And what we're looking at for the MPP shoreline is your regular meeting of May 20th. And it looks like we're going to be able to meet the advertising deadlines for that. So I would expect that you would see that on your agenda for May 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, we can adjourn this meeting. There's no old business, new business. Any business? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Funny business. Page 73 April 15, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay, motion carries. We're adjourned. Thank you all. ***** Page 74 April 15, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:53 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 75