Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/01/2002 RAugust 1, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, FL, August 1, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met of this date at 8:30am, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Kenneth Abemathy Frank Fry Paul Midney Russell A. Budd Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David Wolfley Mark Strain Collier County: Marjorie Student, Joe Schmitt, Ray Bellows, Kay Deselem Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FL NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINLrrES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECq~D 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - WON'T BE READY TO BE POSTED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS - 7. CHAIR_MAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VA-2001-AR-1710 , Greg White, of Finishing by Baker, representing Jose and Carol Rocha, requesting a 2.5-foot after-the-fact variance in the PUD zoning district from the required 12-foot side yard setback to 9.5 feet for a swimming pool and enclosure on property located at 215 San Mateo Drive, further described as Lot 41, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, Plat Book 15, pages 51-53, as recorded in the public records of Collier County, Florida in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) B. RZ-2001-AR-1595, James G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5. for a thirteen-lot single- family subdivision on 3.15± acres on 2951 44th Terrace SW, further described as Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 103, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 97-105, Collier County records, in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) RZ-2001-AR-1596, James G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a seventeen-lot, single-family home subdivision on 4.26 acres located at 4501 30th Avenue SW, in Golden Gate Unit #3, Block 104, Parcel 1, as recorded in Plat Book 5,'Pages 97-105, Collier County records, in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Discussion: Fast Track petitions, Final Order-based GMP amendments (Coordinator: Ray Bellows/David Weeks. 10. 11. 12. 13. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 7/18/02 CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo 2 August 1, 2002 Collier County Planning Commission Count Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 8:30am MINUTES August 1, 2002 Chairman Kenneth Abemathy called the meeting to order at 8:30am. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ATTENDANCE Commission Members: Kenneth Abernathy, Frank Fry, Paul Midney, Russell A. Budd, Lindy Adelstein, Lora Jean Young, David Wolfley, Mark Strain Collier County: Marjorie Student, Joe Schmitt, Ray Bellows, Kay Deselem Public Speakers: Jim Ogara- petitioner, Janet Powell, Jeffrey Faramo III. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA -Mr. Abernathy asked if item 8-D had been substituted for a new "8-D'. -Paul Midney stated that 8D is a fast track petition, final order based amendments that was requested by the planning commission to go over submittals & timelines. -Kenneth Abernathy stated that there was a message from Lori to substitute the language of 8D regarding discussion of the policy restating procedures for presentation of materials in a timely manner to the planning commission. He added that this is not fast track anything, just trying to speed up the beginning Page 2 August 1, 2002 -Mr. Schmitt stated that although it is on the agenda, staff is not prepared to discuss that matter. However they can discuss it as a commission, but from the staff perspective it has not been reviewed. -Marjorie stated she had reviewed it, and she can discuss it from a legal perspective unless they want to do it together in the future to accommodate staff. -Mr. Abernathy stated that David Weeks was told to take this item back to staff and that it would be on the agenda for the next meeting, therefore he wanted to discuss the item as planned. He then asked staff whether the fast track petitions business was on the agenda or not and whether or not staff was prepared to discuss it. Ray Bellows stated that they were not and Mr. Abernathy then removed it from the agenda. -Frank Fry stated he previously handed out a letter to the commission and that he would like the letter and a discussion in reference to it, be added to the agenda. (referred to as 8E) IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -There was no approval of minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSCENCES -Mark Strain stated he might be absent for the September 5th meeting and that he may be unable to attend the Eastern Lands meeting for October. -Mr. Abernathy stated there was some confusion about the Eastern Lands meeting, that the commission had received a message about rescheduling, and this was a "BCC meeting, not a CCPC meeting". He added if there was still supposed to be two meetings for the LDC. -Mr. Schmitt stated that on the LDC amendment cycle, which will include the checkbook concurrency LDC amendments, the first meeting is Thursday Oct. 17th.8'30. This will be followed by Wednesday October 23rd at 5:05 and November 13, 5:05. -Mr. Schmitt stated the LDC workshop is now also going to use Community Character Smart Growth Committee to go over LDC amendments. Mr. Schmitt Page 3 August 1, 2002 stated that the Community Character Smart Growth Committee will have a chance to comment before it comes to the planning commission. This is a separate session for the input, review, and comment; it was a suggestion of county manager and board of county commissioner. -Mark Strain asked about the Eastern Lands meeting and when it would take place. Mr. Schmitt informed the commission that there was a conflict on Wednesday October 23rd, 2002 (three meetings), he added that the staff would concur with Sue Filson in order to rearrange the schedule and would provide the commission with a hard copy by the September 5th meeting. VI. BCC REPORTS - RECAPS- -Mr. Bellows stated there were several items to go over. 1) Center Point ST Permit (previously reviewed and recommended approved). He reminded the commission that staff had recommended denial. He explained that the BCC allowed for it to be continued in order for the applicant to submit a site development plan. They requested this include: to show how they will conform with the community character plan and provide additional landscaping of 41 and 951. He added he would get back to board with this by the September 10th meeting, but that it may have to go at later time if the submittal is late. 2) Work Force housing projects for Cypress Glen and Arrowhead The board approved both unanimously 3) Rezone for James Ogara, Block 168 Approved 4-1 by the board -Mr. Abemathy asked if the board incorporated the planning commissions additional conditions. Mr. Bellows informed him that they did & Mr. Schmitt added that they were accepted by the BCC. 4) Barefoot Lely Beach variance Page 4 August 1, 2002 -Mr. Schmitt added this to Mr. Bellows list, stating that this was withdrawn and continued at the request of the petitioner. He explained that there may be a redesign or they might negotiate a compromise with the neighbors; either way, this item would be continued and heard on September 10th' 2002 before the BCC. 5) Manatee Resort -Mr. Schmitt explained that the legal team met, they are currently trying to work out a legal solution. He stated that the best thing to do for the residents, was to get the facility recognized as a condominium and not a condominium hotel. He stated that they are trying to find a solution to legally do so. -Mr. Strain asked if Estuary Towers had been pulled as well, Mr. Schmitt replied that it had been pulled and continued by the applicant as well. VII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT -Mr. Abemathy stated he had no further chairman's report. VIII. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A) VA-2001-AR-1710 Greg White, finishing by Baker, representing Jose and Carol Roja, was requesting a 2 ¥2 foot variance after the fact to the PUD zoning distance from the required 12 foot side yard set back to 9 ~ swimming pool from the enclosure. -Mr. Abernathy swore in all those testifying Disclosures: 1) Mr. Strain stated that he had discussions w/staff and county attorneys office about set back site. 2) Mr. Fry brought to the boards' attention that he visited the site and the owner was there, but there was no discussion regarding the matter. -Mr. Abernathy asked Marjorie Student about x-party disclosures. He stated he never thought communications between commissioners and staff as distinguished from a petitioner or an opponent of the petition, that these were not x party at all. He stated that they received a written report from the staff, which is not x party. He asked if the Page 5 August 1, 2002 commissioners call staff and ask a question about it, is this x party communication. Marjorie replied that she has discussed this issue with Mr. Wigel because it can go either way. She stated that according to Mr. Wigel that staff discussion should be disclosed as an x party disclosure. She stated she has had this discussion before and it can go either way, but this was Mr. Wigel's decision. -Kay Deselem, Planning Commission Staff, spoke of the staff report from July 10, 2002. She used the visualizer to review where the site was on San Mateo Drive and frontage on South Port Cove. She showed the enclosure and displayed and discussed the size of screen enclosure and how it relates to the house. She summarized the applicants request for an after the fact variance according to the petition after constructed due to the surveyor error. Staff is recommending approval of the request. -Mr. Adelstein asked about the area, and whether the variance was actually lft or 1 1/2fi. Kay Deselem referred to attachment C, to show the narrow wedge of a triangle along the back comer and replied it was 2 1/2fi. She mentioned how staff referred to the lot as an unusual shape, that is a very small encroachment -Kay Deselem stated the issue is that the surveyor didn't realize there was a problem when they designed it and perhaps, if they had realized there was a problem, they could of made it comply. -Mr. Abemathy stated that at this point it is a small problem. -Kay Deselem stated that this is the way staff perceives it; yes. -Me. Strain added that they are backing up to lake, in a lot of PUD's he has accepted to a 0 set back on lakes. It was stated that this was an old one and they didn't think of it at the time they wrote the PUD and this seems pretty harmless. -Mr. Abemathy concluded that it doesn't seem reasonable for them to reconfigure the pool enclosure at this point. -Mr. Fry asked about surveyor or staff mistakes, what needs to be done in order to stop the errors, and what are the consequences. He asked whether or not an as built afterwards would help to remedy the situations similar to this. -Kay Deselem replied that was how this one was caught, that it was the as built that was submitted is where they found the mistake. She added that one needs to see it from the standpoint as a professional and Page 6 August 1, 2002 consider that the amount of mistakes are miniscule in comparison to how many are actually done correctly and that they are governed by FPR regulations from the state. -Joe Schmitt added that if a registered land surveyor, from a professional review and if it's a contract issue, the petitioner could file a complaint through the contract Licensing Board. - Mr. Fry stated that he believes there needs to be some consequences to the mistakes made by the surveyors because they seem to get quite a few in these proceedings. Kay Deselem added that there is always possibility of a civil action that they are not of a party to. Mr. Bellows then stated, in addition to this, that the county does notify the contractor of licensing, the errors go on their record, and there are consequences if it happens one too many times. -Mr. Abernathy stated the surveyor misperceived what the set back was, and didn't commit a physical error because he thought it was a 1 O-foot set back instead of 12. -The public hearing was closed. -Mr. Budd made a motion to forward VA-2001-AR-1710 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation of approval with the conditions stated in the staff report, it was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, all were in favor, the motion carded. B) RZ-20001-AR-1595 & RZ-2001-AR-1596 -Mrs. Young made a motion to modify the agenda to consider these two items together, vote will be separate for each, it was seconded by Mr. Budd, all were in favor, the motion carded. -Mr. Abernathy swore in all those testifying -There were no disclosures reported Kay Deselem, reviewed the staff reports for block 103 and 104, petition numbers 1595 and 1596. She used the visualizer to review Ariel photographs, which showed the homes in this area, (one on 44th terrace with 4.26-acre track and the applicant is proposing 17 lots on this area and the other on 30th Avenue with a 3.15-acre track applicant proposing 13 lots). She stated that since density rounds down, it becomes 4 units per acre. She explained they are currently zoned RSF-3 and the applicant is requesting a rezone RSF-5, with a proposed build out in 2006. She added staff has analyzed these particular petitions for compliance with the growth management plan and all elements of that plan, both Page 7 Augustl, 2002 petitions are consistent. Kay Deselem explained that both have been applied to the future and existing land uses and it was determined both will be compatible. She added that staff is recommending approval for the particular petitions with the staff report's conditions; the applicant has agreed to the conditions (limitation of the minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and the limitation of the number of units as proposed by the applicant of 13 and 17). -Mr. Adelstein asked if the zoning was not changed, then how many units could be put on the property. Kay Deselem informed him that it would be limited to 3 units per acre. -Mr. Abernathy asked if it would still include the 4-unit bonus for being near an activity center. Kay Deselem replied yes, they would get a bonus, but based on limitation of the zoning. -Mr. Strain stated that the request to supply a site plan for these parcels was waived and the question was posed as to why this was done. Kay Deselem reported that normally on a conventional rezoning they do not necessarily have a site plan. Mr. Strain requested to here more elaboration on this subject from the petitioner. -Jim Ogara, petitioner, referred to a meeting last November, where a 37 unit development was proposed. In response to neighborhood concern, he came back with a second proposal. He added that in block 168 there was some confusion between RSF-3 and RSF-5 standards, net and gross calculations. He explained that they then conducted an analysis that determined what the density is in the surrounding area. Mr. Ogara gave an example of the property to the south of the area to show how calculations were done. He explained that block 103 was 2.1 acres, not including the street area, they proposed 13 lots with the same stipulations as 168, "no lots less than 10,000ft.". Block 104 also used similar calculations, 17 lots, the density of the area is then -4.1 - -4.2 units per acre. The combined density of the two blocks would then be -4units per acre using the mathematical calculations. They are attempting to come up with a project that fits the area. They then wanted to use the RSF-5 calculations so they would have some latitude in the planning of the layout of the lots. The other conditions agreed to for block 168 have also been made requirements for this project. (extending sewer and water to the property, all units must have an enclosed garage, minimum 1200sq. ft. per lot, use of RSF-3 building standards) All of the same conditions proposed for block 168 are also Page 8 August 1, 2002 being proposed for this same tract. It was not a part of the written petition, but it went into the plan in February, and the agreements on 168 where done subsequent to that. (He wants it noted for the public record that this is something they have agreed to with the neighborhood and the Civic Association and would be part of any approval made in this hearing. -Mr. Abernathy asked about the sewer and water applications in this area, if the people on the other side of the street would then be forced to hook into this system. Mr. Ogara replied that it was the opposite. He stated that the government utility authority does not make you hook up to that, but people have the option to do so. -Mr. Ogara then went on to explain that in early July they were contacted by the Civic Association and notified that the school district has interest in the property. He speculated that the potential "threat" of development of these lands has caused the school district to wonder if they should acquire this property, because the school district feels that there is a significant problem with overcrowding, particularly in the elementary schools to the North of this area. He added that they would work cooperatively with them to determine if they would like to acquire these properties. They have turned over all technical information for evaluation in this decision. They will make a decision at the August 22nd meeting. He explained that this is why they chose not to submit a plat layout at this time, and that it is not a requirement. -Mr. Bellows stated that the determining factors on how the lot design would be done are related to drainage and other environmental factors. He added that at this stage it would be "splitting hairs" to determine a plat plan. -Mr. Schmitt stated that the main concern here is an issue of compatibility and staff has determined that the proposed project is definitely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, both in plat size and in proposed dwellings for each of the plats. -Mr. Strain asked how this is known when you don't know the width of the lot or have a site plan that shows compatibility? Mr. Bellows replied that the issue is that staff has determined that the development standards are suitable, adequate, compatible, and consistent with this. He explained that in block 168 the petitioner had gone a step further and agreed to limit the lot sizes to the RSF-3, and if it is the desire of the commission to do so here then this can be added as a stipulation. Mr. Strain stated this would have been Page 9 August 1, 2002 easier to have had a site plan at this meeting and wants to know if they are going to stick to a minimum 85fi. wide, 125ft deep lot? Mr. Ogara explained that he cannot answer the question as a precise calculation. He explained that the intention is not to exceed 30 lots, but that if they cannot fit them in there and make them compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, then it would not work. Mark Strain stated that Mr. Ogara was able to answer this question with reference to block 168 in the site plan. Mr. Ogara stated this is shaped different than 168 and he would need an engineer to determine the answer. Mr. Strain stated he did not agree and that he will strongly recommend they limit the lots to no less than 80ft with the exception of the sacrivision. -Joe Schmitt stated for the record that it is beyond charter of the planning commission. The issue is rezoning which takes place before design and it is up to staff to make sure that it fits properly and meets all the standards. He realizes that a site plan would have helped to alleviate concerns in this case, but that issue is not what the planning commission is voting on, that they are voting on the re-zoning. -Mr. Fry and Mr. Strain that if they were to vote on it, they needed to feel comfortable with the decision, and this information would ease some concerns. -Marjorie Student stated for the record, that there is case law, that states when you rezone from one zoning district to another, the board (unless the applicant agrees) cannot impose any different standards than are in that district. -Mrs. Young asked, in reference to selling the property to the school board, 1) what are the requirements in acreage for a middle school? Mr. Ogara stated it is an elementary school and they would like to have 15acres, but they feel they could work with this. He added that the extensive amount of engineering needed to do a site plan prior to the rezoning would not be reasonable if the school district decides to buy the property. 2) If you divide this into 60ft frontage, then they would need -160ft. long, does this fit into the neighborhood configuration? Mr. Ogara stated that they have not determined all the calculations because they were told they did not need to at this time. Page 10 August 1, 2002 -Mr. Strain asked, in reference to selling it to the school board, is this land more valuable as an RSF-3 or an RSF-5? Mr. Ogara stated he does not know but could probably argue both sides at this point. -Mr. Ogara stated he wanted to inform Mr. Budd that they used 4 by 8 sheets of plywood and stick on letters for their signs. He believes this is a cost effective means of doing so. -Mr. Adelstein stated that the last time Mr. Ogara came before them with this issue, they approved it because they felt he came across a dilemma, but now that two more have arisen, he feels Mr. Ogara is buying these dilemma's and he still cannot understand why they need an RDF-5 and cannot build their project on an RSF-3. Mr. Ogara stated that they wanted to build a project that was consistent with the neighborhood, which is a density of-4units/acre. They were told by Pat White that if they went over this by any amount, then they have to move up to the next digit. Mr. Adelstein asked if they actually rounded up instead of rounding down and which is supposed to be done? Marjorie Student stated that she was not there for the discussion but in the land code under the definition of density, it is silent on this point. She understands that it is rounding down. Mr. Ogara stated that they rounded up. Mr. Adelstein stated whether Mr. White was misunderstood or gave the wrong information, they should have rounded down. Mr. Bellows added that rounding really comes into play when the sub-division plat comes on- line, that the plats don't exceed the density allowed by the zoning district, in this case he is asking for RSF-5 which is consistent with the growth management plan, which allows for a density of 4units/acre plus is eligible to receive 3 additional units per acre. He added that Mr. Ogara is not asking for the 7units/acre but 5units/acre, and they can stipulate that he does not exceed 4units/acre. In any event the rounding does not come in play at this point. -It was asked of Mr. Ogara if he was willing to accept a minimum of 80ft. wide lot? Mr. Ogara replied that he would review the code and answer this question after the public speakers. PUBLIC SPEAKERS 1) Janet Powell, an advocate for the school board, also had concerns that there was no site plan. She added that with the developer bringing up the fact that the school board is Page 11 Augustl, 2002 interested, the neighborhood has become complacent. (Originally 70% of the neighborhood was against the rezoning). Her suggestion is decline the RSF-5 or waive the decision until the school board makes a decision. She explained that if it has to be developed she would rather see a school there, than 30 houses. -Mr. Strain explained that the developer can volunteer to sell the property to the school, but they cannot tell him to do so, they must abide by the zoning laws. He added that they can only mandate that the lots should be put consistent with the neighborhood. 2) Jeffrey Faramo, stated that it is hard to tell what will come of things, without a site plan. He asked the commission to vote against the rezoning to an RSF-5 for blocks 103 and 104. He added that there is currently an overcrowding in the Golden Gate area, and that the education and safety of the children must take precedence. He added that the present zoning was appropriate and important because it fought against over- development. He believes that if they re-zone to RSF-5, then it is only fair to see exactly what Mr. Ogara has in mind. -Mr. Ogara stated that he does not have enough data in front of him to determine if he would be willing to was willing to accept a minimum of 80ft. wide lot. He offered as a compromise that they put this off until the next meeting, by then they will know more of the school boards position and he can come up with a layout. (He asked for a continuance on this matter). - Mr. Schmitt mentioned that they need a conceptual plan to help visualize everything. -Mr. Ogara agreed to this. -Mr. Bellows pointed out that this would run past the advertising requirement, and there may be a requirement to pay additional fees. -Mr. Ogara stated this was fine. -Mrs. Young made a motion to continue RZ-2001-AR-1595 to the meeting on September 5th, 2002, it was seconded by Mr. Strain, all were in favor, the motion carried unanimously. -Mrs. Young made a motion to continue RZ-2001-AR-1596 to the meeting on September 5th, 2002, it was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, all were in favor, the motion carded unanimously. Page 12 August 1, 2002 C) Fast Track Petitions, Final Order-based GMP Amendments -Mr. Bellows informed the commission that the item was added to the agenda to discuss the submittal fimelines. -Marjorie Student stated she has reviewed the proposed resolution and the resolution 98(167), which also applies to the CCPC and it's deliberations. She stated that if this is to be incorporated, that they need a unified resolution replacing "98", the reason is to avoid confusion. She added that in 98(167) the time lines for submittal to staffis more than the other's submittal to the CCPC, but it is not inconsistent. She feels in Paragraph 3 there may be a conflict in the restriction of discretion of the chair. It is more restrictive in the adopted resolution than in the proposed. She stated this could be worked out in a re-draft of the proposal. -Mr. Adelstein stated he was unaware a previous resolution was around. -Mm-jorie Student read the resolution into the record: "No written materials will be accepted by the board at its hearing, unless at the board's discretion, acceptance is necessary to decide the issue." -Mr. Abernathy stated this turns back on itself since you have to read the document to make a decision. -Mr. Bellows used the previous petition for "Arrowhead" as an example of why certain things need to be heard at the meeting, when handed out for review on the same day. -Marjorie Student stated her concern was that the two resolutions are melded together, then it would only have to go to the BCC if it is still in conflict. -Mr. Bellows stated that if they wanted it to go into the LDC, then it would have to go before the BCC. -Mr. Abernathy stated that it is important to note that planning staffneeds to get this to the commission two weeks prior to the meeting and asked if this was covered in either resolution. Marjorie Student stated it needs to go to staff at least 3weeks in advance for the agenda, with other submittals it needs to be to staffin lweek.. In the proposed resolution it stated that it needs to go to the CCPC 2weeks before hearing it, and this is compatible with the present resolution. -Marjorie Student is uncertain whether or not the CCPC reviewed the present resolution in its original drafting in 1998, she believes they would have, but cannot be certain. Page 13 August 1, 2002 -Mr. Abemathy asked if 98(167) had a timeline for Staff to Commission. Marjorie Student said no it did not, this was in the proposed resolution only. -Mr. Schmitt stated he heard the CCPC saying two things: they wanted to have information in 2 weeks prior and supplemental information 5 days prior. He wanted the commission to understand that public will need to understand what it will do to their timelines, since it will need to go to staff 3-4weeks prior to this. He added the other impact is that they should have a separate or special policy for fast-tracking for economic development, low-income housing, & economic development with the triangle in Immokalee. -Mr. Schmitt used Arrowhead and Cypress Glenn as an example of how they began in January and it took until July, a 6 month process, to have anything resolved. He stated there is a tight timeline financially and from applicants. Some issues are applying for funding and the state mandated some other issues involved. -Mr. Abemathy had a concern with the process extending from January to July to get the TIS problem resolved. Joe Schmitt responded with that time was needed to review. It would not be fair to the public if there weren't proper review of the issue. -Mr. Schmitt and the county attorney's office are going to work on this resolution and come up with a solution. Marjorie added that there are times, when the timelines are mandated by state law, and these have come into conflict with the review process. -Mr. Fry discussed his letter to the editor from the Naples Daily News. Because he knew he was unable to attend the last meeting, he prepared this letter with the intention that it would be given to staff at the last meeting, but it did not get heard due to the length of the meeting. He added that he believed the presentation from Mr. Mulhere during the June 18th meeting was inconsistent with the commissions recommendations. He explained that if Mr. Strain would not have been at the meeting that the Board may have gotten the wrong idea. His concern is that staff or a consultant to the staff, may not be presenting the commission's recommendations clearly. -Mr. Strain added that the statements of Mr. Fry were accurate. He also believes that it is important to add the CCPC recommendation when it differs from staff. Page 14 August 1, 2002 -Mr. Bellows stated that the executive summary's state the CCPC recommendation, their votings, findings, and stipulations. He added that this may not have happened in all cases and staff will need to look into this. -Mr. Strain stated that staff did a good job of clarifying things in the executive summary and this will help to ease concerns of the CCPC. -Mr. Abernathy stated the only time this could cause a problem is when timing is quick and the BCC is dependent on staff's oral report. -It was stated that the meetings are publicized and the public needs to know these things as well. It was added that staff needs to clearly state the CCPC's opinion to the BCC. -Mr. Abernathy added that this is an example of things going awry and he hopes that staffing and additional positions will clear this up. -Mr. Schmitt stated that his efforts now are to build up the staff and make sure things are clarified and looked at vigilantly. IX. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am, the next meeting is September 5th, 2002. Page 15