The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 07/19/2012 R & LDCJuly 19, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 19, 2012 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Page 1 of 45 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham 1. AGENDA t°r; .wr,,,� e�I tvrL COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.1? fitlg►i119�., 20-12;. IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC 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. F1910 _J)'7 W!Ier 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Flenning 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coyle Colerta 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 7, 2012, June 19, 2012 CCPC/LDC, June 21, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMANS REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS w , 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE- PL20110002669: Toler Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD- PL20110002669 for a 53 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 73 feet for the benefit of property located in Lely Barefoot Beach PUD in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner] 'Asc, orres: Date: +o1g1��, Item A B. VA- PL20110002627: Donald Gray Variance- A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL2011 -2627, for a variance from Land Development Code Sections 4.02.03 and 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located on Lot 6, Block G of the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] C. BDE- PL20110000940: Donald Gray Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD- PL2011 -940 for a 30.3 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06.E of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 50.3 feet to replace an existing dock with a finger dock and two boat lifts on Lot 6, Block G of the Little Hickory Shores subdivision in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle I [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, July 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're all here. And welcome back, Heidi. It's good to see you back. We missed you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. I missed you all, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bring us back anything from your vacation? No. Didn't miss us that much, huh. Addenda to the agenda. Anybody have any changes or issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absences? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were electronically -- pardon me? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Good point. Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting is the first meeting in August, I believe. Ray, is there any change in that? We don't have anything in between, do we? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe you have anything. I don't have my calendar in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got it, and I don't see any. It will be August 2nd. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the August 2nd meeting? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I will not be present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why you wanted to make sure we brought that up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Wanted it on the record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have anything for that meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have anything for that meeting? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Will you check that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. We'll -- do we have -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have items for August 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Brougham won't be here, but the rest of us will, hopefully. Thank Page 2 of 45 July 19, 2012 you. Okay. Now we'll go to the approvals of the minutes. And we had three packages electronically sent to us. I'm hoping everybody reviewed them. Let's start with the first one, June 7, 2012. Is there any corrections or notations? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made a motion, to second, by? Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 9 -0. The June 19th minutes, same question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that Phil? Okay. Phil made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHWFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. The last one is the LDC hearing on June 21 st. Any corrections or changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 23, it said Chairman Lefebvre, and that should be Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. That's my alias. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's code enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Thank you. With that one correction, is there anything else? If not, is there a motion to approve subject to that one correction? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the motion. Is there a second? Page 3 of 45 July 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made the second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Okay. That gets us through the simpler stuff. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they haven't met since the last time we did, yeah. I didn't think so. Chairman's report. I have just a couple things. First of all, I had mentioned a couple times that I thought my end of my term was September of this year. I do not believe that's accurate, so it looks like I'll be here staying with you guys longer. And I certainly will be enjoying and looking forward to my continued presence on this board. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: How much longer? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until you're tired of me, Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: That won't be soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- I went to see Ian, but he's not here, so -- but I'll keep you abreast of any changes to that. The second thing is, I have gotten a series of requests from residents in Golden Gate Estates about two facilities, neither of which I'm really familiar with or ever been to, but I had heard about them. And I don't even know how to say the first one. I drink a tea called Kombucha, and that's the best I can tell you. It's Komabuchowa (sic) or something. It's a preserve or wildlife preserve. And the other one is Shy Wolf Sanctuary. Both of them seem to be a zoning - related issue from what I can tell, and some of them -- one of them in particular, I know, has been there for decades. Is there any way that you could provide a -- by the next meeting either a brief synopsis or something to the Planning Commission to let us know what's going on on an issue like that? Since this is the zoning board, and it's logical for people to ask us why things are happening. Because I don't understand it myself. I haven't seen the data. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'd be glad to. We've already prepared it for the Board of County Commissioners, who requested it, and can forward it to each planning commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that would be great. Thank you, Ray. And has the County Attorney's Office looked at it in relationship to estoppel or the doctrine of laches and things like that; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I'll let Heidi answer what part she has played. It's a code - enforcement action, so I don't know how they've coordinated with her or not. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Would you mind repeating the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole question? I'd -- apparently, there was some code action on two wildlife preserves, and I'm not sure if they're Golden Gate Estates or ag. properties. I just wanted to get some background on that so when people ask me about it I have more information in which to reply, but at the same time I wanted to know if the County Attorney's Office had weighed in on it in regards to either the estoppel arguments or the doctrine of Page 4 of 45 July 19, 2012 laches argument and things like that. Have you guys reviewed it at all? Because if you have, I'd like to see your report on it, too. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have not done anything. I would just have to follow up with Mr. Klatzkow and find out if he's had any involvement with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have, if you could just send us that with Ray's report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- that way when -- because it's -- apparently it's -- I've never been there, but a lot of people are concerned, and I've been bumping into more and more people that have asked questions about it, and I have to tell them I don't know anything about it, and that -- to them it seems kind of puzzling since we are the zoning board. So maybe you could just brief us on it in case me or anybody else is asked. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just a synopsis in writing is fine. MR. BELLOWS: We have it all ready because others have asked, and we've prepared a response to outline the zoning of the history of the sites, both sites. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On both sites. MR. BELLOWS: They're the same issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Consent - agenda items. There aren't any on today's agenda, so we will move directly into our advertised public hearings. ** *The fast one is DBE- PL20110002669, the Toiler boat -dock extension located in Lely Barefoot Beach. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I was with Rocky and Jeff on another matter, and we -- they did show it to me. We briefly discussed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Well, Rocky called me and asked me to drive all the way to his office, to which it cost me two or three gallons of gasoline to talk about nothing and then to return back to my house. So I did have a conversation with Rocky and Jeff on this. MR. SCOFIELD: I'll reimburse you when you leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, you can't do that, but next time we could have done it by phone. Go ahead, Jeff. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, as everyone knows, my name is Jeff Rogers, and I'm with Turrell, Hall & Associates representing the petitioner, Bill Toiler. As you know, we're here today requesting a boat -dock extension for the petitioner, and his site is located as shown on the screen at 202 san Matteo Drive. This is just south of Bonita Beach Road in South Port on the Bay area. The petitioner is here requesting a BDE for a 50 -foot protrusion extension from the allowed 20 for an overall 73 -foot dock into a waterway that is approximately 700 -plus feet in width. We have down 720 feet, as shown here on this exhibit. You might want to zoom out. There you go. It's an approximate. We show 720, but we're saying it's 700 -plus. It's somewhere in there. There's plenty of waterway. We're sticking out 73 feet. The surrounding docks are also -- have extensions as well. It's a thing -- it's a normal thing in this area. The dock to our south has a 76 -foot protrusion. We actually did the BDE for him, and we got a 77 -foot extension into the waterway for that one. The dock has been minimized in regards to overwater structure. It has two boat lifts associated with it, and it's shown here on this exhibit. The dock is a little odd - shaped, but due to the vessels that he has, this was the best design that we could go with to accommodate the vessels as well as accommodate all of his wishes. Currently there is a single - family home being constructed on the upland. It is expected to be done at the end of August, and he's hoping to go ahead and install his dock somewhere at the end of August, beginning of September, Page 5 of 45 July 19, 2012 upon this approval. Upon your approval we will finish the state and federal permitting process. I put that on hold due to the state giving us questions and concerns in regards to the design, and we wanted to make sure that the county was going to give us their approval prior to finalizing the state and federal permits so that we would not have to go back and do a modification and cost the petitioner more money to do that. With that, if you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. We're providing setbacks to accommodate state and local requirements, and we will not interfere with anyone adjacent to us either north or south, and the waterway remaining is plenty of width for vessels to pass with no interference. If you have any questions, be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just follow -up on one of your comments. Jeff, you said you had put the state permits on hold because they were -- they had some questions regarding the design and so forth and you didn't -- could that work in reverse? I have no appreciation for what the state was questioning. MR. ROGERS: Their issue is a number of slips. When a single - family dock is proposed, they allow two slips. And if you do more -- if you propose a design like this, if you look at the design, there's a lot of areas that you can moor other vessels. The state's requirement was either we do a submerged land lease, due to the fact that this is state lands, in order to accommodate more mooring areas, or we propose to put handrailing on the areas where you potentially moor other vessels. And if you look closely at this drawing, it's hard to see, but there is some black bold areas along the flat surface of the dock, and that's handrailing that we're proposing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you point to those, just for clarity, please. MR. ROGERS: Right here, all along here. All along this area is handrailing as well as this 30 -foot area and the back side of this slip here. All that is going to be handrail. And that's in order to prevent mooring. That's why we put it on hold, because we weren't sure if you guys, per the criteria in place, minimization of decking, other things, you know. We're just unsure, so we decided to put it on hold, and we'll go back upon approval here and finalize that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one other comment, Jeff, and it's more of a -- probably scrivener than anything else. But if you look at site information on your application -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --you cite a 58 -foot protrusion, and I think that's just a typo. And I don't think it makes any difference. MR. ROGERS: What page are you on? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The second page of your application under -- MR. ROGERS: Site information? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Site information. MR. ROGERS: Total protrusion in the facility, yeah, 56 feet. Yes, sir, that is a typo. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know if it makes any difference or not. I wanted to point it out. MR. ROGERS: No, it's 73 -foot extension is our request overall with a 53 -foot extension from the 20. That was my mistake on that. Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Jeff, would you have any problem if we limited -- or we did a stipulation as part of this that this facility will be limited to two vessels only? MR. ROGERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because even though you don't have railing on -- you have railing on a lot of it, there's a piece down inside there that doesn't. I could see someone pulling in with a Ski Do or one of those -- MR. ROGERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- personal watercraft. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, those are vessels, so -- MR. ROGERS: Now, we would be -- if the petitioner changed the design and we came back, could we change that? That's -- that criteria? Page 6 of 45 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it, too, is what we're limited to unless there's a -- Ray, is there -- I can't recall offhand without pulling the code. If they want to go beyond two, is that something that needs special review? Because I believe two is the maximum you're allowed, and if you go above that, you've got to -- MR. ROGERS: You have to have a submerged land lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think you'd be coming back in for staff rereview of it, too. MR. ROGERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- you know, the way this is configured, I -- and the railing, it does help but, you know, someone could slip a personal watercraft inside that one short dock. MR. ROGERS: Right. I see what you're saying. In this area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ROGERS: And that's somewhere where we could propose handrailing, too, in order to prevent that. That's a good catch, and I'm surprised the state didn't say anything about that area as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yes, you can put that criteria in there and/or we can put handrailing in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't -- you know, to me, it would be up against the mangroves. It would be a great place to fish. So I'm not sure handrailing will ruin that idea, as long as you agree -- as long as your applicant's only going to go to two vessels, I think we're covered. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, as part of -- if there's a recommendation for approval, that stipulation will stick. That would be helpful. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with planning and zoning. As you read in the staff report, staff s opinion is that the proposal meets five out of five primary criteria and five out of five applicable secondary criteria. I also wanted to mention that there's a conservation easement that you can see on the diagram on the screen now, extends 20 feet landward of the mean high -water line, and it does permit docks. And the dock -- the portion of the walkway of the dock going through is 4 feet in width, so we feel that that's minimized. And because it meets all the applicable criteria and only protrudes less than 11 percent of the waterway, we recommend approval. And we also wanted to mention that because you are considering the administrative boat -dock change, that this petition still would be before you because of the length of the protrusion. So this would not be one -- under the draft LDC amendment, this would not be one that would be administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's other reasons but, yes, I agree with you, so -- MR. REISCHL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of -- the size of the dock itself, I think, would trigger it to come into us regardless of the administrative, I mean the width of some of the decking area, because I think there's a 6 -foot maximum on the staff approval version, and this has got an 8 -foot section. So -- okay. Well, with that in mind, is that the end of the staff report? MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers? Anybody wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a discussion from the board? And if no discussion, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to approve BDE- PL20 1 1 0002669 with the stipulation to limit to two vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Ahern, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Page 7 of 45 July 19, 2012 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Rocky called me and said he wanted me to come to his office to review this dock extension, I thought, oh, my God, what did I miss? This has got to be the most horrible dock extension. He's got to be concerned about it. We're going to tear it to shreds. And I got there; of course, there was nothing, and I think that's now also proven out in the public meeting. So, I -- guys, thanks for calling me down there. I appreciate all that wasted time. With that, is there a -- we'll call for the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you -all. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. We have one more -- actually, two more on the same dock, and I'll read them -- we'll hear them both together and vote for them separately. The first one is the Variance Application P1,20110002627, the Donald Gray variance located on Lot 6, Block G of Little Hickory Shores Subdivision, and the second part of that is BDE- PL20110000940, same dock extension, same location. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. I'm here representing Donald Gray, the property owner for the subject variance and dock extension. And this is a little different than the last request, although it's in the same general vicinity. This is in the Little Hickory Shores area where these lots have been previously approved for boat docks. They're too small to support homes, and through the conditional -use process many years ago, they were authorized to have boat docks on these lots. Also -- and I'll talk a little bit about the variance process -- as you'll note in your staff report, there were exhibits in the prior variance that authorized almost all those lots to have a variance to 0 -foot setback. Mr. Gray, unfortunately, was out of the country at the time that that gentleman who was representing other property owners had sent mail notices, and he was unable to participate back at the time. But he does need the variance in order to go ahead and construct a new dock on the property. He hopes to moor his 34 -foot pleasure boat there, and he is currently now storing that off site on a trailer. So we have -- I think the exhibit -- I'll probably go ahead and put up the proposed dock. As you can see, we're asking for a 30.3 -foot extension beyond the 20 feet that's authorized in the code. And there's a couple factors for the extension and why that's necessary, and partly it's because you measure from the most restrictive of either the top of the riprap mean -- high water, mean low water, or the property line, whichever the case may be. And in this particular case, the most restrictive seemed to be the top of the riprap, so we're measuring the total protrusion 50.3 feet from that line. Page 8 of 45 July 19, 2012 And you'll also note when you look at where the shoreline actually is, it sort of runs in an opposite direction to the actual lot line itself. So those two factors contribute a little bit to the needed extension, just in addition to the fact that with this 34 -foot boat you need a couple feet of draft. So you can see that exhibit -- there are water depth's shown on that exhibit to demonstrate that we really couldn't pull it that much closer to the shoreline in that location. I know that staff has gone through the various criteria, but from the variance standpoint you'll note in those exhibits that almost every other property owner in the area had a variance. This is the exhibit that's in your packet. And there were -- all those that are bold and highlighted were part of the original resolution that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And you can see there were only a handful of lots. And I don't know the history of why some did or didn't. I only know Mr. Gray's situation, and that was because he was unavailable to even sign the documents at the time. So all the others are allowed to go to zero feet. And when you look at the exhibit that we prepared, we've noted the location of the adjacent boat lifts and docking facilities, and you'll see that those were constructed at essentially zero lot line. So what we're hoping to do is to obtain a 0 -foot on the western side, keep it just off the property line on the east so we can put our mooring pilings in there, and he can have both lifts for both boats that he intends to moor there. And I think when you look at the numbers, the lot is about 32 feet wide in total. So when you start looking at just the sheer numbers of trying to support two boats with any type of docking facility, it's really impossible. And even a larger boat with even a single dock, it makes it difficult because, if you apply the seven - and -a- half -foot side -yard setback to each at 15 feet, you only now have 15 feet in which to construct your boat, a docking facility, and a way to service your boat. So we believe that the variance is necessary in order to even really achieve any docking facility of any size. And as staff noted, the existing facility that's there is nonconforming and we believe legally so because permits were secured for it. With regard to the extension, I had a couple different exhibits that I wanted to show you, and I think one of those is simply the zoning map. And you'll note -- in the middle of the page you can see how many boat -dock extensions have been granted and variances in this cluster, and part of that's reflective of the prior approval for the variances, and part of that is that many of those have had extensions. And that exhibit -- it's a little larger. What I've tried to show here is that we have all the other variances noted, and it's a little closer in, and it shows you the number of boat slips in the area and the fact that almost everybody has two of those, and many, many of them are at the 0 -foot setback. And I don't know if you have any specific questions of me. That's kind of the facts as I see them, and I'm happy to go through some of the specific criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just an embellishment, maybe, on your presentation. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Had your client been responsive to the mailing when all these were done in a blanket format, would there have been any reason why the board would not have approved this particular lot with those others as routine -- did any of them get singled out for any reason for an exception other than the fact they just weren't available to reply, that you know of? MR. ARNOLD: I do remember reading the minutes. I don't believe that any of them were singled out for naught. I think it was either -- I think, as Mr. Scofield told me before the meeting, he remembered some of it was a cost issue for some of the people who opted out. They just chose not to spend the money to do it because they had no immediate plans to build a dock. And then others, like Mr. Gray, unfortunately, were not in the area to even sign the forms at the time. Mr. Gray was indicating to me prior -- in our prior discussions that, you know, upon returning back to the country, found a stack of mail, and in that was the letter request, and each person had to pay $500 for the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He would have saved a lot of money. MR. ARNOLD: Would have saved a lot of money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's what you get an hour right now. MR. ARNOLD: That's right. Well, I wish I could bill that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Rocky only gets 50 an hour, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Page 9 of 45 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. Wayne, looking at the dock -- I have no problem with the setback, obviously. And I recall it. I think that even came before us, and nobody, I think, really had a problem. But the wood decks I'm having -- do you have a wood deck on the -- it would be the westerly side, a very small 2- foot -wide wood deck. Why are you doing that? MR. ARNOLD: This boat is -- its a troller style, and it's got a wide beam on the boat. And this would be a platform so you could stand on it and hose down the boat from that side of the boat and service it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that kind of goes to the second question. It's a 16- foot -wide lift. Is that vessel appropriate for this waterway? MR. ARNOLD: I think so. And I can let Mr. Gray address that. He's a licensed captain, Coast Guard certified, and this is his boat that he uses for fishing. And, you know, the water depth is adequate, the waterway width is fine when you look at some of the others extensions. The problem here is that the boat itself is 34 feet, which isn't a very lengthy boat by standards if you want to go out to the Gulf, but the water depths are fine. It's just a matter of, when you take a 34 -foot boat and you hold it off the riprap line enough to reach a couple feet of water depth for it, you're protruding with the boat itself, obviously, more than the 20 feet you're allowed to protrude into the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you were going to have Mr. Gray respond to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the answer would really be, what kind of draft does this boat have? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Mr. Gray answer that. MR. GRAY: Good morning, everyone. It has 18 inches in draft when it sits level on the plane. And the boat itself is about 12 feet wide. It's 11 feet, 10 inches, .75 or something like that. And from what I understand, the lift to lift the boat up is another 2 feet added to the width so that the carriage that lifts the boat up and down will have room so you can get the boat in. And the outside platform was there only strictly for cleaning purposes so you can stand there and take a brush and clean the outside of the hull and -- if you have any barnacles or repairs or something like this, that's all that it's used for. It's not going to be -- it's right on the edge of the property, and you can't moor a boat or anything. It's going to be up kind of like even with the gunwale of the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern would be, would it get in the way of the neighbor if he wanted to bring his boat dock out like that? MR. GRAY: Actually, there's piling there for the lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One thing, in the drawing, the pilings actually are centered on the property line. I think, in reality, you won't be able to do that. You'd have to push them totally within the property line, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I think you will, too, Brad. You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the other question is, up in the front there's a big wood deck, a 6 -foot wood deck that really serves no purposes for accessing boats. So why is that there? MR. ARNOLD: That is the existing dock facility, and I believe Mr. Gray intends to keep that portion of the dock existing. MR. GRAY: It's already there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a drawing in the packet of the existing? MR. ARNOLD: I'll show you. That's a specific- purpose survey, and maybe Mike can zoom in on that a little bit. But it will show you the existing dock configuration and the setback encroachments that are there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern I have is it's closer than 20 feet to the property line, which means people trying to park here, especially more than one vehicle are -- I mean, but you're saying its the top of the riprap anyway, so they're not going to go over that. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. GRAY: That's out over the water. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. That dock is completely out over the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on one second. I think that's it, but -- I guess that's it. One -- one little thing. If you look at the photograph that's on Page 5 of our packet, there's a red, like, property line thing. And I know Page 10 of 45 July 19, 2012 this is the appraiser's site and -- but the drawing that you showed earlier when you showed all the boat docks that opted in, if you look at that, there's also a line there. What is that line? If you can -- MR. ARNOLD: Are you on Page 5 of the variance staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 5 of the variance, you see a red line running from west to north, but you could see this actually better in your -- the piece you put in that showed which lots opted into the conditional use. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Let me put that one back up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may have put others on top of what's already on the overhead. MR. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that one's not quite showing it, but there is some sort of a line there you can vaguely see. You had another drawing where you could clearly see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the one that was a colored aerial with the lines going -- referencing the OR book and page. I think that's what he -- or the reference -- the Code of Laws. MR. ARNOLD: That exhibit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I thought it might be that one. MR. ARNOLD: You have the color version of that. Maybe, Mike, you can -- I've got it. I tore it out of mine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not there. Anyway, is there any kind of a -- is that the center line of the channel? Is that a property line? What is it? I believe that's the property line. MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's the property line that's being reflected; the platted property line goes into the water. MR. GRAY: Actually, I own way out into the water. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, your client will have to use the mike. MR. GRAY: I apologize. I think that's the property line, because from what I understand from our surveyor, I own way, way out into the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAY: But, of course, you know, due to many years' erosion, this is the actual land that's left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But are you -- you know, if you look at this thing and you look at your neighbor, you're going out quite a bit past him, so you're nowhere going over that line. So we -- I mean, from what was shown on there, it looks like it is probably a property line for the boat docks, the whole group of docks at one time. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I don't know the history of that line, Brad; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it has nothing to do with the channel or anything? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on either the variance or the boat -dock extension request? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager for planning and zoning. You've got both the variance staff report, as well as the BDE staff report. We're recommending approval of both items. With regard to the primary and secondary criteria for the boat dock, they're meeting all of the primary and four of the six secondary and two -- actually, I'm sorry -- three of the secondary criteria, but two of the secondary criteria are not applicable in this case, so they're still within the requirements of the code. I can answer any other questions you might have. I believe the red line that you're looking at from the Property Appraiser's Office is actually a zoning designation line between the RSF4 portion here and the PUD just to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, just to -- if you look at -- it's red on the overhead. The line I'm Page 11 of 45 July 19, 2012 worried about has a -- looks like a G interrupting it in a circle, which is not the zoning lines. MR. SAWYER: Oh, okay. Ray is pointing out that those appear to be the block -- MR. ARNOLD: I see what you're talking about -- MR. SAWYER: -- designations for those areas -- MR. ARNOLD: -- the block number. MR. SAWYER: -- the block numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And while I'm, I guess, questioning, since their drawings do show the piles centered on the property line and we know that wouldn't be allowed, there's nothing in this approval that would ever be taken to construe that they're allowed to put it on the center line? I mean, shouldn't -- they would have to adjust their drawing to show the pile totally within their property. MR. SAWYER: Correct. They would have to do that at the time of the building permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And they are going to require a building permit for the facility. COMMISSIONER SCI IFFER: So we don't make it a condition; it would happen that way no matter what? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff on either of these actions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any members of the public who would like to speak on this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we do? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Kim Ellis? MS. ELLIS: Oh, not on this matter. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, okay. MS. ELLIS: Did I mark the right thing on there, l0A regarding -- MR. BELLOWS: Sorry, yeah. It's 10A, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, do you have any rebuttal to all the opposition? MR. ARNOLD: No, I'd rather not say anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. We'll start with the variance first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCI - FFER: I move that we approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad Schiffer, seconded by Melissa Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. And the boat -dock extension? Brad? Page 12 of 45 July 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Also move to approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I'll also second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion maker, same second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion, again, carries 9 -0. MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you -all, and that concludes our advertised public hearings. ** *And then next matter of old business is -- Caroline. Where's Caroline? MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is Caroline going to be here today for this? Well, okay. Is she coming in? I saw the hand wave. Does that mean we're going to see her, or she's just going to stand out in the hall and wave? Okay. It's a little early to take a break. We could go onto the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While we're waiting, Mark, could you refill my coffee for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here comes Caroline and her caddy. Nice dress. MS. CIL,EK: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, we almost gave up on you here this morning. MS. CIL,EK: I'm so song. I apologize. You guys moved very quickly this morning. But I've been outside just hanging out. We are here today to, hopefully, wrap up some of the LDC amendments. And let me grab my agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have -- I believe there's only two on today's agenda. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one is the portable storage containers; the other are the dock facilities. And the portable storage containers, the first one listed, which is -- it's under 5.03.07 in our book. Since it started, there's been a definition added, which is 1.08.02. But for those of you who have got the books, if you turn to 5.03.07, I think you'll find the information we need to start with. Now -- and, Heidi, I need to ask you, this is a reconsideration hearing for a motion that was already made and passed by the Planning Commission unanimously a month or two ago, and then we were contacted by some of the civic group in the Estates who felt that they needed a little more vetting on the issue. The Planning Commission agreed. Staff went back, had another public meeting, I understand, or maybe more than one. But since this is a reconsideration, is there any limitation on actions that we take today in regards to this issue? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. I characterize it a little bit differently, because while it is the same item, what is being proposed to you is different than what you saw before. So staff is requesting to replace this amendment should you decide to approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Caroline, especially important, I think, to us is explain to us the process of the public meeting, what occurred, Page 13 of 45 July 19, 2012 and why the changes that we have now being presented are in front of us today. So it's all yours. MS. C11LEK: Most certainly. The public meeting was following the request by Mr. Peter Gaddy, who is the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and I believe he made that request on May 17th. We worked together and we put a meeting for the Estates community. It was -- put a meeting together, and it was held on June 13th at 6 o'clock and lasted over an hour and a half. And at that meeting 27 people attended. And what we did is we provided a brief overview of the amendment, the direction from the board to bring this amendment forward, and we also walked through some of the recommendations that the two civic groups have provided to us from the Estates community so far at that time. And then we opened it up for public comment. And we asked people to come up to the podium and present their views, reasons for and against this amendment, suggestions they had, comments they had, concerns they had, and we had a very lively discussion. And as they were making comments, we wrote them on a large easel pad so that people could see that the comments were being taken down, and we made it very clear that these comments would be taken forward through Planning Commission and the board. And so what I've put in your packet today is a compilation of all the comments that were submitted either on the easel pad -- so the voices of the people -- the meeting notes from the meeting, and we have by individual the comments that they made as well as the comment slips that were provided at the meeting -- there's, like, five or so of those -- and then, additionally, the comments that I've been getting through emails, people -- I have said, you know, if you have any comments, please let me know, and so I've provided those to you as well. There are several people who did email me yesterday, and they were song they couldn't be here in attendance, but -- because it is kind of a working day, and 9 o'clock, they couldn't come, but they wanted you to know that they would have been here if they could have. So there's been a lot of public involvement on this and, as I said, in the LDC amendment, both support and opposition to the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question. It was very comprehensive in terms of recording and providing to us the comments, and I don't know the addresses of all the people that were at the meeting or that commented, but did you have folks from other areas zoned agricultural, for example, that commented pro or con? It seems to me that most of the comments were from Estates people. MS. CILEK: Yes. That's a really good question. I would say that the majority of people who did come were from the Estates because it was sort of requested by an Estates community person that it was really for the Estates community because they were the ones that were coming forward asking for the reconsideration. It wasn't as publicized to the agricultural community; however, it was in the paper. There was a little blurb in the paper notifying people of the meeting as well as there were signs that were on several of the arterial roads in the county. And so people, you know, coming in forth (sic) both to the Estates and the rural agricultural area would have been, you know, in somewhat of a "know" of what was going on. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, that was my concern, if there was enough publicity given to other areas of the county that it -- had people wanted to comment pro or con. MS. CILEK: Right. And I will say there's, you know, always more you can do, but this meeting on June 13th received more publicity than we've ever had for another LDC amendment, and we got really good feedback saying, you know, more of these meetings should be held. They really liked the open dialogue between the community members about it. So I got some feedback, like, we need more of these, which was nice -- which was nice. But I would say that you know, the combination of the signs on the arterial roads, the newspaper, and then the emails to the community members in the Estates from their specific organizations as well as mine, that was -- it was a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice that in the changes you have -- and they're on Page 4. First of all, you added a definition, which I think is a good idea. And on Page 4, under B you talk -- you added the zoning limitations to lots that meet the minimum lot size and lot requirements provided in 4.02.01, E you Page 14 of 45 July 19, 2012 have 480 feet per container, and then you also talked and limited it -- no vertical stacking, and then you required screening for all these units; is that correct? MS. CILEK: Yes. And I can tell you sort of what replaced what was here before and why we replaced it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can see it. MS. CILEK: Under -- oh, but, you know, why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: For B we had conforming lots of record, and we just wanted to be really clear what that meant, so just meeting the lot requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'll be conforming lots of record, not nonconforming lots? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And we just had 480 square feet, period, and then we really wanted to make sure that it was per container. MR. BELLOWS: Because in ag you can have more. MS. CILEK: Right, exactly. We just had stacking before. We wanted to make sure that meant vertical stacking. And the screening was just highlighted because -- and the -- F2 has not actually changed. I highlighted that simply to show that that was still a part of it -- part of the Amendment IV, commercial and industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've talked -- I've had phone calls with some people in the Estates, and they were concerned that -- they were under the impression that the original process that had already occurred here, when there was nobody in the audience to discuss this with us, did not require the screening in the Estates. Does this language -- it appears it does require screening if it's in the Estates, or it does not? Yes or no? MS. CILEK: It does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you omit the Estates from the screening requirement? MS. CILEK: Because other accessory structures do not require -- do not currently have a screening requirement, so there would be -- other sheds do not require a type of screening, and then a portable storage container would. Now, it's up -- that's a really good discussion topic to have. I mean, coming forward, this amendment does not have screening for the Estates, but that was something that the community did talk about, and so it would be a good discussion to have whether you would Iike to add that to this amendment for the Estates community. But the reason behind it was because it is not required for other accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The difference here, though, is when you create another accessory structure like a shed, it's usually done with a building permit, and it has certain styles to it. Storage containers look like industrial storage containers. So the act of having a screening in a community like the Estates to avoid that appearance, I think, is more logical than requiring it in an industrial/commercial or even an industrial or a commercial center. So I think that the screening part of it should be considered for the Estates as well as part of this. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that it's been pointed out and I understand now why there were concerns from the residences. I had not -- personally, I did not catch that the first go- round, so I'm glad it was pointed out. The second thing I notice is you talk about temporary permits for these storage containers are allowed in other parts of the county. Would this eliminate the ability for the Estates to have a temporary storage container? Because say someone's rebuilding their home and they need to move stuff in. So they could always come in and still get a temporary one. MS. CILEK: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that's reserved, because those are handy for that purpose alone. MS. CILEK: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I'm sorry I missed my opportunity the first time around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you can't talk again. Sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. On Page 2, one, two -- third paragraph, you speak to the letter. We're talking about residential here, and you speak to the letter dated October 2, 2003, from the zoning director, Page 15 of 45 July 19, 2012 which would cover residential structures on a temporary basis. Why would you not have included the specifications or restrictions, if you will, from that memorandum in this LDC rather than have to -- someone would have to go find this letter to see what was specified? MS. CILEK: Well, this is a letter -- Ray, do you want to speak to that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe that has already been incorporated into the LDC as part of the temporary allowance for PODS or for the remodeling of homes and things like that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In another section of the LDC -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that I'm not looking at? MR. BELLOWS: The temporary-use section, yeah. MS. CILEK: The one that Mark was just speaking of, you know, would residents in the Estates district continue to be able to use them for temporary structures? Yes. And that is what that was speaking to. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. On Page 4, one more question. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item C, talking about setbacks, one, two, three, four -- fifth line down, third word in. Would it be more appropriate to put "containers" rather than "structures," since we're talking about containers? MS. CILEK: This is actually saying if you -- I'm going to read the whole sentence just to put it in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but isn't the purpose of the paragraph, though, to make sure that a container is still separated from not only another container, but also anything considered a structure? And since it is a structure, it automatically applies, then, to containers and structures. I think that's what they were getting at. Is that -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If that's clear to everyone. MS. CILEK: Yes. We're saying its like a principal structure. It's similar in the way that the setbacks need to be applied, so we're just comparing it to the principal structure. So we're not comparing it to the -- a container. MR. BELLOWS: Or other accessory structures. MS. CILEK: Or other accessory structures. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MS. CILEK: Because a principal structure has different setback requirements. It's a comparison. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I accept what you're saying, but you added a lot of -- MS. CILEK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- supplemental definitions here that are not in the printed form. MS. CILEK: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill and then Brad. COMMISSIONER VONIER: To the definitions, you mentioned that the containers have some wood. Is the bottom steel or wood? MS. CILEK: From what I understand, it can be either steel floor or wood floor. COMMISSIONER VONIER: That would make a -- that would make a big difference in how you mounted or how -- the foundation that you put underneath it. Wood doesn't do very well in this climate. MS. CILEK: Understood. So that would be addressed through the permitting process, I believe, whether -- you know, what type of structure it was and what kind of floor it had and what would be closest to the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any venting or openings, all the rest of that goes through the building permit process? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and that's kind of -- one of the questions is, what are you expecting from the building permit? Somebody wants to install one of these. What will they be providing to the county? MS. CILEK: The process would be to apply for a building permit, and most likely it would be a tie - down -type permit, and the structural -- or the reviewers for the building permit would make sure it was meeting -- if it had any FEMA requirements, setback requirements, you know, they would look at the type of construction it was, and that it was -- if the manufacturer's standards weren't supplied with it, to ensure that it would meet all of the necessary building -- wind requirements, wind loads, all that, then they would -- that the engineer of record or the Page 16 of 45 July 19, 2012 architect that is signing off on it has done their job, and due diligence, make sure the structure isn't going to move. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there will be -- you know, because it would only take about 30 pounds to roll one of these over, which would be available on a single -story building. So there will be a tie -down or a foundation -type tie -down? MS. CILEK: Yes. It will go through the building permit process, and they will ensure that it needs (sic) what it requires. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The wood floor, Bill's right, it would decay except for the fact that there must be some nasty wood treatments put on that material to exist out in the ocean like they do. Is anybody going to be checking for what that is, or is that part of the process or -- MS. CILEK: I'm not familiar if that would be part of the process or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be part of the building permit review, wouldn't it? MS. CILEK: I would think it would be, but it's not a conversation I've had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we should check because there may be some treatments on that that we wouldn't want laying on our ground. The setbacks, you describe it as the container shall be placed in the rear of the principal structure, so that means the principal structure -- this thing is behind the back wall of the principal structure. MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not behind the front face of it. It's -- when you say in the rear -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this other sentence that says no container shall be located closer to the abutting road than the principal structure, I mean, that could never occur if it's also behind it, so -- MS. CILEK: I believe that is for a corner lot or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, these sentences are all in the same paragraph, so that doesn't necessarily mean it's only for the corner lot. And the -- what are you expecting with the minimum separation requirements? The Florida Fire Prevention Code doesn't cover single - family buildings, so there won't be one there. And the Florida Building Code residential, not the other building code, is the only one, and there is no real requirement there. So why was that put in there? What does that mean? MS. CILEK: Because this LDC amendment also covers portable storage containers in commercial/industrial districts, so we'd need to ensure that those minimum requirements are met in those areas as well. So it may not apply to residential, but it may apply to other areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would then; you're right. Okay. The 480 feet, where is that coming from? Because that's a 60 -foot container. That's -- I don't know what road system that's going to come down, but -- MS. CILEK: I think it's a 48- by -10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A 10- foot -wide container? COMMISSIONER VONIER: No, they're 8. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I couldn't find any. MS. CILEK: Eight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the research I did on containers never came up with that, but -- but did somebody say they would like to? I mean, that's what they -- MS. CILEK: I think this came from -- MR. BELLOWS: Standard sizes. MS. CILEK: We looked at the standard sizes of industrial shipping containers -- MR. BELLOWS: That was the largest one. MS. CILEK: -- and that was, yeah, the largest one that was out there. MR. BELLOWS: That was the maximum, overseas shipping. MS. CILEK: There's one even larger, actually. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me see. That's good. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have a question. Page 17 of 45 July 19, 2012 Caroline, you know, with -- could you have them put down like a cement place to hold this? You do that for your pool heaters and stuff. But that would make a good ground base so you don't have to worry about the wood. And what is the normal size of the containers? I heard you just say 10 feet tall. MS. CILEK: It's actually been a week or so since I've reviewed the sizing. But they range. I mean, they can be many different sizes, because there are many different types of containers, and this would allow anything from a PODS type one -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was thinking of is a PODS type. MS. CILEK: -- you know, to an industrial shipping container. So there's a large spectrum of what sizes -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you've limited to 8 feet. So they can't have a taller one? MS. CILEK: Correct. It's at -- the limit for height is at 8 feet for a -- I think for all of them. That's all zoning districts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because when you said there's all different sizes, they can only put in a certain size then. MS. CILEK: Well, I think the -- and I'm speaking without looking at the specifications for the sizes, but I do believe most of them are at 8 feet in height. But the area, the floor area would be different for different types, industrial shipping containers versus portable storage containers. I don't have the specs in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I think it boils down to is they can't exceed 8 feet in height -- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or 400 square feet in area unless they go to an SDP, and then they can only go to 480. So no matter what the configuration is, whether it's a triangle, octagon, square, or rectangle, 400 square feet is it unless you want to go to 4 -- another 80 feet with an SDP, which becomes more problematic and costly. So I think that's pretty discouraging. MS. CILEK: You --yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the staff? Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mentioned to Ray, but I think you need a little bit more input on temporary versus permanent, because I'm not really clear reading this LDC amendment when its considered permanent. MS. CILEK: A permanent would be -- would come in for a building permit and would get approved by a certified engineer of record or an architect. Temporary-use permit, most likely, is used when there's construction going on, so the construction company would get a temporary -use permit for a specific amount of time. I think it's up to a couple weeks. MR. BELLOWS: I can verify that, but that sounds about right. MS. CILEK: So there are two different types of permits that would be supplied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what Heidi's trying to say is that somewhere in here we ought to indicate that this process is for a permanent storage container -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whereas if they want a temporary storage container, we refer to the other section of the code. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And we can add that to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would clarify her concern. And that's the same concern -- that's why -- that's why I had my question. I didn't read it that way either, so -- okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the public speakers. I know we have people here to speak. If you'll please come up and identify yourself on the microphone and let us know what your thoughts are. MS. ELLIS: I want to show you a picture of the storage container. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Use that mike and try to put it on the overhead. Ray will help you. MS. ELLIS: Okay. Or you could just pass my phone down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, the problem we have is we've got to keep -- we've got to keep -- I guess it's kind of like evidence. We don't want to keep your phone. MS. ELLIS: Oh, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a better phone than I have. Let me keep that phone. MS. ELLIS: Can you see that? I just thought of that when you were asking about the size and what have Page 18 of 45 July 19, 2012 you. My name is Kim Ellis, by the way. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I work in the community, and I think I'm a typical resident. Been there quite some time but in Collier County since the'70s and out in the Estates since the mid '80s. And, you know, I can't believe I'm here today discussing this or giving you input on this. I feel like we're moving backwards. I think when you're young and you buy a home and you're growing in your home with your family, you want to improve your neighborhood and your community and do whatever you can to, you know, improve where you live, and I think that this is -- that this being open for discussion in Golden Gate Estates is absolutely ridiculous. There are too many options available to everybody out there with extra buildings. I mean, sheds. What is the purpose? You know, I did just happen to take that. Diane Ebert, I wanted you to see what those look like. That's the storage container we're speaking of That one happens to be on a construction site off of Airport Road. But screening isn't going to hide it, vegetation isn't going to hide it, and I -- I just don't think it can be regulated. I mean, they dug one out of the -- they probably haven't even dug that one up that the Sheriffs Department found as a grow house out in the Estates. It was buried, and it was being used for a grow house. I think that they're going to become dangerous. They'll rust. I mean, who's going to take care of them, or how are you going to regulate it? I mean, I just have so much I could say, but I think you know where I'm coming from. And, again -- oh, I'm the president of the Homeowners' Association of Golden Gate Estates, by the way, and I'm here on behalf of myself and my family. We really haven't had time to put this to our members for a vote or even to let them know about it. I mean, we did know about that meeting June 13th, but we haven't had an association meeting since then. You know, that happens a lot, too. We just feel like we don't find out about things -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Until it's too late. MS. ELLIS: -- until it's too late. I can't believe this has gone as far as it has, to be honest. And one question I have that I would really like to be considered is, could you take the Estates out of that amendment? We're not agricultural. We love horses. We love dogs. We love cats, birds, I mean, even potbelly pigs, but I don't think they're allowed there. I'm not sure. But you know, we don't -- this doesn't belong in our back -- I mean, can you imagine driving down Oaks Boulevard and seeing that on a corner lot in somebody's backyard? I don't know why we're here. I don't know how this happened. It's just devastating, seriously. I think you get my point. I could go on all day, but I won't, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ELLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next public speaker? Peter? MR. GADDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Pm Peter Gaddy for -- president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. We also have not had a meeting, you know, since we found out about this, so we really have not had an opportunity to vet it with our members. That being said, I want to congratulate Caroline for having conducted one of the finest public meetings I've ever seen. I think she should be in charge of all the county's public meetings. As she indicated, it was a very contentious issue. My guess is about -- probably about 55 percent of the people were opposed to it; 45 percent of the people were in favor of it. I haven't seen a meeting that contentious in Golden Gate Estates since the stupid Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us your true opinion of that road extension, will you, Peter. MR. GADDY: Oh -- well, too many ladies present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- I understand. MR. GADDY: But you know, I think Kim puts it in a nutshell. I mean, the plain fact of the matter is is these things can be ugly. That being said, if you have a screening requirement and the screening requirement is enforceable, I think that takes away a lot of the objection. I think the main concern that a lot of people have is that this could adversely affect property values. There was some anecdotal stories told by a couple of real estate people where they have a $500,000 house Page 19 of 45 July 19, 2012 and they can't -- you know, the people love the house, and then they look out the window and they see the storage container next door. MS. ELLIS: That was me, Peter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you're not allowed to speak from the audience, so you'll have to use the mike. MS. ELLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Peter? MR. GADDY: Yeah. So, you know, it's a serious concern, and I really don't have, you know, a complete answer. But I want to tip you off about something, and that's something that Caroline put together for the meeting. She put together a map showing where Estates zoning exists within Collier County. There were no people from North Naples; there were no people from East Naples at the public meeting as far as I'm aware. I didn't see anyone. These storage -- you know, Estates zoning extends far beyond Golden Gate Estates, and it extends into metropolitan Collier. So I'm not sure what kind of reaction, you know, the residents in those areas of the county would have for one of these storage containers being installed. You know, along Pine Ridge Road or Goodlette Road, I'm not sure that residents there would be as tolerant of these kind of containers as the people in Golden Gate Estates would be. But if -- I would defmitely be opposed to this if there were no amendment specifically requiring screening. But one of my concerns about that -- and I'd like to ask Mr. Bellows about that -- is, is this going to be an enforceable screening criteria? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, definitely. If it's in the Land Development Code as a criteria to be provided before somebody could get a CO for the structure or the container to be placed on a lot, it will be inspected by county staff. And if there's a landscaping requirement or buffer or screening requirement, that would be inspected, and then all that has to be in place before the -- it would be issued a final certificate, or CO. MR. GADDY: Is there a -- you say it says screening. What does screening mean? Is that -- are we talking about vegetative screening? Are we talking about fencing? MS. CIL,EK: It could be a combination of either. It could be vegetative, so shrubs, bushes around the container or fencing or a combination thereof. MR. GADDY: Is there any height limitation on fencing in the Estates? MR. BELLOWS: No. The Estates doesn't have a maximum height limit on the fence. MR. GADDY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're looking for is the opacity requirement if it's vegetation, and that's important. And if it's a fence, a requirement that the fence makes sure the screening covers the entire structure, meaning full sized. Instead of 6 -foot fence with an 8 -foot structure, that wouldn't work. But also something that is -- and I -- when I was reading this stuff, I was first surprised that the issue's even come up for the Estates for a different reason than Ms. Ellis's. Mine is that -- I'm from the old school out there. A lot of people moved out there because it was more agricultural than it was residential. And we didn't -- nobody seemed too concerned about these things. But having seen her picture, I now think I understand better why there is a concern. The picture does say in a thousand words what we couldn't say otherwise. And so I do see, now, more of a need to regulate these. And so I think as even -- we'd have to understand the screening part of this much better than the way it's just written in here now to the opacity, the size, and the requirements. I think that would be an important factor because, like anything that's not good looking, it can be screened. If it's screened, it kind of takes it away. But at the same time when you've got -- I think the -- if it's 400 feet, we're looking at a 10- by -40. So 40 feet long. The picture kind of made that sink in. Why are we letting them -- why are we suggesting 40 feet long for a container is acceptable? Is there -- I mean, on a temporary basis when you move your furniture in it, it makes more sense because you're trying to get your house rebuilt or whatever you're trying to do. But why would anybody need a 40 -foot -long storage container on their property for permanent? I mean, I'm just trying to understand that. I mean, if you need a small one for your landscaping or for your mower or whatever else you're going to put in there for a little shop or something. But, my goodness, 40 feet, that's a long container. Page 20 of 45 July 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Another building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just so I understand, as currently drafted, is screening a requirement -- would be -- would screening be a requirement for the Estates? MS. ClLEK: Currently, no. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Currently, no. Okay. I just wanted to be sure of that. MS. CILEK: Currently it's only provided for commercial and industrial. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Because that's what we -- MS. CILEK: And that's kind of why I highlighted it. It wasn't a change, but I wanted to draw attention to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's kind of -- why would you want it in industrial? I mean, industrial kind of looks like this. It might be the nicest part of it. But the -- I mean, you've got it behind the building also in industrial, correct? And so I don't think it's necessary there. MS. CILEK: If you look at the last sentence, it says containers in industrial zoning districts that are located more than 200 feet from property line are not required to provide screening. So we are saying those that are more off the beaten path are not to provide it, and this screening measure comes from another area in the code. I believe it's for COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 200 feet, I mean, these lots rarely will ever hit that. So -- I think if you made the 200 feet from a commercial zoning or anything other than an industrial zoning district, that starts to make sense, but 200 feet from a property line doesn't. Because lots -- they're not all that big, those lots. You would never get it. So -- but, again, you know, why do we have it for industrial, and why wouldn't we want it -- let's take an Estates lot. It's got 30 -foot setbacks, 75 in the back, so 150 feet away from your neighbor in the back, 60 feet away. You're going to see it sideways, and it's a storage container. First of all, they're not new storage containers. These are -- when their life is gone on the shipping, they're all banged up and rusty; that's when you get to buy them for your house. And they're going to decay. I mean, they're going to look the best the first day you put it down. Most of them are -- or some of them are Corten steel which will decay into nothing. So why aren't we hiding these in the residential areas? MS. CILEK: Well, we certainly can make that recommendation. We heard a lot of discussion at the community meeting to do that. I wanted to wait to talk -- have the board discuss that and that recommendation come from you following the community meeting, and that's really why it isn't in there right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the word "screening," is that something that's defined in the code? In other words, there could be a 9- foot -6 box. How do you screen it? What do you think? Do you grow vines on it? Do you -- MS. CILEK: That might deteriorate it further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you build a fence in front of it? Do you, you know, put a movie screen around it? I mean, what do you do? MS. CILEK: Well, currently this provision comes from another section of the code that provides for screens, so this is what we went with because it is the standard. If we wanted to create a new type of screening just for portable storage containers, that research would need to be done to find out if any -- you need to talk to the landscape architects on staff to find out, like, what capacity types of fences -- you know, we don't allow for -- well, I don't know about the Estates, actually, but fence restrictions may be applied, and the type of material used as well, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's -- the other parts of the code have, like, 6 -foot screening can't be -- there's a certain amount of transparency you can have. But this would be a big piece. The smallest one's eight feet. So I mean, you're talking pretty expensive materials to screen it. So you add the screening if its there, which it should be, and you add the cost of the container and the delivery -- and, by the way, the reason people drop them in the front yard -- if you saw the trucks that deliver these things, you know, you're not going to go scooting around the corner of the house with it. So you would be better off building the building, the conventional building, building a shed. It's the elimination of the screening that makes this a cheap thing, but it's the elimination of the screening that makes it look cheap to the neighborhood. Page 21 of 45 July 19, 2012 Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. I'm referring to Page 4 of the minutes of one of the meetings, Ray, and this is -- I'm addressing this to you because they're both your comments. First, there was an indication that the county had permitted these in the past. And your comment was that that was true, but it was stopped. Why was it stopped? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Peter, I haven't forgotten you didn't finish. So as soon as we finish with this sidebar, we'll get back to you. MR. GADDY: I have another 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to lunch, sir. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm not 100 percent sure why the -- for the reason why it was stopped other than it may be due to the fact that it was inconsistently applied originally, what is the structure, and can you get a tie -down permit and call that a structure, and I think there was some confusion on that, and we stopped doing it until we clarified that a little bit more. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Now, does that relate to the paragraph above that refers to code enforcement received complaints about storage containers and asked the Board of County Commissioners for direction? What were the complaints? MR. BELLOWS: I believe the complaints were that there were some -- these POD units out there, and some of them were done without any kind of tie -down permit. Some were there legally because they were through a time when the county did allow for them with the tie -down permit. But as they were increasingly being used in the Estates, it became a bigger code enforcement issue which necessitated or resulted in code enforcement bringing an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners seeking direction, and the board directed staff to prepare this amendment. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I want to talk more about code enforcement, but I'd rather let Peter finish. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What's wrong with a Ted shed? I mean, I really don't go along with the containers either, because I know what they do. They have some very nice Ted sheds that you can put on. I would -- and if anything, I think it should go back again. So, I mean, Peter, would you -- would you require a couple more meetings on this? I mean, this is not something that has to be put in place by the September meeting, does it? Does this have to be put in place, Mark, by the September meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but here's -- and you're getting to a point where I eventually was going to get to with staff. Peter and Ms. Ellis have both expressed concerns that their associations may not have fully vetted this at one of their meetings where they took a vote. It has been on the books for a while. We all know that. I don't know what the reasons are why it wasn't brought up previously, but it would -- may benefit this board to provide time for these two associations to meet and actually take a vote and the request that at least a county staff member attend that meeting to verify that the vote was taken and counted properly. And I don't mean by secret ballot, but just somebody acknowledges that the count was closely accurate, and then bring that information back to us so we can get a feel on how the Estates residents who participate in the community feel about this issue, and that may be one way to get a better feel for this. And, Peter, you had said that some -- what, a 45/55 split. I'd be kind of curious to see if that stays true with an open meeting. MR. GADDY: Sure. I'm sure Kim would be happy to do that. We'll do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to agree to defer this until such time, how much time would you need to be able to have a meeting in which you could discuss this where you could do exactly what we're talking about? MR. GADDY: We would have to give 30 days' notice to our members, which we could do, and probably do it at the October meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we were to schedule this sometime after October to be discussed by this board, you would have input to us from -- the best you could with your Estates residents; at the same time, it would make it clear that all residents could respond to this board by email or letters, too, so we'd have that in addition to your comments, and that might be a better way to vet this for this board's input for the community, but we also Page 22 of 45 July 19, 2012 ought to consider discussions we've had today to add to the language so when you take it to your board, it's got the best input that we could come up with to this point in time, and then hear what your people have got to say once they understand that there will be screening or -- assuming this board says that -- the screening will have a 100 percent opacity or it will be a solid fence so that it can't be seen. All that stuff will be on the table. And if the answer comes back from your groups and from the correspondence we received that says under no circumstances do we want it, period, none of this is acceptable, it's not needed, well, that's a lot of more valuable data for us to consider in our recommendations to the BCC. That might be a good way to go to get this off dead center. But, Peter -- Bill stopped talking for a moment so Peter could finish. So let's let him finish, and we'll go back to us. MR. GADDY: I don't have a whole lot to add to that, Mr. Strain. I think the board has picked up on the issues very -- you know, very fast here, and I think you understand it completely. Mr. Teaters, this morning at 5:45 a.m., I think he sent you an email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I got it at 5:46, so -- MR. GADDY: I missed it. I didn't see it till 6:00. So I don't know if you had a chance to distribute a copy to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was sent to all of us. At least the copy I saw on the government's site was sent to all of us, I believe. MR. GADDY: But I think it pretty well sums the issue up, and I would support his comments in that letter. And I thank the board for giving all the consideration they have to this matter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think we're going to be considering more, but let's go ahead. And, Paul, Bill, and Phil, in that order, please. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just have a question. When it is considered and vetted and talked about, if they could also think about what to do about grandfathering some of the ones -- or not grandfathering the ones that are objectionable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. Let me get back to code enforcement. There were a lot of comments made at these meetings you had relative to code enforcement, and I really would like to know what the history of code enforcement is with regard to the containers they had, and then I would like to see an outline of what code enforcement would do to enforce anything we put up there because there have -- there were comments about the fact that code enforcement couldn't get on the property if they had a no- trespassing sign, and there were other comments made that code enforcement said that they were -- they would view these from afar. Well, if they're screened, you can't do much viewing. So, my concern is, are they going to be enforced by code enforcement and how? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we even go there, if you're asking for a report and an outline, as I think you said, by the -- I have a feeling that this will be deferred through the conversation we're having so far today. So by the time we get this back, if code enforcement could respond to Bill's request by email to all of us so we could have that as background information prior to our neat meeting on this subject, which may be months off, that would give you guys time to put it together and compare your notes with the County Attorney's Office so everything's in order, and that might be an easier way to go than try to do it on the cuff here today. So it's up to you, though. MR. LETOURNEAU: That sounds good to me also. We'll put something together and work it with Ray, get his input, and then we'll send you on so you have something for the future meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to make sure you coordinate with the County Attorney's Office. Anything -- any time code enforcement moves into an issue that involves zoning, it's -- the particulars in that I want to make -- I'd love to make sure they're coordinated right with legal so we don't have any issues at all. So -- because I read some of this stuff, and the people were talking about we'll have it so that code enforcement could walk on the site and inspect these inside for -- see what articles are in there anytime they wanted to. Well, that's kind of an infringement on one's freedoms, rights, and I'm not sure that's the right way to go. But before we get into that, I'd like to make sure that the County Attorney's Office signs off on your analysis or summary. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sure. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Obviously, Page 23 of 45 July 19, 2012 we're bound, like everything else in our business, by the Fourth Amendment and, you know, the county's attorneys would definitely have some input on our summarizing this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That work for you, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You want to allow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After -- we're still responding to Peter's comments. I assume that's where you were going. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment that -- it looks like we're going to defer this to allow time for the associations to meet, and picking up on Peter's comment that there are other areas in the county that are zoned estates that could put this till we have significant input. I don't know what we can do to advertise to those folks or if there are associations that cover Estates zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are. There's, like, the Oaks -- like, the Oaks Advisory Board, Karl Fry. He'll be on record here somewhere. He's one of the people. There's a few people that have changed hands in that group, but that's a very good group to be in touch with. In East Naples just south of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, there's an area that's zoned Estates. I know there's a homeowners group in there. They've come before this group before. I think you can check all that. We have a registry of homeowners, and that's a good point. We might just want to notify them that this issue's coming up and get their collective input. But by establishing a date in November, we could ask that they provide that by the end of October, and that's a good idea. That would work. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would take care of it, if we can just let them know, and they'll have an opportunity to weigh in as well; otherwise, we might go back around again. MS. CILEK: Certainly. I can look into those civic associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would -- as thoroughly as we can vet this, I think that would be a much better way to move forward with it and -- or not. And I appreciate the efforts that Ms. Ellis and Mr. Gaddy had brought to us today. That picture was worth a thousand words. Thank you. MS. ELLIS: I'm so glad I took it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you want to say something on this matter? I know you're here for boat docks, too, but we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I did want to speak on this. Thank you very much. Donna Reed Caron, for the record. But Phil actually brought up the point I was going to make. I'm concerned about the rest of the estates zoned areas in the county. It's fine that Golden Gate has had a meeting, but the rest of the areas need to be more involved; otherwise, as you know, the outcry will come when the first container is plunked in somebody's yard and, you know, the proverbial "all hell will break loose." So I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good input, and having extra time in order to respond to this would give staff time to start notifying groups in other parts of the county that may look, as most people do -- and everybody talks about the Estates. They think east of 951. They don't realize there's estates all over Collier County. MS. CILEK: There is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that issue, too, what do we do with the industrial and commercial? Should we -- I mean, we can't notify every owner, but it would be nice if the press picked up this story and made sure that commercial property owners realize they're in the same boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the lady -- young lady that's smiling in the back, she must be with the press. So maybe that will get out in the story, and hopefully we'll get a lot more input on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Page 24 of 45 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- is there any other public speakers on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to suggest -- and then I'll turn to the board afterwards. I'll read what I -- first of all, I wanted -- I'd like to see this thing brought up to -- as far along as we could get it so that when we give it to these groups and everybody reads it, it's the best we could do at the time, so that's what we're actually considering is what they're considering. And that would mean that we need to add screening to the Estates areas, but we need to define what the screening is and its opacity requirements so that everybody knows what to expect. And then we need to write a clear explanation of what we're talking about, permanent versus temporary portables in this particular section of the code. And Brad's idea of reducing the screening requirement in the industrial area needs to be included somewhere, because that is a good idea, and maybe there's a better way to address it than just a blanket 200 feet in from any property line, because industrial alongside industrial alongside industrial in these industrial parks may not have the impact that we need to worry about so much. MR. BELLOWS: That's a good point and though -- some of these industrial districts do abut residential districts such as along J &C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a different animal. MR. BELLOWS: We receive a lot of complaints about incompatible -- residence deemed incompatible, but they are permitted industrial uses. So we will look at maybe proximity to residential -zoned property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, to help that, all you'd have to do is just take out the "from" and then scratch out "a property line" and replace it with "nonindustrial zoning," and that means that if you're 200 feet away from nonindustrial zoning, you buffer it. If you're more than that, don't worry about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the other caveat is that -- come back to us with a rewrite that -- and it's not one that we're going to air for recommendation. It's one we're simply going to say, yeah, this is as best we can do now. Let's get it to the various groups and have them come back with input on it. So that's the kind of review I think you can expect next from us. And that should be a quick turnaround. And then provide the time from now until the end of October for input of any kind we can get from anybody involved, any property owners, and you might go to the board of realtors because they would have -- and CBIA, all these groups are involved with properties, get their input, then in November we'll rehear this thing and try to bring it all together. Does that work with this board? Is everything I've said okay with this board? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to discuss one other issue, and that's the square footage. The building commission, we had a lot of problems with, you know, shed makers -- the Ted's Shed which, unfortunately, went out of business -- Ted's Shed and some of these other people with meeting the building code for door heights, travel distance, stuff like that, so it was determined that any building under 400 feet was exempt from that. That's also what you're proposing for SDP to not be required. So I would go to your -- the building department or suggest that you do limit the size of these to 400 feet. That's a 50 -foot container. The research I've done, there's nothing bigger. Knowing the limitations of transport on a highway, I can't see us really cutting people off from access to a container. So I would think that one of the wise things we might do to keep it out of code issues and to, you know -- I mean, any -- 50- foot's a huge container. Forty -five is the biggest one I've come up with my research anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, honestly, if this thing is structured the way we're talking about and you require screening around it, anybody could build a structure cheaper than they could screen one of these at 40 feet long. So in the end, hopefully the regulation, if it does come to pass, would end up self - prohibiting the bigger containers and would get it down. I mean, the 10- or 20 -foot container to help as a backyard utility container, it would be a lot easier to screen and it would be a lot less offensive. That 40 -foot is -- that's a monster container. The picture was impactful. So we ought to consider that, and maybe the groups will consider it when they review it as we get further along, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 400 feet, you do bring in after that some building -code issues about Page 25 of 45 July 19, 2012 hardware, crazy stuff that you don't want. So I would do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just striking the reference to the 480, limit it to less than 400 and be done with it as a way to present it to the Estates group, or to the various groups. Anybody else have any comments on this one? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Or we could still remove them being allowed in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I think before that's done -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is -- what we're trying to do is get the best language we can, if it's to be regulated. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go out to the various groups and publics throughout the county who are involved property owners and who may be involved in this, get their input back. If the input's coming back that the vast majority say, look it, this isn't -- we don't want it at all, then that's a decision this board can consider as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. We're not taking that off the table. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just trying to get it to a point where we can get better input on how it could be regulated if it was regulated. Maybe it would be possible. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because we're trying to keep the -- are there hundreds out there now, or a couple? MS. ELLIS: They're scattered, a few. I've been out there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you'll have to use the microphone. MS. ELLIS: I've been out there 25 -- 27 years, and I've seen a few. But I have seen them off of Pine Ridge Road. I am a real estate agent. I didn't bring that up before, because this is personal to me and it wasn't important. But your issue lends to that. I've shown a home on Pine Ridge Road, for example, a few months ago, and it had a storage container in the backyard of the next -door neighbor's property, and I believe that's what Peter was referring to when he spoke, because I mentioned that at the meeting, the other meeting, that people didn't want to have anything to do with that half -a- million - dollar home -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MS. ELLIS: -- because you could see the storage container in the backyard. But that's one I've seen. I've seen a few scattered here and there. I would say the ones -- I've seen 10 over 27 years. And they're -- so I don't think it would be that big a hurdle COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's not going to hurt anybody if they couldn't have them. MS. ELLIS: Exactly, exactly. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, these are -- to me, they're shipping containers, they're cargo containers; that's commercial. MS. ELLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't -- MS. ELLIS: Yeah. I think that you will -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You know -- and I've heard today -- I've heard it referred to here today as industrial shipping container. Why do you want them in a residential area? MS. ELLIS: Yeah. And they are huge, and they're ugly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't both be talking at the same time. MS. ELLIS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone has to stop while the other one -- MS. ELLIS: I just -- right, Pm sorry. I just wanted to say, something you brought up, too, made another point -- well, first of all, I think when we get the public input that we're looking for, you're going to see that the best thing to do is to just take the Estates out of the whole thing; take the Estates out of the equation. There's too many opportunities for crime. I mean, I'm not like going off the deep end here, but there was one Page 26 of 45 July 19, 2012 buried as a grow house. There's plenty of opportunity to cut windows out of them and use them for temporary residences for rental, extra income. Stuff like that happens when you can't -- you know, when there's one house on a street. It's just -- there's so many things. I get up here and I get nervous, but I just tell you that I think you're going to find that most people just don't want them, that you can take the Estates out of the equation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to get there, I think we need to -- MS. ELLIS: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- properly vet it like -- MS. ELLIS: I think it sounds vague. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've suggested. I'd rather make sure and not make an assumption, because the last time we voted, there was nobody in this room opposing this. We received nothing against it, so the assumption was it was acceptable. MS. ELLIS: It was okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is a complete turnaround. MS. ELLIS: Right. And on that point, Peter said he thought it was 55/45, 55 opposed and 45 for; I would agree, but I think some of the people that were for it were more for no more regulations. They didn't necessarily want a storage container; they just wanted government out of their lives kind of thing, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could stipulate that. No on the container, but no more regulation. MS. ELLIS: But that's the feeling I got, you know, because when I spoke, that's what people said back to me. Oh, you know, we just don't want any more rules. Well, there's rules, and they're to be followed, and it's all for good reason. But whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Well, I think the goal is to get the full community input, and I think we're on the right path to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, these existing containers, were they permitted? Were they permitted structures? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding from talking to code enforcement that some are legally grandfathered in. Some are -- were never legally permitted. They're just brought out there, and they would be subject to code enforcement and after - the -fact permitting if this amendment is approved. If this amendment is not approved, then they would have to be removed. But those that are legally grandfathered in could remain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what is -- the "legally grandfathered," they were permitted then? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because a structure is anything over 30 inches. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they've always been a structure in the eyes of the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, with the tie -down permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They actually came in with a drawing, calculations, and the building department signed off on it? MR. BELLOWS: With the tie -down permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they got a building permit and inspections. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they were allowed. MR. BELLOWS: At one time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did. I'm glad that we are letting this go forward so that you may bring this to everyone's attention. The other thing is, to me, because of our soil and everything, if this is ever done they should have to have a cement pad that they're placed on, because they will -- they'll do -- yeah. I would just -- Caroline, if you could just bring -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have a building code, and that would be a building code issue. So I think Page 27 of 45 July 19, 2012 we ought to just see what the code says and make sure we're compliant with the building code. I mean, we don't want to start rewriting the building code in the LDC, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we want to -- you know, we've got that already. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you look really anxious to say something. It's good to see you're not in a cast of some kind today. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That we can see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet, not yet. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. Commissioners, I just think it should be clear to you folks, as we listen in the back to the discussion, Peter's comments about it being divisive. We've gotten a lot of feedback from people in the Estates. It's true, when we have staff meetings to discuss these LDC amendments -- and it's a pretty open discussion -- I want to make sure that the Planning Commission understands, we're not advocating one way or another. The folks that are on one side that have these -- whether they were permitted or installed without permits -- feel strongly that they should be allowed the freedom of the Estates. There are other folks that have concerns. Surely, when you look across to your lot and you see a 40 -foot storage container -- and that picture is worth a thousand words when you look at it -- you don't want to see a rusted steel structure next to your newly landscaped backyard or your pool because, as you know, offsets in the Estates, one structure could be closer to the street and one behind it, what is the rear yard of one lot could be the side yard of another lot. So that is a concern with screening. The fact that you've asked us to come back to go work with the community, both what I would call urban Estates and rural Estates, makes a lot of sense, because everybody gets to understand what it is. But I want to make sure you understand that this is a problem that's evolved over time. Some people pulled permits in the'80s and'90s and early 2000 period to install these. The building official at the time made sure they were properly tied down, considered them structures, and allowed them to go forward. Other folks just had them dumped in their backyard. They just purchased one, let them drop. So you've got contingents that feel that they should be allowed to put these in and those folks that feel that they should be nowhere in sight of a residential zoning district. So I think for -- staffs perspective is we're trying to work with the community on both ends. So I think your recommendation, I want you to know, we agree with. It's a good opportunity to get some feedback from the urban and rural Estates. I think industrial owners are going to want these things, and I think sometimes it makes sense to have some storage in the back of an industrial lot to be able to put these down for a year or two. I know some of the packinghouses use them. So I think, giving us that direction, we're fine with coming back sometime in October after, you know, Peter has a scheduled Estates meeting is fine as well, too. But be very clear, we're not advocating one or the other. I think we're just getting a lot of feedback to make it work one way or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all the discussion I heard today, I don't think anybody assumed staff was advocating either way. In fact, I think with Caroline's presence here, she has done a fabulous job. So I'd think just the opposite. You've shown a strong propensity to work with both sides equally. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's no question on my part, and I'm not sure of anybody on this board. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good. I just wanted you to be clear. And Caroline has been a real welcome addition. She smiles to our staff. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: She's turning red. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And she'll be working on the LDC amendment with the Immokalee Mobile Home Housing Initiative, so if she survives that I think she -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that will be an easy one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else on the storage containers? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, we will see this in a redraft form before it would be Page 28 of 45 July 19, 2012 available for the meetings in October? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it will be just -- not for consideration to move forward to the BCC. Simply to make sure the direction we've given today was followed as closely as it could be, that it goes into the organizations, they meet. Sometime by the end of October, sometime in November or thereafter we will hear it when staff brings it back to us. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's take a break till 10:50 and come back and do the docks. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody please take your seats. Okay. The last item on today's agenda for LDC amendments is the dock facilities, 5.03.06 in your books. And this is another rendition with some refinements from our last discussion. And, Caroline, I'll let you go forward. MS. CIL,EK: Sure. At the last meeting we kind of left it looking at both the amendment -- we made some small tweaks, and I tried to relay those in the criteria revisions, and then we also had a discussion about looking at seagrasses. And I wanted to get direction on the boat -dock amendment on moving forward today as well as the seagrass issue and what the Planning Commission would like to see coming forward in the future in future cycles, and to look at the boat -dock amendment, back to that, and to see if there's any areas that you might want to see more -- see more compromise. Maybe we look at less of an extension out that would be approved administratively, see what areas would make the Planning Commission more comfortable, if that's an opportunity to keep it going, and if not, then direction to remove it from the cycle or to look at it through another administrative process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions to start off with? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have problem with the waterway definition only because in the Jaffe boat -dock amendment I thought the staff was a little creative in their waterway width. And a waterway width is a waterway width, and it doesn't change because a property is at a particular location. And those widths are as plotted or as shown on NOAA charts, marine charts. I don't know how you want to state it, but I would be very uncomfortable unless we defined how the staff was going to view the width of a waterway as it related to the boat dock. If you recall the Jaffe, that was a 100 -foot waterway, but the staff approved it because they said the house was -- or the dock was on the end of a waterway, and so their waterway width was 1,500 or 1,700 feet. That -- you know, the neighbors who all are abiding by a 100 -foot waterway couldn't see they couldn't have the same advantage. MS. CII,EK: Okay. Well, I will say that what he -- the criterion he's assessing is on Page 3. What I did, following Brad's comments, was put all the clean text first, so that's the bottom of Page 3, Criteria No. 4. And this is simply a reiteration of what is currently in the LDC. So we weren't really looking to change it in this amendment, and that wasn't something we had, you know, brought through any of the other advisory groups to look at. When you're looking at individual boat docks, you know, and how it's applied there, I'm not as familiar with, you know, looking at the Jaffe boat dock in relation to all of the boat docks as a whole in this criterion. It's something we could look at in the future, but for this amendment, since we're -- you know, that's one instance. This is, you know, trying to do -- provide a provision for all of them. I don't know if we'd be up for any serious changes to it at this point in time. But if it's something you want to recommend for the future, we could look at it that way. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, Ray, what do you use for -- when you analyze a boat -dock proposal, what do you look at for waterway width? Do you look at a NOAA chart? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that staff would use whatever resource is available to help determine the waterway width. It's not just one source. My understanding is they look at many different sources to verify information provided by the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what Bill's getting at, the Jaffe boat dock experience provided us with an anomaly in relationship to the way our code is interpreted. And maybe we ought to address those somehow in some of this language. Because at the end of a 100 - foot -wide waterway, because it's a long, long canal, to say that the waterway width -- because the perpendicular point in this particular item is 1,500 feet away, that's a little bit unfair of Page 29 of 45 July 19, 2012 an analysis if you really think about it, because at the end of a waterway you're pretty crammed in even to turn around with boat docks on boat sides of you. Now you've got three corners of a box covered with boat docks. I don't know what the solution is, but I believe that's where Bill's point is is that it's more about those anomalies and how do we catch them when they don't fit the criteria, when it's obvious there isn't 1,500 feet of really open waterway. It's a congested messy waterway full of a lot of other docks. And how do you really take that into consideration if the black- and -white text says he's got a 1,500- foot -wide waterway. So I think that's where he's coming from. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair statement, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. The waterway width that's on a chart you can't change because a house is located at a certain angle. I mean, that's crazy. MR. BELLOWS: No, I understand what you're saying, and there are other criteria that we would use in regards to the safety of navigation to take that into account. But you're right; there's a right way to measure the width, and you shouldn't be taking the length of a canal as your width. And that's something we can look at as a future amendment. But, certainly, I wouldn't have done it that way. And I think that when you look at the overall boat dock in relation to all the criteria, part of that would be -- is there's problems with navigation in regards to being at the end of a long canal. And then, like the Jaffe one, if you have to back in and out, there's some safety issues. And that's what I believe staff was trying to say with the particular angle of that dock; it would make more sense for that kind of a dock extension. But it should not have been referenced that the width is the length of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the width and length are two separate measurements. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the length cannot be the width. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The width should have been stated. It's a 100 - foot -wide canal. MR. BELLOWS: We can clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is at the end of the canal. And even though it's at the end of the canal, if it were along one of the sides, its depth is still no more than 25 percent of the width of the canal as it would have been measured had it been a side dock or something of that nature. I think that would make it plainer for us to understand because the unknowing eye just reading the text would say, my God, what's wrong with a 30 -foot dock on a 1,500- foot -wide body of water? So I believe that's where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I think it's a good idea that we eliminate some of this and let staff handle it. But I think -- I'm just concerned that the rules are pretty clear. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we don't want to have language that would allow for that kind of confusion. And certainly tweaking the language to define what is a lot or water width, how that is defined, that shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's consider -- I think Phil was next, though. So, Bill, Phil, and then -- Bill, are you finished? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Could you go to Page 5. I'd like to work with the strikethrough underline because it shows, to me anyway, what was there -- what exists today and what you're proposing to change. Starting on Page 5, under Item No. 1 -- excuse me. You're adding language that reads, in the second sentence, in that -- the facility and the conceptual dock layout. Why conceptual and why not actual dimensions? If you look at the applications for boat -dock extensions -- and we've seen some of them today -- you require a site plan showing dimensions. And I don't know how you define conceptual versus dimensioned plan. But to me that's a door that could be open and say, well, this is conceptual. You can't hold me to it. Comment? MS. CILEK: Go ahead. Page 30 of 45 July 19, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, when we were reviewing this language, we're talking about proposed or conceptual. These are plans, and they're being brought to the Planning Commission as a conceptual plan, and they're not finalized until after the Planning Commission makes a decision. But would proposed dock -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, all I'm saying, Ray, is it -- that language conflicts, at least in my mind, with your application for a boat -dock extension which says -- which requires a site plan showing dimensions. If somehow you could be more specific with the word "conceptual," I'd be more comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think "proposed" would suit your needs, too -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because that means you're proposing it subject to approval, so that probably would clarify it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Proposed with dimensions or -- I mean, take the conflict away, and I'd be comfortable. MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's -- yeah, that would help. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The next sentence, we're still on Page 5, Item 1, envelope the facility. Envelope? To me that's vague. MS. CILEK: Okay. We actually reviewed this with the Planning Commission many meetings ago, this sentence. And one of the reasons why we have maximum square footage of the dock area is that we wanted to have a dock plan that would provide for any future changes that we made, and so that would encompass it. So it would just be the maximum that would be laid out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No problem. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm picking on the word "envelope." MS. CILEK: Envelope identifies the area where the boat would also be. So we want to know where they're going to be positioning their boat as well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could we say that? MS. CILEK: And so would it be the facility -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, my envelope may not be someone else's envelope. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think it's a derivative of the common term we use for building envelope when you have your setbacks. In this case, you'd have riparian lines and the extension. We ran a distance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you do a site plan, you lay out the building envelope. And by the building envelope you mean all the area you can build in -- within -- within the setbacks areas, and I think that's the envelope you're referring to here -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all the area you could potentially build into. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil wasn't here when we originally discussed that, because it was before his term started, so that was quite a while ago. MS. CILEK: Sony about that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you can delete the word "envelope," and then you should be okay, because we've defined the facility in a number of places as both the dock and the boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this isn't a definition of the facility. This is a definition of the area that the facility could be used in. The facility itself could be different than the envelope. I think that's what staffs trying to say. But what they're asking for is tell us what the potential envelope is, and your facility will fit somewhere within that envelope, and that's okay -- so I think -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we don't want to take it out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Could we go to the next page, please, under primary criteria, Item iii. Now, you deleted -- you completely deleted the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and substituted the present (sic) of one or more site conditions. Can you just tell me what Page 31 of 45 July 19, 2012 -- the rationale for why you deleted that entire formerly Item No. C. MS. CILEK: Sure. We removed adverse impact language because it was seen as being subjective, and we were trying to make this amendment more objective. So solid numbers, site conditions, things that we could measure. And we worked with the county attorney and, I believe earlier, with Planning Commission, and that was seen as language that would be subjective. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I hear you,but -- MR. BELLOWS: So we're replacing an objective -- a subjective criteria. What does that mean when you say "adverse impact "? And if you start putting specific numbers into the code throughout that provision, then it's easier to define what those impacts are. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The problem I'm having, Ray, is formerly you were addressing adverse impact on navigation as a secondary criteria, and I don't see in the proposed new language any reference to adverse effect on navigation. I see site conditions, reinforcement mangrove, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but historically if we've considered adverse impacts, I was just questioning why all of a sudden that's not viewed to be important. I would accept it's subjective. There's a lot of subjective things in this. MS. CILEK: Right. And we were asked to make this amendment more objective so that staff could administratively approve boat docks that met all of the criterion -- criteria. I would say that No. 5, the facility shall not obstruct the use of neighboring docks does get a little bit to making sure that other boat docks aren't being adversely impacted, but that does not get to the adverse impacts of the navigable waters. So they're different. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The former language said the facility should not intrude on any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic. And a navigable channel is pretty objective, and intruding on that channel is dimensional. I would think that's pretty objective. I'm just -- I'm throwing it out there. I'm not comfortable that we should remove all references to interfering with navigation. MS. CILEK: Well, if it's something that the Planning Commission wants to bring back that adverse - impact language -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm just offering my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the problem may be is on No. 3 you did -- when you struck some language there and you brought other new language in, you actually cited examples. Maybe within -- when you suggest the presence of one or more site conditions, maybe navigability is one of them that you just list there as one of them. Now all of a sudden then we know that site conditions related to navigability have to be thought about. I know you put it down on 5. MS. CILEK: Four is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four, I'm sorry, yeah. MS. CILEK: Yeah -- is really trying to get to the navigable. We definitely want to keep that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, maybe --well, then maybe you stress just make --just make that a little broader, that navigability overall will be a criteria that has to be considered for site conditions, not just the fact of 50 percent of the waterway, because I think where Phil's coming from and where this board has had problems in the past is closeness to an actual navigable channel, regardless of whether they're 25 or 50 percent of the waterway. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MS. CILEK: Okay. We could extend criteria for -- to include of -- because right now its just being maintained for navigability between dock facilities on either side of the waterway that -- it's, you know, very specific in how it is applied, but we could expand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- maybe "and navigability of the waterway," something to that -- just put that in there, and I think it covers -- it opens the door -- MS. CILEK: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for any issue we would have with that. MR. BELLOWS: Good comment. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 7 under little "i," formerly B, what is minimum dock area? How would you interpret minimum dock area if you're evaluating the criteria? MS. CILEK: Can you reference the criteria one more time for me. Page 32 of 45 July 19, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's on Page 7. And it's, really, formerly B -- MS. CILEK: Oh, little 'T" COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- now "i," little "i" -- MS. CILEK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- second sentence. You say the proposed dock facilities shall be limited to the minimum dock area and allow for reasonable and safe access. Minimum; what is minimum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you define that in the next sentence where it says reasonable deck width shall be considered up to 6 feet? MS. CILEK: It is very much connected to the next part of the criterion, the reasonable dock width, but there might be instances where a dock width may be -- may need to be larger for, you know, wheelchair access or something like that and may need to go beyond, so that's just allowing a little bit of leeway. But, mostly, they would be 6 feet in width. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I'm trying to put myself in the position of staff that would review these. MS. CILEK: These are very good questions. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And my minimum is not necessarily your minimum as an applicant, for example, and that's what I'm picking at. MS. CILEK: Well, I guess the question is, is it clear that the minimum would be seen as what is reasonable with a -- with few exceptions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if staff felt that the minimum presented wasn't reasonable, you'd have no -- you could just automatically move it and say, look it, this isn't going to be done administratively. MS. CILEK: Exactly. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess it's a level of comfort from your perspective, too, is if you're -- if something's being asked for that's beyond what you would consider reasonable, you don't have -- you have the ability to say we're not going to do this administratively. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Perhaps somebody comes in with a 15- foot -wide dock or whatever, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. They'd say, look it, this is beyond what we've seen in the past and it's not typical. We're going to move this to the Planning Commission. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I'm just going through herewith an eye as to openings that perhaps should be closed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree. I just want to make sure that the communication between what staffs nodding their head and what you're saying is clear, and sometimes -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just want to make -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think we're probably going to see this again, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be with us for the next 15 years. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can we drop down to Item iii. And, again, formerly D was completed completely, and that referenced a major impact on the waterfront view on neighboring waterfront property owners. That entire criteria is now struck and substituted with a criteria that doesn't address waterfront view whatsoever. MS. CILEK: Are you saying little iii? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Three -- yes. MS. CILEK: Well, looking at D, the original D, and saying that you don't want to have a major impact on the waterfront view shed, basically -- and little iii is trying to get so that the mass of the boat dock is centered on an individual's property so that it's not on the side and it's not interfering as much as possible with those view sheds. So it's centered, and they're the ones who have it in their view shed, not their other -- not their neighbors. So it -- the direction is really to help with the view shed, but it is to center it behind that person's lot. MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add, it goes away from a subjective criteria, what is an impact on the view to forcing a setback requirement. The further out you go, the more you have to set back from the riparian line. So the Page 33 of 45 July 19, 2012 idea is getting away from what is a view impact to forcing the property owner to build in the middle of the lot. Because the further he goes out with his dock, the more you would typically impact the view corridor, but that forces that to go more into the middle of the lot. That's the reason -- the rationale behind that particular change. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What comes immediately to my mind is our deliberations on the Dunes and the impact at least on the part of some of the commissioners of the view -- waterway view from across the waterway looking at a boat dock that extended for -- I forget the exact dimensions, but for a long ways. And that was a consideration -- I think, a key -- one of the key considerations of this commission, and now I'm seeing proposed language that removes it from any consideration, yours or ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the view of a dock is generally referenced from the property itself -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to protect a view of someone who's looking across a spanse of open space that could go on for miles isn't part of the criteria that we've ever applied. It's really -- and I didn't have that concern. The view of those people across the waterway in those condos looking down at the Dunes docks had no more right to that view than the view people behind the Dunes docks looking at them had been destroyed by them building their condos there. So I think we have to limit the view to the adjoining properties and judge it based on that, because if we go to a wide panorama view as a protective right, we've got a whole'nother ballgame we need to get into on a lot of different subjects. Just as example, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And that -- I hear what you're saying, but neighboring waterfront property owners versus abutting, to me, has two different connotations as well. I take your point on abutting or adjacent, but neighboring does widen the panorama. Again, just a comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCI - FFER: This thing really does a good job, because this thing can take up to a 40 -foot extension to a 60 -foot dock. If they're out at that point, they're 27 and a half feet in on each side. I wish we were doing that on some of the past applications. So to fit in the administrative process, they're going to really be pulling these things in towards the center of the lot. And the Dunes would have to come before us anyway. It's a multifamily dock. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good point. I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple. Yeah, I do. Let's go to the clean version, Page 3, Hl. And I like the word "proposed dock." That's fine. That keeps it from being -- makes it more visible. I wouldn't mind adding after that -- where it states "dock layout," I wouldn't mind adding the words "with water depths." One of the things in reviewing these that I look at is the dock and how it's situated with the depth. On the application today, one of them showed the proposed dock with the depths; one of them didn't. Now, he showed the depths on another drawing, but I think the one drawing you're looking at should show that to see if they're reaching out further than they need for the --to get the depth they need. So I think --just add that. 213,1 would -- I'm a little uncomfortable with this, because it makes it sound like you have a threshold that would -- they have to get to a public hearing, and I think they should be able to go to a public hearing if they want it. So I would propose changing that to -- and I'll go down to where it says -- and for multifamily uses, maybe -- I would remove the word "approved." I would say "consider for approval" -- I guess don't remove the forward, just spell it differently -- "consider for approval by the Planning Commission," and I would drop the rest of that. So what that's saying is that, you know, you have the ability, if you can't make it in your process, to come before us. The good thing about that is it sheds the scorecard once and for all from us, which -- now, you've used it as a threshold, which means somebody may not have access to a public hearing, maybe through an appeal of your decision, but I would think that setting up something that provides a threshold to come before the Planning Commission essentially for a public hearing is not a good idea. MS. CILEK: I think the option for them to bypass administratively and come to the Planning Commission is a good one. I'm interested to hear from everyone what they think about dropping the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's read the whole thing. It says, extensions for single - family Page 34 of 45 July 19, 2012 residential uses that cannot be approved administratively and for multifamily residential uses, and I'd like to add "may be considered for approval by the Planning Commission." Bang. COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's clean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't like -- and, again, it does happily get rid of the scorecard, which we've never seen eye to eye on ever, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't you, though, by the way you've included four of the five primary and four of the five secondary saying by this paragraph that if someone doesn't even reach that minimum threshold, they don't even come before us because they haven't qualified to come before us? Is that what that says? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm asking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I don't like about it because you're denying people access to a public hearing because they don't meet your scorecard again. So let's dump the scorecard from the Planning Commission. You can enjoy it all you want. It's yours now. Have fun with it. But don't bring it up here anymore, you know. MS. CILEK: I mean, our scorecard is all criteria. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. CILEK: So they have to meet all of the criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. CILEK: And then if they -- they can choose. If they, you know, would rather -- they can meet all the criteria but they could want more, or they could have a really good reason for it, but staff doesn't feel comfortable approving it, so they would say, we'd like to go to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Here's what you're saying. You can't come play here unless you hit this score, and that's not right. MR. BELLOWS: No. What we're saying is that we were giving you some baseline criteria to recommend approval or denial on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't want that. MR. BELLOWS: What I'm hearing you saying is you don't want a baseline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We didn't to -- you've -- that's the argument we've always had, the scorecard. You know, the scorecard is wisecrack. You know, that's not a -- meaning anything. It's my way of saying it was never a -- you know, an ability to add things up and you win. But now that you can have that, to get access to the Planning Commission, the scorecard shouldn't be involved. MS. CILEK: I mean, it's an interesting concept. They could be both beneficial and harder for applicants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know the findings of fact we use for conditional uses or PUDs? MS. CILEK: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a look at the criteria as findings of fact as a not -- so it doesn't really become a scorecard. It becomes a basis on which we base our facts, we base our findings on. MR. BELLOWS: That's a good concept. I think we can explore that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's a little different, but it does match what we do in other parts of the code. So we don't have a scorecard in which we can -- someone could argue, well, we meet all the criteria. You've got to approve us. We really have an approval process based on findings of fact, and these are all the facts that we believe are the basis for the approval or denial. And we could -- we could elaborate on them just like we do with PUDs and conditional uses and the rest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, that's what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way it was worded, it said, in order for the Planning Commission to approve it, it had to meet — you know, in other words, so it really did set a minimum threshold of findings in these same criteria. These criteria will still be here for us to deal with, and I think it would be the criteria we use for an approval and any adjustments we make to it. Page 35 of 45 July 19, 2012 But I think -- first of all, you know, to have access based on a certain score is not a good idea, you know, based on the form of government we have. I mean, you don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought -- you guys ought to take a look at some of the alternatives and see if there's another way of approaching it. I do think there's a value in letting applicants know they have a potential for approval. MS. CILEK: I think so, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that may be why the primary and secondary criteria are important is that, you know, if you do qualify for four or five of these, you at least know you've got a shot at being approved. If you don't, you better figure out how to get there. So that is helpful to the property owner and applicant. But I don't necessarily completely disagree with Brad; it does hurt us. If we want to deny something for other reasons outside those criteria, it becomes a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because one of the things we've always done good with them is we really model and play with and adjust and mitigate, you know, the boat -dock extensions. We reduce it. We really work with it. So coming here is a wise thing if they're having trouble getting administrative. And I think anybody that seriously wanted their boat dock, even -- rather than even study the criteria, would be to come here and tell us why and what they're doing, and we could deny it or we could accept it. And it's usually recommended with the conditions that we put on it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I could just make a comment. I have some concerns if you do completely remove the four to five and four to six, or whatever the numbers are, because remember you're the final reviewer of these boat -dock extensions, and you've been delegated that authority to review that by the Board of County Commissioners. So if it becomes so discretionary, you may not be able to be delegated that authority anymore, and then it would have to be a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So I'll evaluate that with Caroline, but that's my concern with where we're going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you do, go back to the old wording and maybe make it better that in order for us to approve it -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they have to meet that. And that was like a minimum, and then we could go on beyond that. It got to be where the staff would say, look, they met the four out of the five, they win, bingo, they hit the score, and that's not what it was intended to be, I don't think. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that's a good point to clarify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is, the last page, 8, and it's "i," you refer -- if something happens beyond the specified limits, its determined administratively, and the section of code you quoted is the -- I believe, unless its been renumbered -- the standard for boat -lift canopies. MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat what line you're reading from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 13, it's Line No. -- 35 is the problem. Check that reference. When I looked it up on mine -- on MUNI code, it's a standard for boat -lift canopies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The very last line of the entire section. MS. CILEK: Oh, 5.03.06.G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. CILEK: Okay. I'll just look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It might not be what you want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before we go to public speakers, other than me? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a few points of clarification. And I like the strikethrough version, so -- or the underlined version. So let's go to Page 5, Hl. When you talk about -- it says plan requirements, requests for boat -dock facility extensions shall include a plan that illustrates the facility. Are you referring to the dock facility? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since that's a defined term, can we put "dock facility "? And the conceptual dock layout, are you referring to the -- which will be now "proposed dock layout," do you mean dock - facility layout or dock -- because you define dock and dock facility separately, and I caught that and thought, we better make sure we're talking about each one separately. Page 36 of 45 July 19, 2012 Then the next sentence, it says the facility envelope, I think you mean the dock - facility envelope, not just -- or the -- are we looking at dock -- yeah, the dock envelope, the dock - facility envelope. I'm suggesting, though, you insert the word "facility" wherever needed in those two sentences; that's all. If that's what you intend to mean. MS. CILEK: We can look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2A, dock - facility extensions for single - family uses shall satisfy all the criteria, then it talks about if the projection does not go beyond 40 feet into the waterway, provided a written objection is not received as provided in Section 5.03.06.H.5. I thought I mentioned this before, and you may have had a good reason not to do it, so I just need to be refreshed. My memory sometimes is not as good as it should be. I have a concern that if you've got a whole series of docks running in a line that everybody was satisfied that 35 feet works. Someone comes in because they can do administratively 40 feet, and this says that they can do 40 feet, they get 40 feet. Besides the criteria that you have here of 40 feet, it also should be that they're not out of alignment with their adjoining docks. And I think that's important. Same -- we do the same thing with the coastal construction setback line variances on high -rises along the beach. They have to be in line with the building next to them. They can't protrude out further. It's the same kind of criteria I'm suggesting we look at for No. 2 as an addition to make sure that we don't have an abnormal dock popping up in the middle of a row of docks without justification. MS. CILEK: Well, one question would be first, do you guys look at that? And I know this is different because it's administrative, but I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. I did today. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I drew lines between each one of the docks to make sure that if they -- if they're going to go out beyond it, I'd certainly look harder at it. I'm wondering why. If their neighbor could get by with this, why do they need more. MS. CILEK: Great. Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I look at it. I don't know if the rest do or not. But it's relevant to me. MS. CILEK: I like Brad's comment about including the water depth in the layout. And one thing would be that that needs to be comparable to, you know -- or make sense, be consistent with how far out the dock is reaching. So if that water depth, you know, is too deep and the dock is going out more than it needs to, that kind of triggers, like, why -- why are you going out that far? I think that one thing about bringing in the alignment of neighboring docks is that a lot of areas may be just -- there might be a lot of varying in the coastline, or it's more labor intensive to go out there. I'm just bringing up other concerns that that may bring along with it and see if just the -- including the water depth, making sure that that is appropriate for the protrusion of the dock -- would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I -- if the water depth and the neighbor's allows them to live with a 35 -foot extension but this guy wants 40 because instead of -- he's got a deeper -draft boat that he maybe doesn't need or he's going to back it in and put his motor in first, I don't know if that's criteria that staff should be reviewing or it should not come to us because there's justification for it. So that's all. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I like the idea. It's just --one of the things I was thinking is how much further out beyond the basically line -- the setback line, so to speak, do you want it to become a CCPC review; 10 feet, five feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the -- right now --well, first of all, I've got more to add to that as we get into this. But if someone's going out beyond the line of the adjoining docks, I think that needs to be considered by this board. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. But how much more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for you to want to consider it would be detrimental to you, because that's going to be like a thumb sticking out, and someone's going to say, well, why did staff do that? You're safer letting us take a look at it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't care what the criteria is as far as distance goes, but if they go beyond adjoining docks without - -1 don't think you guys should be handling it, because I think it will open you up to more criticism than you need. Page 37 of 45 July 19, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Is there a specific distance beyond that you have in mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't thought about it that way, Ray. I mean, if you guys want to take a look at some historical stuff and come back with a suggestion, I'm all for it. But I think you should consider that because I don't -- MR. BELLOWS: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to see staff in a position where you're criticized for making a decision you're allowed to make because of this, and it turns out -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we didn't think it out. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? And on that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you've got to be careful, because those are the dangerous docks; those are the ones that people don't see at night and hit and stuff. So you have to -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put criteria. Also, if they're going out to get greater depth, you have to really make sure the Manatee Protection Plan, whoever's reviewing this is aware of that, because like today when the guy said he had a troller he was putting in, that scared me, but somehow -- if a troller draws 18 inches, I didn't worry about it, but the trollers that I know, you know, are usually picking up oysters or something. But, you know, that's a pretty big boat. So you've got to be careful that you're not hurting, you know, the Manatee Protection Plan. What we did before is we've always figured four feet, and that gave them one foot underneath a three -foot draft, which kept the world safe out there. So you in -house are probably going to have to come up with some understanding with the industry on what is an appropriate lift dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6, under primary criteria, you talk about no more than two slips for single- family, and I don't disagree with that, but what's happened is certain dock submittal people -- I'm not going to talk about Rocky being in the audience for this. But the -- they tend to come in and now believe that if you can't have two slips it's a hardship. And I want to make sure that that isn't something that can be construed by being in the primary criteria. I'm just throwing that on the table for the county attorney to think about and for staff to think about. It's not -- I haven't got a suggested change to it. But we had two hardship cases come in, and both were because they couldn't have two slips. Well, okay. You got one. Why is not having two a hardship? I mean, three, maybe four, maybe five. Where do you stop? So it didn't seem like a hardship to me. And I want to make -- but staff approved it as a hardship, and somehow I think that needs to be understood, and that's why I'm pointing it out. If there's a way to clarify it, fine. If this doesn't open us up to anymore rulings on hardship than what we have had, that's fine, too. Number three, little iii, the third line, configuration or property riparian lines shall justify the proposed dimensions and location of a dock facility. That means that wherever those lines fall, the dock facility has to be within those lines and subject to those lines; is that right? Because I was thinking the word "shall" should be "may," but I don't think "may" is right now. I think "shall" is the way it belongs. So I'll drop that one. On No. 4, about the fourth line, or third line, there shall be a minimum of 50 percent of the width of the waterway maintained for navigability between dock facilities on either side of the waterway. Does that apply only to existing dock facilities? MS. CILEK: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I ask that is if -- say someone comes in, it fits them because the other guy hasn't build his dock yet. So it becomes first come, first serve. So do we need to make sure we consider not only the existing dock facilities but the potential dock facilities that could be built within the code as it stands, like the 20 foot? MS. CILEK: I actually would like to hear what Heidi suggests on that one, having considered future dock facilities and looking at the amendment. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I mean, I think we can address it with some language, and I'll work with Page 38 of 45 July 19, 2012 Caroline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- five is similar. The facilities shall not obstruct the use of neighboring docks. Is that existing neighboring docks or potential neighboring docks? And, again, I would have to fall back on what is standard criteria for what we would expect as the neighboring dock. So as long as we leave latitude for a neighbor not to be wiped out by the first come, first serve basis, if he's on the water, by another neighbor putting in their dock ahead of him, I think that protects everybody, if it's to minimum code. Now, if the guy comes in and he wants -- and the second guy coming wants an extraordinary dock, that's a whole different ballgame, and I don't think it's one we have to anticipate, so — and those are my questions, my comments. Thank you. Now we've got public speakers. Jeremy and Donna and Rocky. Who would -- ladies first; is that appropriate? No? I see the head shaking no. Oh, and while she's coming up, one other thing I'd like as a suggestion to consider. We have an administrative adjustment process that started -- it's kind of in limbo. You're going to get more input before it goes any further. Shouldn't we consider putting the administrative adjustments that are -- that could potentially be allowed for docks in that process so we don't have two separate processes? MS. CILEK: And that's a really good question. I'm glad you bring it up. I actually got some direction from Nick to put together all of the different administrative procedures we have in the code so they're under one process, one procedure. And so when that time comes to do that this will be one of those that goes in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So whatever is determined as to the process of the overall master administrative process, the dock process that could be subject to staff review becomes part of that process? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means -- well, that's a whole set of standards we haven't even seen yet. MS. CILEK: Future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to say that, because I believe you have some issues about that. MS. CARON: Yes. Donna Reed Caron for the record. Thanks for bringing up that point, because I did think that this was all coming back as a part of the overall administrative. And also, based on just what happened earlier with the container situation not going out to the community and just making these changes and making them administratively is not a really good way to go. For example, who came up with 40 feet and why was that? I mean, was there any real reason, or did that seem like a good thing or, you know, did Rocky have a 40- footer he wanted? I don't know. But that's not been vetted. It hasn't been vetted as far as I know with the people at Tunell. It hasn't been vetted -- certainly has not been vetted with the citizens, and I think that's always an important part, before you go making sweeping changes in people's lives, that you get their input, and you talk to them about it. I think that staff has worked really hard to try to get some solid criteria that they can work with, but I still have grave reservations. I just know that over the years this board has made incredible changes that have only made things better for the community, and I hate to see that go away. I want that maintained because there's not been any that haven't turned out better as a result of your work and your thoughts and your input. So I just hate to see it go just away to administrative. I think that putting things behind closed doors like that is not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the community as a whole. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Donna. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. One of the things that we liked about the way that this amendment went was that there was a defined set of criteria that we knew that we could expect an application would be required to meet. Maybe we're not necessarily Page 39 of 45 July 19, 2012 married to the idea that it, you know, needs to be that wording. Maybe if it morphs into a findings -of -fact situation or something like that, just as long as it continues to ensure to the public -- and I think that is also important to applicants, that they know what to expect when they go through the process. That's important to us. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. I have a solution. I can be the hearing officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? MR. SCOFIELD: I don't think Donna heard that one. No. I don't have too much problems with what was said this morning. We're going to be in session again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: All this stuffs going to be brought up. We're going to be at the table again. I would say one thing -- or a couple of things. We've been here before talking about this administrative hearing process, and then we start piling on things, and it gets very complicated, and then it's always falling apart. I hope it doesn't go that way this time, but you can almost feel that it could go that way. So its a very tough process that we're working through to try to get this stuff straightened out. And I'm -- you know, I'm all for going, you know, back to the drawing board and trying to get all this language right. I just hate to keep piling on more and more. And so we need to be careful about that. I took notes of what was said. I don't have too much problem. I think all this can be worked out; maybe, maybe not. You know, it always can wind up back here -- is a hearing process is -- which has happened in the past. So rather than go through the list of things that was discussed, we're going to be doing that anyway before it comes back to you, so I'll reserve my comments and we'll work through these problems and come up next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rocky, one of the important things I think that would happen is if this got put into the overall administrative adjustment process, then I think some of it would survive. And I think creating a self - standing process on its own for administrative approval for docks doesn't -- that's going to be -- to me that's a harder one to overcome. But if we have the right administrative adjustment process and this can fit into that process, like anything else in our code, it would apply. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, I think that if we look at what we just did with the storage containers and the controversy with those and approach the docks the same thing, this board will work out the best language it can with staff, we propose this language, then we put it out to the stakeholders involved, give them time to review it, get back to us, and then make a final decision after that's done, that would be a better, I think, way of approaching this, especially that -- there are interested parties that may not have had the opportunity to review the length and the dimensions. So I'm going to suggest that that's the approach we take, just like we did with the storage containers, and it gets us to a package that can go out, we can get final review on it from the groups, and then make a decision after all that input's received. It might take a little longer, but I think it would be a more thorough vetting, so -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I think if you go out to -- and I have no problem going out for public opinion. I think if you were to hold -- if this is going to be approached the way the container issue is going to be looked at and you have public workshops or whatever you have there, this probably would be debated forever and nothing come to a head, but -- in that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that scenario's not -- what you just described is not the scenario the storage containers are going. They're going back to the civic associations and the stakeholders involved specifically for them to provide us with any additional input they have on the final language that's drafted -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. And then come before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by October 30th. The same thing would occur here. With that additional input -- and I would hope we wouldn't have community members come up saying, this hasn't been vetted in our community. This hasn't been vetted in Port of the Islands. I bet you nobody in Port of the Islands knows this. They've got docks down there. Isles of Capri. I mean, I was going to try to facilitate a meeting with some of these people, but this whole thing got wrapped Page 40 of 45 July 19, 2012 up into a bigger discussion of administrative adjustments, so that didn't happen. But I think we can provide the time for that to happen. We can provide the incentive to staff. And if staff has language that's near final that's been fleshed out by us, when they go to these groups, they've got something more substantial to sink their teeth in by saying, well, this hasn't been reviewed by the Planning Commission yet. Well, yes, it has. Here's our suggestions. What do you think? That may be a more affirmative way to get an answer. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Rocky. Now, with that suggestion I just threw on the table -- MS. CILEK: I'm going to be busy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you are. Well, that's called job security. Nick said to make sure we provided -- he's got to have budget justification for you for next year, so we just created that. And he said a raise, too. MS. CILEK: Oh, really? I like that idea. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Promotion's in there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think then what we've boiled down to is a whole bunch of data we've just thrown at you with the suggestion that we look at this like we're looking at the storage containers. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that acceptable to this board? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, it is, but just to comment on this existing administrative adjustment process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There isn't one yet, but they're working on it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, I thought there was an overall county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. There's a package that we were considering that's now on the -- that's now on hold. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's gotten -- it's gotten more convoluted than anybody anticipated, so I think, administratively, Nick and others are trying to figure out okay, what can we propose that will try to make this a little bit easier. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting this get put into that once it's all figured out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I had misunderstood. I thought there was a preexisting administrative adjusted process that this would potentially fit into -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and I have no appreciation for any existing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some administrative allowances right now, but nothing that we're talking about. No. This isn't -- this could not go into any existing process. This would have to be the new process once it's figured out what it is. And we would be part of that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that criteria work for everybody? Okay. Caroline, are we done? MS. CILEK: Yes. Well, real quickly. I included two other LDC amendments in your packet for today just for discussion. I wanted you to be aware of additional language that was added to them to explain how they will be presented to the board. Both of them are votes by the Planning Commission to either remove a provision -- if we look at LDC Amendment 6.02.01, which I think is the next one -- oh, it's the last one, I apologize. On Page 3 staff will be bringing forward this amendment, and the highlighted section identifies that the Planning Commission voted to remove one of the individual amendments, which is 6.02.03D, and that was regarding the change in the years for the work schedule for Collier County. So we will just be identifying that we recommend -- or the Planning Commission recommended that be removed to the board. But we're -- it's going to be an amendment as it goes to the board. We'll be speaking to it. And then the other one was for 5.05.08, and we outlined what occurred following the review by the Planning Page 41 of 45 July 19, 2012 Commission to bring this back to the authoring committee which was -- which is called the review committee -- architectural review committee in 2004. So staff will be making the recommendation that we look at 5.05.08 in entirety. But DSAC does have their individual recommendations that they will be -- that will be voiced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's my understanding that our recommendation was, in the architectural criteria based on, especially, Brad's input, because he was involved with it, was let the original group take a look at it and play it because they wrote the language, but DSAC disagrees with that position? MS. CILEK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, here's something that makes no sense. First of all, after the meeting -- the -- was to establish a committee, the five architects were chosen, staff informed us that they're not going to go through with it, that they don't have the authority to reconvene the committee because they don't have the budget. I pointed out that these are 10 volunteers that would be doing it, and we could gladly fill staff in after we meet. MS. CILEK: It really is that we would like direction from the board, which we're going to the board next week to request. So that committee will be started, hopefully, sooner rather than later. But staff is looking for board direction to do a review of 5.05.08. And then, yes, the volunteers will play an integral role in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let me read something in your executive summary, and tell me why this shouldn't bother me. And it's discussing DSAC looked at it, made some further recommendations, and following discussion, they recommended that the amendment, as written, and their recommendation regarding spandril windows be presented to the board of county (sic) for consideration and direction to the staff. So isn't that saying, nice going, Planning Commission, but we're going to jump you, and we're just going to go to the board directly. And the spandril glass thing, I hope the board does understand what a horrible mistake that would be. MS. CILEK: Yeah. And here's the thing. They can't jump. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. By law they have to go through us for an LDC amendment. MS. CIL,EK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm wondering what their exercise was trying to do. MS. CELEK: They're just voicing their recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of them have any experience? MS. CILEK: I'll let Nick -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Caroline's in a no -win situation sometimes, because DSAC will say, you don't take our recommendations. We you go this -- and I said, no, no. We're going to tell what you said to the board. Staffs going to recommend what the Planning Commission recommended is (sic). So, you know, in fairness to DSAC, Commissioner Schiffer, we'll take it to the board because they've asked us to, but staffs going to tell the board, look, from staffs perspective, we agree with the Planning Commission. If you're going to open this up, then you need to go through and do a thorough review of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then my answer is, the board could approve it. They could say, well, that lazy Planning Commission. Let's not -- you know, let's just start -- let's do this. You can put spandril glass in a picture frame and call it a window -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is like a cheap cowboy -town move, you know. So they could actually approve it. In other words, you're presenting it in such a way that they could go against staff, which is hopefully supporting us, go against -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not hopefully, sir; we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the fact that we were told that it was withdrawn. In other words, these are things that came back to us as being withdrawn, so we didn't pay any attention. I mean, if you said to me, Brad, we're going to rewrite -- even though Planning Commission doesn't want to do it, DSAC wants to do it. Maybe some of us would have gone to that meeting and, you know, pointed out some of the problems with -- especially the spandril glass one is a really cheap move I can't imagine Collier County would ever support. But how's it going to be presented? It's all happening away from us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But see, I believe the way our -- the code -- the law is written, they can't do an Page 42 of 45 July 19, 2012 LDC amendment without some kind of recommendation from this board. We didn't make a recommendation on this. It was withdrawn to go back to the stakeholders. So I don't know how the board -- and maybe Heidi can chime in how BCC could legally approve an LDC amendment without some record of recommendation from us regarding that amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could direct it to come back to you and get a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So they could say, we want to hear it, process it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're -- aren't we wasting the board's time? I mean, what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, because I think we're getting -- our staffs recommendation is to get board direction to say don't go back to the Planning Commission, don't adopt the amendment or bring it forward. Go back and do a thorough review. Exactly what you're asking us to do is what staff s asking the board to do, is go through a thorough review with the whole group, because Caroline discussed it. I said, this isn't what we started with. This is not what Planning Commission recommended. In fairness to DSAC, because we're trying to work with everybody, we'll take it forward, and if the board says, we agree with DSAC, take it back to the Planning Commission, you're going to make your recommendations. You might recommend to deny it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No one ever said we didn't want to make a recommendation. That's not fair. I mean, the point was that we were going to establish -- CBIA was here. We were going to develop this -- reconvene the committee. I did my homework. I got the architects from the past, and then that was it. Nobody -- didn't happen. Carolina (sic) said that you guys weren't going to allow it to happen. And it would have happened, it would have been over. We would have been reviewing the report of that. And Carolina (sic) came before us and said it was withdrawn. MR. CASALANGU IDA: And DSAC made a motion to go forward and submit this to the Board of County Commissioners. So we will do that, and we will say to the board, we don't agree with DSAC. We agree with the Planning Commission. It should be vetted, and we'd like to get board direction to do it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you can get LDC amendments by short- circuiting the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that's not what your chairman said, and that's not what I said, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they can't do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could direct us -- if they agree with DSAC, they could say, submit it as written to the Planning Commission and get a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forward us a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they've done that already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It was withdrawn because we weren't told we had to review that specific language. We simply said, withdraw it, take it back to the stakeholders, then bring it back to us with that input that you recommended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying, the outcome could be that they state, skip the stakeholder part of it, just go right back to the Planning Commission with it as written? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And, of course, the obvious question is -- and I'm surprised that DSAC -- why would any publicly appointed service body, like we are, like DSAC, not want the public's input? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they felt it was the first phase, and they wanted to go forward as such, and they said, if you want to do a thorough review afterwards, fine. At least get this portion through now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afterwards it's a done deal. What good is it then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioner, we're agreeing with you, so -- that's why we're going to make that recommendation to the board for a thorough review and say, this isn't ready for prime time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, another point is that staff came here and said it was withdrawn, and then it comes to life in the shadows that Donna worries about, you know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Look, Commissioner Schiffer, that's why Caroline put it on your agenda item, so it wouldn't be in the shadows. She's telling you, Planning Commission, DSAC wants the board to hear it. We want you to know we're backing up the Planning Commission. We're letting you know so that we can have this discussion and Page 43 of 45 July 19, 2012 make sure it's not (sic) clear. I really get concerned when you make comments that it's being done in the shadows, because one thing -- we meet once a week and they explain things to me, and I said, transparency, transparency, transparency. We've got to make sure everybody knows what's going on, and if there's any inkling from the community, Planning Commission, or DSAC that something's not right, put the brakes on, because we're not going to go through this and get, you know, that -- that challenge that we just didn't vet this properly. So we're agreeing with you. This needs more work. This needs the committee, so that's the recommendation we're taking forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do understand, it's uneasy when something's withdrawn and then it shows up heading to the fmal say. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's why we're here telling you that that's what's going on, not to do it without you knowing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll see what happens. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I believe that wraps up today? MS. CILEK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no new business. No public comment. No discussion of addenda. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. We're out of here. Page 44 of 45 July 19, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION U MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on - I (. - L 2 as presented ►" or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 45 of 45 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- Ole A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD- PL20110002669 FOR A 53 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 73 FEET FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PUD IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 53 -foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 73- foot boat dock facility in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission at a public hearing, and the Commission has considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BD- PL20110002669, filed on behalf of Bill Toler by Turrell, Hall, & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: See Attached Exhibit "A" be and the same is hereby approved for a 53 -foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20- foot limit to allow for a 73 -foot boat dock facility, as shown on the Proposed Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B ", in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit "C ". BD- PL20110002669 / Toler Dock 1 of 2 Rev. 7/19/2012 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 19th day of July, 2012. ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, AdnleRfiator Growth Management/Planning & Regulation Division to form N,j' He -Cicko M a ' g Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark P. train, Chairman Attachlents: Exhibit A — Legal Description 1� Exhibit B — Proposed Site Plan Exhibit C — Conditions of Approval 12- CPS - 01149/13 BD- PL20110002669 / Toler Dock 2 of 2 Rev. 7/19/2012 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 30, Southport on the Bay, Unit 1, Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 51 -53 of the public records of Collier County, Florida. 12- CPS - 01149/14 EXHIBIT "A" BD- PL20110002669 / Toler Dock Rev. 7/19/12 uj N W o Z Q U Q Z O j2 W W .10 N [ W V N co ` I aNU� 'Na au Q ()Qw4 �aa aN a k�LL� aa3 man = SDI Z U- ��z 3 .9z oU U U ozo Q7z�3 ��-� 0 'stI rco =o..si'.� ' w'- f a arc ?+ W W w Q Q H ' Q W zz=�oiwW ° » > °�3� o O _ Q z 37Wm. 2Vmsi Off, 3 r R 0 azsow�oLL�zz owo rc J oo.� >rcaZ 0033.wnoa Z h w w of. yah~o Q�3OF� °w am W° o F- ►W- I.T -aam awl, .00 z o.z- U =W W Q Z o o. W z - t a i � Fn - Q w °w O Wa. ag J o z \` . ° W > LU �Q MO W W w < a o /ALL \ LU con $ �y Z U) / a0, U F <L 0 h0Q �0 \ N Z ¢ ¢ z > ¢( 7 M cdW �g L4-1 " � E Lj M 5rN_r�� t b5 J o � w Exhibit B BD- PL20110002669 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A maximum of two vessels shall be moored at this dock facility at any one time. EXHIBIT C